HC Deb 01 August 1912 vol 41 cc2393-405

On Monday last the question of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act was brought to the notice of the House by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and he was desirous, as I understood him, that the House should have some information as to how the Act was working in the various mining districts, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said we might deal with the question on the Appropriation Bill. The Noble Lord rather invited some information on the working of the Act, and we became deeply interested in the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman said he could not give a complete answer to the question put to him, but he said his information was that the Act was working fairly well. Whoever supplied the Under-Secretary or the Board of Trade with that information could not be well informed. I do not know who gave that information and I am not going to say a word about them; but the information must have come from one of the counties where there is not much trouble or from a corner where there is no trouble. I am here to-night to say that in the great mining counties of Yorkshire and Derbyshire, and those which are producing the greatest quantities of coal and employing the larger numbers of men there is nothing but dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction is growing every day. We had a statement in the "Sheffield Telegraph" yesterday, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House will accept that statement, headed "Gloomy Outlook: Ballot to be Taken." As soon as ever I saw that heading I became alarmed, because we in Derbyshire are very closely joined with Yorkshire, and I know if there is to be trouble there, and that if there is going to be a ballot, and if you cannot get the trouble rectified, then I know it means trouble for us in Derbyshire, and if it means trouble for Yorkshire and Derbyshire it means trouble for the Mining Federation all over Great Britain. Let me read one or two statements with regard to this matter. At a meeting of the council of the Yorkshire Miners' Association held at Barnsley, yesterday, Mr. Herbert Smith, the president, denounced the owners for their attitude with reference to the minimum wage. Mr. Smith said, 'For years there had not been so many cases of notices being given, men giving notice of victimisation, and applications for permission to take a ballot. All this went to show that in West Yorkshire particularly the owners were determined not to carry out the award. The officials would take no responsibility for whatever might be done if owners are going to adopt this attitude. Though the awards were given in South Yorkshire on 22nd May, and in West Yorkshire on 10th June, although the men have been working since this injustice to men and boys continues, and it was no wonder there was so much unrest in the labour world if employers treated their men as men in the Yorkshire coalfield were being treated.' This has become a very serious question indeed. A large number of men and boys are on notice for inefficiency, according to the employers, but there has been a rule set up to the effect that before a man can be charged with inefficiency, or his minimum wage refused, it must go before the Board with representatives on each side, and they must decide whether the man is inefficient. It is not left to the owner or the management, because under the rules set up by the Minimum Wage Act the point must be proved before the Board, and when it is proved there it becomes satisfactory to those concerned. But these men claim that they are not inefficient. In some cases these men are refused the minimum wage without a hearing before a thoroughly constitutional board set up in accordance with the Act of Parliament. These men are being refused this minimum wage, and they are being asked to sign certificates contracting themselves out of the Act. I am going to read to the House what these men have been asked to sign by the employers, and I am going to give the employer's solicitor and the letter he has sent. We have a Minimum Wage Act, and here is the letter sent out by the solicitor to the West Yorkshire owners:—

"4, Central Bank Chambers, Leeds,

"21st June, 1912.

"Minimum Wage Act.

"Dear Sir,—At most collieries there will doubtless be a number of men who although not actually coming within the definition 'aged' or 'infirm' under the district rules, are yet according to their own admission, either inefficient workmen or otherwise undesirous of making the necessary efforts to earn the minimum wage. In order to meet cases of this nature I have prepared a second form of certificate to be signed by such workmen and the colliery official. Enclosed are 100 copies of the second form of certificate for use at your colliery, and if you should require further copies please let me know and they shall be forwarded. You will observe I have addressed this letter to you as 'personal,' and you will appreciate my object in so doing.—Your faithfully,'


Here is the form they are asked to sign:— Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912. Joint District Board for West Yorkshire. Name of Colliery It is agreed and hereby certified that under the West Yorkshire District rules now in force, as provided by the above Act of is excluded from the right to wages at the minimum rate. Dated day of Signature of workman Signature of colliery official

