§ Sir F. BANBURYI cannot allow the Third Reading of this Bill to pass without entering my protest against it and against the conduct of the Government in bringing forward such a revolutionary proposal. I speak only for myself. I believe that this necessity would never have arisen if the Government had carried out the proper functions of a Government in governing the country. What are the functions of a Government? First of all to protect life and property. If the Government, at the commencement of this strike had stated their determination to protect every man who desired to work I do not believe that this strike would have lasted a fortnight. Instead of doing that the Government attempted to interfere between employers and employed, which is not, in my opinion, their duty—a duty which they are incapable of undertaking, which they have tried to undertake during the last three or four years, with the result that they have intensified disputes. What has been called settlements have been only temporary, patched makeshifts, which have resulted in satisfying neither party, but which hare encouraged the party who have gained to go on with further strikes.
Only this evening a right hon. Gentleman, representing one of the divisions of Islington, speaking in defence of the Government, made this statement; he said this was the most extraordinary 386 departure from legislative methods that he had ever remembered; and it is an extraordinary departure not only from legislative methods, but an extraordinary departure from the laws of political economy. It has been justified by the Government solely on the ground that it was a temporary measure which they believed would end the strike. It is a temporary measure which is not satisfying or agreeable to either party. Hon. Members below the Gangway have told us over and over again that they are not satisfied with the measure, and that the miners will not accept it. The Prime Minister told us to-day that the owners take the same view, and therefore what we are going to do is to make a departure the result of which no man can foresee, and the object of which will not be attained by the passing of the Bill. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have made my protest. I should certainly, if it was worth while, have divided the House, but as the House has chosen to adopt this policy—a course which eventually it will rue, and which must tend to the destruction of the prosperity of the country—I will not interfere with the course which it has so foolishly adopted.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI ought to apologise to the House for adding even five minutes to the length of the silting, but unfortunately it must be done. The House is fully aware that during all the discussions on this Bill my colleagues and myself have done our very best to make this a strike-settling Bill. We have failed. The Amendment upon which we put the greatest store, namely, the five shillings and two shillings Amendment, we pressed upon the Government. I believe that if that Amendment had been carried this Bill would have settled the strike. That Amendment was rejected in Committee, and it was rejected to-day. We therefore had to consult our colleagues of the Miners' Federation, and to report the whole case to them. In conjunction with them, and after very careful consideration of the whole circumstances, we have felt that nothing has been left for us bit to vote against the third reading of this Bill. Now, the position I have as a matter of fact, explained. We want results. We do not believe it is possible for the men to go in until something tangible has happened. They are not out for words; they are not out on sentiment. They are out for an increase of wages and for the establishment of a bottom wage which will have some 387 relation to the expenses of living. When men come out this House cannot expect them to go in until there is some reason for their going in. If this had not been a struggle in the coal trade this House would not have interfered at all. As I said the other day, if it had been carpenters or joiners who had struck this House would have stood by them. The strike would have gone on and would have been finished just in the ordinary way strikes are finished. But this House—I think quite rightly—in view of the circumstances of the case, was bound to take the strike into consideration. When it did take it into consideration it was bound to do by legislation just enough at any rate to enable the men to resume work. It has not done that in this Bill.
Therefore it would be sheer folly on our part, it would be deluding the public, and it would be deluding this House, if we accepted this Bill as a settlement. Now in spite of us, the Bill will, I suppose, be earned, because the junior Member for the City of London does not yet lead the Conservative party. The Bill will be carried. We have had combinations today in the division lobbies which show how the Bill is being supported, and it will be carried. When it is carried it will be an element that has got to be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince, in the earlier part of this sitting, in eloquent language declared that he was a citizen first and a trade unionist afterwards. I have no doubt that in the conference that is to be held to-morrow morning by the Miners' Federation to consider its attitude to this Bill, my hon. Friend will deliver the same speech and gather the influence round about him to which he is entitled. But the position today and the position now is a much narrower one than that. We have to put to ourselves this question: in view of all that has been said by the Government and hon. Members opposite, speaking for capital, telling us of magnificent intentions while they were going to vote against carrying out those intentions, and in view of all these things we are compelled now to put this one, simple, narrow question to ourselves: Does this Bill grant to the men something sufficiently substantial, which would enable the men to resume work to-morrow morning, if they could only vote upon it? It does not.
