HC Deb 24 October 1912 vol 42 cc2533-50

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert)

This is a small Bill for the purpose of enabling the Admiralty to construct and maintain a pier at North Killingholme to supply oil fuel to His Majesty's ships. I propose to move, if the House assents to the Second Reading, that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee in order that notices of any objection in the locality may be served upon the Committee. As a matter of fact, the Bill has passed through the House of Lords Committee, and there have been no objections.


I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "this House refuses to proceed with a Bill for the construction of works which does not contain provision for providing decent sanitary house and hospital accommodation for the workmen to be employed in accordance with its Standing Orders, and a minimum rate of wages of not less than sixpence per hour."

I am sorry to be obliged to delay the Adjournment of the House, but this is such an important matter that it is utterly impossible for me to allow it to go through unless some statement relating to the subject of my Motion is dealt with by some representative of the Admiralty. The reason that my Resolution is couched in the terms that it is, is for the simple reason that there happens to be a Fair-Wage rate in the Grimsby district near to which this work is going to be done. I ask the House to hear something of this, and to take time to consider before they pass this measure. I do not think if it had been any other Department in the country, or attached to the State, that I would have moved my Motion, only in the case of the Admiralty. No one who has had experience of the interpretation of the Admiralty of a Fair-Wages Clause could for one moment trust the interpretation of that Clause, of the House of Commons to the Lords of the Admiralty, or to the officials that control the Admiralty, and speak for them in this House. There- fore it is absolutely necessary when dealing with the Admiralty, to take action on wages questions such as no one would ever contemplate when dealing with any other department of the State. I remember quite well some time ago when the present President of the Board of Trade was Postmaster-General, that some drainage work was being done for the telephones. The moment the Department had their attention called to an agreement stating that certain wages ought to be paid, the matter was immediately corrected. In the case of the Admiralty, whenever their attention is called to an agreed "ordinarily" paid rate of wages one cannot get a straight decision on the question. There seems to be some reason why the work done by the Admiralty is different from that of other Departments, and if there is no rate in the district they go fishing ail over the country to find out what the lowest rate is. They have methods in regard to this question which make it utterly impossible for any trade unionist or any representative of workmen in this House to allow Bills of this description to pass for the future unless some more generous terms are given to the workmen, and unless some definite understanding is come to as to what the Admiralty intend to do with reference to the wages of the men. That is the reason why the latter words are in my Motion. We cannot trust the Admiralty to interpret any Resolution relating to these matters in a generous spirit, but we can always rely upon them to follow the lead of the contractor and the employer and to exercise a kind of legerdemain for the purpose of supporting the employers' side of the question, and acting in the House not as statesmen holding independent opinions upon the subject as to the conditions between the workmen and the employers, but always taking the employers' side and posing in the House as if they were the mere agents of the employers. That is a position that cannot possibly be allowed to go unchallenged. I am going to leave to the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) the subject of the wages, and I shall deal myself with the attempted evasion by the Admiralty with respect to the housing and hospital accommodation for the men.