And to-day while we are sitting in this House there are hundreds of men under notice in Yorkshire because they refuse to sign the agreement which has been drawn up to contract out of the Minimum Wage Act. Some of my colleagues suggest there are thousands, but I would rather understate than overstate it; and it is sufficient for my purpose to say there are hundreds of men in Yorkshire to-day who are under notice or out of work because they refuse to contract out of this Act. I have been associated with the coal trade the whole of my life, and I am going to give something now which is the most startling thing I have ever known in that trade. There are ten firms in West Yorkshire, representing thirty pits, employing 12,500 men and boys, who have been offered advances in wages ranging from 3d. per ton to 15 per cent. in order to induce them to contract out of the Minimum Wage Act. The position is becoming intolerable. Employers will not carry out the awards, will not pay the arrears, and will not work the Act in a fair way. Of course, as I said when discussing the Bill, there are employers and employers, and there are some who are honourably carrying out the Act and paying every penny due to the men under it. It is not to them my remarks are addressed, but to those who have taken part in the Minimum Wage Boards with a judge, appointed by the Board of Trade, in the chair, who have sat there and discussed the rules and conditions, who have made both the judge and ourselves believe they intended to carry out the Act, and who now in many cases refuse to do so. There is in my opinion justification for unrest at the present time. There are evident signs that something will have to be done. We have hoped, and I venture to say this House had hoped, this Minimum Wage Act would have settled this question once and for all. The Act distinctly states that the minimum wage should be paid from the day the pits commenced to work, that it should be retrospective, and that the arrears due under it, according to the awards of the chairmen of the Minimum Wage Board should be paid. There are thousands due in Great Britain to the miners which are not being paid. How do they try and get out of it? They say the rules also date back to the commencement of work, and the rules say there must be proof that there has been some difficulties either in the shape of shortness of trucks or facilities to get coal from the face, or of bad roofs, or of water in the mine. There might have been water or some other difficulty in the mine when the Act began to operate, but that has all been removed, and practical men know you cannot trace it back. I am glad to say there are owners who have recognised that and had paid from the day the pits began to work. Many companies have done it; others have refused to do it; they have refused to make up the minimum wage.

One other matter I must touch upon. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain never asked the Government to interfere in this dispute; it may be the colliery owners also never invited interference. We have always dreaded that if you fix a minimum wage the standard of wages will suffer and be brought down to the minimum wage. That is exactly what they are trying to do. The Act is very clear—nothing could be more clear—that the present standard rate of wages is not to be interfered with. I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on that point. I gave a concrete case of an agreement and asked if the Minimum Wage Act would interfere with it. The right hon. Gentleman said distinctly that the present rates of wages would not be interfered with, yet in North Wales they are making the minimum wage the standard rate for loaders, and are thereby reducing the wage 1s. 1d. per week. The men will not consent to that, and there will certainly be trouble if it is insisted upon. The men have accepted the findings and awards of the judges and they want them carried out honourably by both sides.

I have always been for keeping agreements. It can never be alleged against our Board of Concilation that any agreements entered into were not carried out. If owners refuse to carry out what has been fixed on by the Board they must expect their men to be uneasy. The men will take some keeping in check, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade, who brought in this Act and piloted it through the House, to give us a clear statement to-night that will help us bring about peace. I do not ask him to do it on party lines, but on just lines. All we want is that the awards made by the judges shall be honourably carried out by owners as well as men, and that the arrears should be paid up. If we can only get the spirit which I believe will be shown in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to prevail, we shall have peace. If not, we shall have war. You may make Acts of Parliament and agreements, but if these are broken it will take more power than my colleagues and I possess to make the men keep at work. That is why we appeal to the Board of Trade to bring about peace where there is war, and satisfaction where there is dissatisfaction.