When the Bill is carried the men may consider how best it can be put into 388 operation in their interests; but there is no Member of the House who can get up and say that when this Bill is carried, whilst the minimum is being considered, whilst the districts are being divided and sub-divided, whilst all the elements that are going to settle wages are being taken into consideration—whilst, as a matter of fact, nothing but a few words have been inscribed on the Statute Book—a minimum wage that is limited, confined and taken away by subsequent Clauses and Sections of Clauses—whilst that is all that has been done for the men who have been out for two or thee weeks to go in and leave all the making definite of these Clauses to the courts of arbitration, to District Boards—I say it is simply playing, it is simply making fools of the men who have shown themselves to be so solid in their determination to improve their condition. At the same time, if the men can use this Bill by all means let them do so. But whilst they are trying to use it do not let us imagine that the strike is going to be declared off. This House has refused to help us to make the Bill effective. There are certain things in the Bill which, in the opinion of the men themselves, may make the difficulties of the trade union in the coal industry greater than they are now. The very subdivisions that the hon. Member for Yorkshire has drawn attention to are cases in point.
We shall continue our efforts to bring something about that will make peace, and, as I have said, this Bill once passed will be an element in the situation. But we cannot possibly—we would be untrue to every principle we have put forward, to every attitude we have taken up from the commencement of this Bill—we cannot possibly go to the men to-morrow morning and say, "This Bill is so-satisfactory that you ought to resume work at once and await its application, knowing that you are going to get what you desire." Not being able to do that, we cannot vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, because that would be committing the men to a course of action to which we cannot conscientiously commit them. We regret that, and in a way that is very difficult to express. We are sincerely sorry that it is impossible for us to take up another attitude, but after careful consideration of the men concerned, and taking everything into account we have been reluctantly but unanimously compelled to come to the decision I have announced.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I sincerely regret the decision which my hon. Friend has announced, and I regret still more the language in which it is couched. I cannot help regarding it as very deplorable. My hon. Friend has chosen to stigmatise this very remarkable departure in legislation as being nothing but words. If it is nothing but words, it at least embodies the very words which the miners themselves went out on strike for. Has my hon. Friend really considered, or did he consider before he uttered that phrase, what were the words upon which the miners themselves balloted before they decided to embark upon a struggle of great moment to themselves, and of great gravity to the whole of the industries of the country—a struggle involving great suffering to themselves and their families, and greater sufferings to millions of other workmen in the land? These are the words of the ballot:—
Are you in favour of giving notice to establish the principle of a minimum wage for every man and boy working underground in every district in Great Britain?Those are almost the words embodied in this Bill. This was not a vote taken upon a Schedule; it was not a vote taken upon a question of fixing a definite figure. It was a vote taken upon the principle of whether a minimum wage ought to be established. They decided to vote in favour of it; by a majority of four to one they struck on that. I say that that principle is embodied, and embodied for the first time, in the history of a great industry, in an act of the legislature which was carried by a majority of 120 in this House, and I think it is very deplorable that my hon. Friend should have treated that as if it was merely a matter of words, of no substance at all. Has he realised—I am sure he must have—what the Bill means?There is no mistake at all on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the import of the measure. It establishes for the first time in a great industry the principle of the minimum wage. It may be said that we are simply embodying the principle. But there is machinery for carrying that principle into effect. And let me point out that as far as the vast majority of those who are engaged in that trade are concerned, he was prepared to accept the method of the Government for carrying the principle into effect. I have followed the subject very closely for the past two or three weeks, and, after all, the 5s. and 2s. only applied 390 to a comparatively small minority of those who are engaged in the underground work of the mines. The vast majority are engaged in hewing and are on piece rates. My hon. Friend regards the machinery of the Bill for carrying out the principle of the minimum wage as, on the whole, adequate for the purpose. Why should he say, then, that in the case of those who are working for day wages it is pure words, if in the case of the hewers he is prepared to accept it as something substantial? I think he will consider, on reflection, that he has gone very much further than he himself would have wished to do.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI am sure my right hon. Friend does not want to take an unfair advantage. No one knows better than he does how great a difficulty there was to get anybody even to consider what he is now referring to.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think that is really the case. The miners, I understood, were prepared to accent the method embodied in the Bill for the purpose of settling the Schedules of minimum rates for the hewers in the trade. I am only answering my hon. Friend's point that this Bill is pure words. I am not referring merely to himself. If the miners' leaders thought that this machinery was pure words for the hewers, does anyone imagine for a moment that they would be prepared to accept it merely in order to get 5s. and 2s. for the datallers underground? They must have known that it was a substantial concession. The responsibility which they are now undertaking, what is it? It is a very grave responsibility.
My hon. Friend is not satisfied with the way in which we have met certain Amendments. Well, we cannot all get ou[...] way in Acts of Parliament. But even without the 5s. and 2s., what has he got? He has got for the first time a measure carried through the House of Commons embodying the principle of a minimum wage for one of the greatest industries in the land. He has got the machinery set up for the purpose of settling it He has got the legal method for enforcing it. Is not that a gigantic advance for labour in this country? Is he prepared to accept the responsibility on behalf of the Labour party of throwing out the first great Bill of the kind which has ever been introduced by a Government of this country, and carried through the House of Commons. 391 As a matter of fact he is not. Why does my hon. Friend intend to divide against the Third Reading. The words which he used are really the explanation. He assumes that the Bill will go through. He assumes that hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not undertake the responsibility of throwing it out.
I do not believe even now if he knew that by a combination between his section and any other section of this House he would destroy a great measure fixing a minimum wage, he would accept that great responsibility. I ask him whether he thinks it altogether fair, whether it is altogether upright, whether it is a courageous course to take merely to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill as a protest, when he would not have accepted the responsibility of killing a measure of this magnitude, which marks one of the greatest advances of legislation for labour which ever he or I have seen carried through this House. I will say that I believe he knows that the Bill will be carried and that his Amendment will not be carried. Is he not accepting a very great responsibility in refusing, on behalf of organised labour in this House, the acceptance of this Bill; encouraging by that means the refusal to carry it into operation and by that means, without knowing how the machinery will work, without knowing whether that machinery will not give miners all they have asked for, undertaking the responsibility of plunging millions of people in this country into distress, and wretchedness, the consequences of which neither he nor I can see the end of.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEThere is one point which requires to be cleared up. It has been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite and has now been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point is that the ballot papers issued by the Miners' Federation did not specify any rates of wages but simply asked the miners to vote upon the principle of an individual minimum wage. That is the ballot paper. That is not disputed. But behind the ballot paper there was in every miner's mind the fact—[interruption]—I ask hon. Members and right hon. Members to remember this that a miner is not a lawyer. He does things very much by rule of thumb. He knows what his own meaning is but he does not draw up a document with the precision 392 with which a trained legal mind would. I want to repeat my statement and am going to prove it. In the miner's mind, when he was asked to vote for this principle, was the fact that a special meeting of the Miners' Federation, held on 14th November of last year, had passed this resolution: "That this conference, having heard the reports from all districts in reference to a demand for a district minimum wage, is of opinion that the best course to pursue at the present juncture, with a view to attaining that object with the least delay, is to negotiate nationally, and therefore we instruct the Executive Committee of the Federation to formulate a scheme for each district—a separate scheme for each district"—and the resolution goes on. Now, obviously, the ballot paper could not contain the whole list of figures, separate for each district ["Why not?"] Surely as business men you will understand why not. Schedules are not to be fixed by one million men. They were to be fixed by conferences at which the million men would be represented by properly accredited delegates. These conferences were to prepare the Schedules, the men were to decide on the general principle—a separate Schedule for each district being merely a detail. [Cheers.]
Hon. Gentlemen are cheering too early. There were two figures which were not merely a detail. There were the 5s. and the 2s. I have said before that these were the base foundation of rates, and if these had been put into the Bill, as the miners have shown, they would have accepted them as the base rate, knowing that the hewers' rate would almost automatically have been fixed in proportion. But the base rates were cut out of the Bill. There is no foundation here upon which your Joint Boards can begin to build. It is because of the absence of that that the miners have come to their decision, and that the Labour party, after having considered the question in all its aspects, have come to their decision this evening. Let me add this remark, that no matter what decision the Labour party had come to, the miners would not have resumed work until the minimum wage had been fixed. It is as well that the House and the country should know that the responsibility for the strike going on is not due to the decision of the Labour party, but to the failure of the Government to implement the hopes that were raised when 393 they set out to deal with the question, and said they would deal with it in a manner that would settle the strike by putting into the Bill something which the miners could honourably accept and immediately resume work. Because that is not there, the Bill is practically of no use for settling the strike. We do not say it will be of no use in the future, but the Bill was not brought in for the future.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMight I ask the hon. Member of what use the Bill would be for the future if thrown out on Third Reading?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEThe Bill does not deal with the future. We are dealing with the strike now in existence, and not with the future. The Bill would never have been, heard of for the future. It was brought in to attempt to settle the strike. It is not going to settle the strike. That is the point, and, in order that the responsibility for the strike not being settled shall be placed upon the right shoulders, the party to which I belong have come to its decision, and will give effect to it in the Lobby.