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

I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has said. I was glad to hear from him, and I feel sure that he was speaking on behalf of the men, that for his part, as representing the Federation, he accepted the findings and awards of the judges, and that they intended, so far as they were concerned, to carry out those findings and awards in the spirit and in the letter. That feeling, one hopes, will equally actuate the owners on the other side. In regard to the administration of an Act of Parliament affecting some 600,000 men and nearly 1,000 owners, especially at the beginning, there is bound to be a certain amount of friction and misunderstanding, but if that spirit be displayed by both sides, I see no reason to fear that this Act will not be carried out in a way satisfactory to both sides. My hon. Friend asked me, as representing the Board of Trade, to express an opinion in regard to various points which he brought before the House. May I remind him that this Act was passed in order, so far as possible, that these questions should be settled locally rather than by the Board of Trade or by Parliament. One of the reasons for the Act was that the Prime Minister and the Government had found, on going into the matter—after they had endeavoured to settle these questions between the two parties across the table—that the intricacies of the question were so great that it was not possible, either round a table or in this House, to settle the various questions that arose. It was because it was felt that these matters could best be settled locally that this Act was passed. Therefore I do not think my hon. Friend will desire for a moment that the Board of Trade or the Government should form a sort of Court of Appeal to retry the various cases which have been settled locally by the District Boards. I understand him to ask me one or two specific questions, in which he alleges that there have been breaches of the Act. He alleges, in the first place, that in certain cases the owners, or some of them—I believe he is only dealing with a certain number of them, and that, taking them as a whole, he has no complaint against them—have what he called "contracted out" of the Act, and are forcing their men and boys to deal with them outside and apart from the Act, and forcing them to accept conditions and wages other than those settled by these District Boards under their chairmen. I have no knowledge of these facts. I do not speak as a lawyer; but, reading this Act as a layman, and as one of those who were interested in its passage, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that this House, on both sides and all sections of it, did understand that if the Act was passed this minimum wage should be, as the Act says

"an implied term of every contract for the employment of a workman underground"

Everyone will admit it was clear that it was intended that there should be no contracting out of the Act. It is really a simple point. If there has been, as my hon. Friend alleges—I have no means of judging; he has given me no particulars, and I have not had an opportunity of considering them—a case of an employer who has contracted out of the Act, his very powerful trade union has a very simple remedy. He has merely to bring the employer before the county court and there can be no question whatever as to the decision.

His second point, I understand, is the question of arrears—arrears that have arisen in this way. The minimum rate of wage came into force on the passing of the Act, and it naturally took in all cases some time, and in some cases a considerable time to come to a decision as to what the minimum wage should be. In that interval the workman naturally was not paid the minimum wage, but when it was fixed, if he had been paid less than that figure he was entitled to the balance for the whole period. I understand my hon. Friend to say that in some cases these arrears have not been paid. I should have thought these are cases which would have been dealt with under the rules of the Joint Board created under Sub-section (2) of Section 1, and that these rules would have applied so clearly and specifically to these cases of arrears that there could be no question in regard to them. But if there has been any difficulty in regard to these arrears, I should have thought—I am speaking, of course, as a layman—that the first step for the men or the federation to take would be to apply to the Joint Board for an inquiry and decision on the matter, and, failing that, again they have a full opportunity of taking the matter to the county court. These are the two chief causes of friction at present, and what I have said may enable my hon. Friend to feel that there is a simple method of obtaining justice, if there has been injustice, and of obtaining compensation.

May I add also that I understand these Joint Boards have worked well and satisfactorily from the general point of view. Those are the bodies to which I am sure the House intended, as far as possible, these misunderstandings and causes of friction should, in the first instance, be referred. May I express the strong hope, which I am sure will be re-echoed by a very large majority of the owners on the one hand and I am sure by the large majority of the men on the other, that though there must be, at the time of putting into force an Act of this sort, a certain amount of misunderstanding and friction, there will be a desire on both sides to carry the Act out in the spirit and in the letter. One of the things that struck us most in the long negotiations which we had with both sides, and in a very large number of cases with the two sides together, was that in the long and severe contest which went on, and which, of course, led to a great difference of opinion, the attitude and the relations between the two parties were of the most friendly description. I am sure we should all, on both sides, desire to continue those friendly relations. I think my hon. Friend was perfectly justified in raising this Debate, and if anything I have said will tend towards the smoother working of the Act, then the time occupied in discussing the matter will not have been wasted. I hope I have answered my hon. Friend in the spirit he desires. He will understand that the Board of Trade will have no statutory power to interfere. These matters are laid down in the Statute, and if the Statute is broken on either side there is a simple remedy. I am sure it is the desire that both sides should come into accord in order to make the Act as great a success as possible.