§ Mr. J. WARDI am extremely sorry to be obliged to intervene in this part of the discussion. I have not spoken upon the main and general principle in the Bill. I have, it is true, taken some interest in the details of the measure, but now that it is in its final shape we are in a position to decide what our course is to be relating to it. We have just heard two very remarkable speeches—one from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the other from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). They, of course, are responsible for their speeches, and they, of course, must take the consequences; but one cannot forget that one heard from a man much more closely connected with this trade entirely different sentiments. If the speeches to which we have listened had been on those lines, namely, a gentle protest against Parliament interfering without doing what it was thought the situation demanded, but that when Parliament had done its best in reference to a great national crisis, it was well to face the new situation thus created in the spirit in which this Bill has been dealt with in this House, one could have quite well let the matter rest at that.
But we have heard suggestions in the speeches just delivered as though 394 there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government, who have had a very difficult situation to deal with, to raise hopes in the minds of the mining population of the country which this Bill in no way has brought to fruition. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. It is the suggestion that has been made. I have known a little about the pros and cons of this situation during the week from the inside, and I venture to say that no hopes have been created by the Government that have not been performed in this Bill. It is true that we shall have to do more. It is true that desperate efforts were made, especially last Friday evening, to get what is known as the 5 and the 2 included in the Bill, but, having failed in that, so far as the Schedules were concerned, there is not the slightest doubt that those who led the men were, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared, absolutely prepared to leave the Schedules to be settled by the very Bill that is before the House now. Yet it is declared now, at the eleventh hour, that the Bill is nothing but so many words, and it utterly useless for the purpose, when we know that, as a matter of fact, we were prepared to accept it, providing some other condition, which has nothing to do with the Schedules and the hewers at all, could be got outside. On purely labour questions I have nearly always voted and acted with my Friends.
I am a trade unionist, and a trade unionist officer, and I say most distinctly be the House that I only wish I could get this Bill for my men on public works. I only wish I could get it to settle the dispute in the main industry in the Constituency I represent in this House. I assure you that I should not feel that I was doing my duty to the trade union movement, to which I have belonged now for nearly thirty years, if I put up my hand or gave a vote in this House against a measure that establishes a principle which I do not believe, if the opportunity of this national crisis had not occurred, we should have secured without at least a quarter of a century of ceaseless agnation. While one deplores the condition of affairs at the present time in industrial England, there will at least be one bright spot about it, and that is that Parliament, in its wisdom, in spite of its economic prejudices against the proposal, did face the problem when it was presented to it, irrespective of any preconceived opinions as to what was the right policy to pursue, grasped the difficulty as it was there, and then tried honestly to face it and settle it. In my 395 opinion the nation by this House—and I take it the nation is behind this House in what it is doing—has honestly attempted to meet with substantial justice the miners' original demand, and I at least shall support the Third Reading.