I only take part in the Debate in order to supplement what my hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Harvey) has said. We should be guilty of a very serious dereliction of duty to this House and the nation if we were not to lay before the House the condition of things prevailing at present. I would ask the House to direct its attention to what took place a month or two ago. We had the most terrible condition of things this nation has ever seen. Certain action was taken by this House in good faith, and an Act was passed. Of its merits or demerits I will not say one word. It had the effect, however, of bringing to an end a situation which at the moment was almost intolerable. We all hoped that both sides would act in good faith, and inasmuch as there will be no opportunity until about October we might very well have been accused of a serious breach of faith to the House and the nation if we did not tell directly what was the position of affairs. It is all very well for the President of a State Department to say, "Your remedy is this or that," but that is not the way at all in which this terrible discontent can be met. Replies in that sense do not meet the case at all. To say to a poor man who is never more than, a week ahead of the workhouse that his remedy is to go to the County Court if employers of labour fail to observe the conditions laid down in an Act of Parliament is to trifle with the whole question.


I said, as everybody knows, that, the most powerful trade union in the country is the Miners' Federation representing nearly the whole of the miners. That is, the body to which I referred, and not the individual. It is quite clear that that trade union will take cognisance of the grievances of the men.

11.0 P.M.


Here again I really wonder at the way answers are given in this House. First of all, there are tens of thousands of people not in the organisation. This House passed the Minimum Wage Act to apply to every underground worker whether in the Federation or not. You did not put a single word in the Minimum Wage Act about the Miners' Federation. That federation has no status in a County Court. The poor man or boy himself must take his own action. He must enter his own pleadings and must go into the box and give evidence against the particular employer upon whom he is dependent for a living. This prevents tens of thousands of people taking the only effective method of making this Act the real success that the House desires it to be. I am not going to infuse passion into this Debate. Everyone of us on this side of the House most earnestly desires that a repetition of the horrible disaster of a few months ago shall never recur, but we do ask the House to pay attention to the facts of the case. There are tens of thousands of people who have not got their earnings. There are tens of thousands of efficient workmen who are being deprived of the minimum wage, which is their inherent right under this Act. There are men who are being compelled to forego their rights or else forego their employment. Of course, it is perfectly true that many employers, fine employers, are doing their best and are observing, as decent citizens should towards this House and towards the nation, the requirement that the people who work underground, under conditions which I need not animadvert upon, and are losing their lives every day or are being maimed by the thousand every year, shall have at least, a decent minimum wage. If by October next events have so focussed themselves that the nation was once again faced with a repetition of the horrible occurrence of a few months ago every man in this House would have the right to say that we on those benches would have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if we had not in-formed the House of this fact. We do want the Board of Trade to recognise that there is something more necessary than the mere reply that the boys or men can go to the county court. We do not want the Board of Trade, or whatever authority is the proper authority, to recognise that this House has said that the conditions of coal mining are unique. The conditions of coal mining are such that every man and boy engaged in it ought to be guaranteed the minimum wage. We want the House to recognise its responsibility, and say that no connivance, no unfair pressure which is exercised shall deprive men and boys of the right to which this House says they are entitled. That is the main question. To say to us, "Go to Court" is no answer at all. This House either means what it says or it does not. If we come back once again, three or four months later, with a terrible situation, it will be no answer to the national needs to say, "Why did you not take your case into Court?" We want the pressure of this House to be brought to bear on both parties. We do not put this statement as an ex parte statement. We are perfectly content, when the conditions are not met by our men to take whatever follows. But we do say that this House shall bring the necessary pressure to bear upon the employers and see to it that there is, at least, a fair administration of the Act in the sense which this House desires. That is all we have got to say. We are thankful that an opportunity has been given to ventilate the matter, because we have been enabled to relieve ourselves of what we felt to be a serious responsibility. None of us would have felt easy had something happened during the Recess, and this House had not had its attention drawn to the matter. We want this House to know that while the principle of the Minimum Wage Act is probably as great and as fine as any which pervades any measure this House has ever passed, yet in its administration grave troubles are being caused, and we want this House and the nation to be cognisant of that fact.


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

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

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 127.

Division No. 184.] AYES. [11.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Hancock, J. G. Nolan, Joseph
Acland, Francis Dyke Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Norman, Sir Henry
Addison, Dr. C. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Ainsworth, John Stirling Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Nuttall, Harry
Alden, Percy Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Armitage, R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Doherty, Philip
Arnold, Sydney Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Donnell, Thomas
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Dowd, John
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Hayden, John Patrick O'Grady, James
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Hayward, Evan O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Helme, Sir Norval Watson O'Malley, William
Barnes, G. N. Hemmerde, Edward George O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Shee, James John
Bentham G. J. Henry, Sir Charles O'Sullivan, Timothy
Black, Arthur W. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Outhwaite, R. L.
Boland, John Plus Higham, John Sharp Parker, James (Halifax)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hinds, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Bowerman, C. W. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Holmes, Daniel Turner Pointer, Joseph
Brace, William Holt, Richard Durning Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Power, Patrick Joseph
Brocklehurst, W. B. Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Brunner, John F. L. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pringle, William M. R.
Bryce, J. Annan Hudson, Walter Radford, G. H.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hughes, S. L. Raffan, Peter Wilson
Burke, E. Haviland- Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John John, Edward Thomas Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Reddy, Michael
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Jowett, F. W. Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Joyce, Michael Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Keating, Matthew Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Chancellor, Henry George Kellaway, Frederick George Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Clancy, John Joseph Kelly, Edward Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Clough, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Kilbride, Denis Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Condon, Thomas Joseph King, J. (Somerset, North) Roe, Sir Thomas
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cotton, William Francis Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Scanlan, Thomas
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Crooks, William Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd.Cockerm'th) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Crumley, Patrick Lewis, John Herbert Sheehy, David
Cullinan, John Lundon, Thomas Shortt, Edward
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Lynch, A. A. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)
Dawes, J. A. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Delany, William McGhee, Richard Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Maclean, Donald Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Devlin, Joseph Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sutherland, John E.
Dickinson, W. H. MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) Sutton, John E.
Dillon, John Macpherson, James Ian Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Donelan, Captain A. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Tennant, Harold John
Duffy, William J. McCallum, Sir John M. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Verney, Sir Harry
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Wadsworth, John
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Manfield, Harry Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Marks, Sir George Croydon Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Marshall, Arthur Harold Wardle, George J.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Falconer, James Meagher, Michael Webb, H.
Farrell, James Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Molloy, Michael White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Ffrench, Peter Molteno, Percy Alport White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Field, William Mond, Sir Alfred M. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fitzgibbon, John Money, L. G. Chiozza Wiles, Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph Montagu, Hon. E. S. Wilkie, Alexander
Gelder, Sir W. A. Mooney, John J. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gill, A. H. Morgan, George Hay Williamson, Sir Archibald
Gladstone, W. G. C. Morrell, Philip Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Glanville, H. J. Morison, Hector Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Muldoon, John Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Greig, Col. J. W. Munro, R. Young, William (Perthshire, E.)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Hackett, John Neilson, Francis TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fester, Philip Staveley Newman, John R. P.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Gardner, Ernest Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Gibbs, George Abraham Paget, Almeric Hugh
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Gilmour, Captain John Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, John Lawrence Goldsmith, Frank Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Baldwin, Stanley Goulding, Edward Alfred Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Pirie, Duncan Vernon
Banner, John S. Harmood- Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry Hamersley, Alfred St. George Pretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Harris, Henry Percy Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rees, Sir J. D.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Remnant, James Farquharson
Bigland, Alfred Helmsley, Viscount Royds, Edmund
Boyton, James Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hewins, William Albert Samuel Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bull, Sir William James Hill, Sir Clement L. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hills, John Waller Sandys, G. J.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hogge, James Myles Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Cassel, Felix Hope, Harry (Bute) Spear, Sir John Ward
Castlereagh, Viscount Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanier, Beville
Cave, George Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Houston, Robert Paterson Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Swift, Rigby
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Kimber, Sir Henry Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Talbot, Lord E.
Clyde, J. Avon Kyffin-Taylor, G. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lane-Fox, G. R. Touche, George Alexander
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Larmor, Sir J. Valentia, Viscount
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Dixon, C. H. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Macmaster, Donald Worthington-Evans, L.
Duke, Henry Edward McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Malcolm, Ian Yate, Col. C E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Yerburgh, Robert
Fell, Arthur Mason, James F. (Windsor) Younger, Sir George
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas R Gwynne and Mr. G. Lloyd.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

Forward to