§ Mr. O'GRADYI want to say at once that I am vice-president of the Federation of whose committee the hon. Member for Stoke is a member, and I am astonished he did not tell the House the reason why he would like this Bill to apply to his own trade and to the potteries in the Stoke district. As a matter of fact, I know of no more disorganised trade than that represented by the Member for Stoke. I endorse every word said by the Leader of my own party. I think the Government has sold the pass. That is my conviction. I think the Bill is a Bill of words, and I am perfectly certain the men will not accept it. You set out to settle this strike. I admit that in negotiations it is a question of give and take. The miners agreed to let the Schedules go, but we adopt the principle that if you give something away you should get something else, and we asked for a minimum of 5s. a day. I cannot understand why the Government did not accept a condition like that, as the miners' leaders had agreed to tell the men to settle the strike. The hon. Member for Stoke said the nation was behind Parliament in this matter. I represent the most poverty-striken Constituency in the country—most of them poor Irish labourers—who are starving while trade is booming. What is the reply I get from these men? "Do your level best to settle this on honourable lines"; and the latest statement I have to-night is that the lines of this Bill are absolutely dishonourable lines. I am expressing the opinion of the man in the street in Leeds. He is out in the streets and is starving; but he will starve still rather than allow the Government to sell the pass on the miners. I wish to contradict the statement of the Member for Stoke. I say the nation is not behind the Government. I claim that the Government have simply backed up the capitalists, as they always have done in labour measures. Members on both sides of the House have urged the bringing out of troops to intimidate us and to drive the miners back. You can carry laws, carry resolutions, and bring your troops out, but, thank God, the men will starve rather 396 than go back on dishonourable terms. I hope the House will reject the Bill.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI am sorry I was out of the House when my leader made a reference to me. I am sure it was friendly. I did make a statement during the evening which I should have thought could not be taken exception to by any person who puts his citizenship first—the needs of his nation and his citizenship first, as I understand every Member of this House does when he takes the oath of allegiance at that box. We have tried—at least, I know every one of my Friends on these benches have tried—to make this Bill something more than a Bill of pious resolutions. It seemed to me—and I think so still—that a Resolution of the House a month ago embodying the principle of a minimum wage would have been almost as good, so far as any tangible benefit is concerned, as this Bill; but I consider that when we have done our best, when we have tried to amend the Bill, as far as possible, when we have failed to carry even the slightest Amendments that we thought might give some little vigour and force to that which at present is very vague and intangible, when we have done our best and have failed, then I say I am prepared to vote with my party against the Third Reading.
But, after all, this House is the best judge of its own affairs. This House, after all, is the sovereign body, and if it lays down things in an Act of Parliament, it seems to me then the clear duty of every citizen to make the best of the thing that is, to evolve, with the common sense which, after all, distinguishes members of trade unions and the people with whom they negotiate, the best out of a Bill which at present we believe to be not nearly so good as we had been led to anticipate from the Government themselves. We may have been wrong in that anticipation, but the very strong speech made to us by the head of the Government some time ago in the Foreign Office was thought by every one of us to give a pledge of something more definite than is contained in this Bill. I have never given any indication that this Bill met my views. I have more than once pointed out distinctly that the Bill seemed to me to be a soulless and emasculated measure, but the overpowering strength which the Government have brought to bear against us will defeat us in the Division Lobby. Having done our best to amend it, I hold that 397 when this measure becomes an Act of Parliament it is the bounden and solemn duty of every person to make that Act work as well as he possibly can, and not— so far as is in his power—hold the country still in pain and travail. It is his bounden duty to do all that lies in his power as a
§ responsible leader to relieve a situation which is rapidly becoming intolerable.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 48.
399| Division No. 61.] | AYES. | 2.40 a.m. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Dowd, John |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Ogden, Fred |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Hayward, Evan | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) | O'Malley, William |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Henry, Sir Charles S. | O'Shee, James John |
| Armitage, R. | Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Higham, John Sharp | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Hinds, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Hogge, James Myles | Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Hughes, S. L. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Barton, W. | John, Edward Thomas | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Beck, Arhtur Cecil | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. Geo.) | Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Bentham, G. J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Black, Arthur W. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, Michael |
| Brady, P. J. | Keating, Matthew | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Leach, Charles | Rowlands, James |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Lewis, John Herbert | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Clough, William | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Lundon, T. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scan Ian, Thomas |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Macpherson, James Ian | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Crumley, Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | McGhee, Richard | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Swift, Rigby |
| Dawes, J. A. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Manfield, Harry | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Dillon, John | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Tennant, Harold John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Doris, W. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Duffy, William J. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Meagher, Michael | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford N.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Middlebrook, William | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Millar, James Duncan | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Molloy, Michael | Waring, Walter |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| France, G. A. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Watt, Henry |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Morgan, George Ha | Webb, H. |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Morrell, Philip | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Munro, R. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Needham, Christopher T. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Neilson, Francis | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Nolan, Joseph | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Hackett, J. | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Sutton, John E. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hudson, Walter | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Brace, William | Hunt, Rowland | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Jowett, Frederick William | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lansbury, George | Wadsworth, John |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Wardle, George J. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | O'Grady, James | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Gill, A. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Richards, Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | George Roberts and Mr. Pointer. |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Three o'clock a.m.