It is well known that some few years ago my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board succeeded in passing through this House and through the House of Lords a Standing Order dealing with public works and Bills passing through this House and the House of Lords as the case might be. Naturally I imagined that after Rosyth all Bills for the future presented to this House by the Admiralty for public works would contain at least some recognition—that there was a Standing Order requiring this subject to be dealt with. Nothing of the sort. In fact, what makes it absolutely necessary that this should be fought out to-night and divided upon is this: Some little time ago I asked the Admiralty a question relating to this subject. I asked if it was their intention to adopt the Standing Order with reference to this subject, and whether they intended when applying in future in connection with works like Rosyth or any similar work to secure that there should be ample provision for housing accommodation which would comply with the Standing Order. I asked this question on 26th February this year, and this is the answer I got from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty: The Standing Order referred to lays down the decision of the House for the guidance of its Committees. The Admiralty, being a public Department, is under the direction and control of the House itself, and the House would certainly express its displeasure if it were found that the conditions of any labourers executing a contract for winch the Admiralty were responsible were injurious to their health or safety, or deficient in reasonable and proper precautions. The facts, however, as my hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree, would have to be proved in each particular case."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th February, 1912, col. 1001, Vol. XXXIV.] It is impossible to supply proof that will convince the Admiralty. The county medical officer for Fife has reported upon the disgraceful conditions which obtain in the housing of the Admiralty's men at Rosyth. The local medical officer, Dr. Currie, has only a few days ago supplemented this with a report which is a positive disgrace to this House, and certainly to the Admiralty, who are responsible, and yet the right hon. Gentleman badgers backward and forward the responsibility by saying it is the contractor's duty to protect his men and house them, although the contractor says he never undertook any such responsibility, and that the promoters ought to provide that accommodation. For two or three years they have argued about their responsibility, while possibly 1,000 men are living under conditions which are a positive disgrace to both parties, and so this goes on and nothing is done. We get plenty of smiles and sympathy, but no practical assistance to solve this burning problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not know whether the idea is that a navvy's case or a labourer's case is not to be stated in this House, and hon. Members might allow me to proceed. I further asked:— Am I to understand that the Admiralty place themselves above the orders of the House, and outside the ordinary law with reference to these matters? The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Lambert) replied:— I do not think that inference can be drawn. I asked:— What other inference have I to draw? And no answer was given. Nobody else in the country, no corporation, no private company, no promoter of any description can come here with a Bill for work of this kind without complying with the Standing Orders, and the only people that have immunity to house, their workpeople like pigs on works of this description are the Gentlemen before us to-night. Here is the Standing Order which everybody who wants to promote a Bill of this description has to comply with:— 184a. In the case of every Bill authorising the construction of works outside the County of London or any municipal borough the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall take this Order into their consideration, and if they are of opinion that such a number of workmen will probably be simultaneously employed upon the works as having regard to the nature and situation of the works to make such an inquiry desirable, they shall inquire into the question of the sufficiency of the accommodation and service available or proposed by the promoters to be provided under the Bill. Here are the things for which they must provide:— (1) For the proper housing and sanitary requirements of persons employed in constructing the works authorised by the Bill. (2) For the treatment of cases of sickness or accident, including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases. There are other requirements enforced upon promoters of Bills of this description, but those are the essential parts of the case I wish to present. Under that Standing Order no private Bill has been promoted, either for a small or a large sum which has not had to run the gauntlet of the Committee, and in regard to which the Committee has not imposed some restrictions as to housing and hospital accommodation.


I may say, as I said a few moments ago, that I propose to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and they can put in the express provision for which my hon. Friend is arguing.


I am not sure, but I believe the Standing Order to which I am referring, as a matter of fact, only applies to ordinary private Bill Committees, and, unless there were a definite motion presented to this House, it would not apply to this Committee. Under those circumstances I must have something very definite upon the subject, because I do not mind stating here at once that although it is true I am the representative of my constituency, I would not allow any mortal thing to stand in the way of my maintaining the rights of the men with whom I am particularly connected and in whose business I was engaged the whole of my life until I was appointed an officer of my society. I put that first, and unless the right hon. Gentlemen are going to listen to the complaint of these men they will have many of these Debates to contend with during this Session and the Sessions to come. The Clause that has been inserted by the Committees is not compulsory if proof is given to the Local Government Board that there is already sufficient accommodation in the locality. It is only, as it were, a Clause empowering the local sanitary authority to insist on proper housing and hospital accommodation being provided in cases of this description where there is not already sufficient accommodation for that purpose. Therefore, if the Government—I mean the Admiralty, because I would not for anything connect the Chancellor of the Exchequer with this—had really wanted to carry out the Standing Orders of this House, we should not have had the Bill deprived entirely of a provision of this description. Some attempt would have been made to satisfy the Standing Orders with reference to housing and hospital accommodation. I have stood now for six years before I turned tail. I have tried every means at my disposal to get a decent interpretation from the Admiralty of the Fair-Wages Clause, but I have failed utterly. I can quite clearly see that the only way in which we can get justice done to this class of men is to show it is uncomfortable for Ministers to neglect their duties relating to this matter. I should have been much more pleased if the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Bill, had made a statement as to what the Government are prepared to do, and I am going to move my Amendment in order to enable the Government to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government.


I bog to second the Amendment.

If my hon. Friend presses the Amendment to a vote, as I hope he will, I trust that all friends of labour and all those who talk about setting up a decent standard of life in the country will support him, irrespective of any further consequences. It is quite true I have had the same experience of the Admiralty as this and I am seconding the rejection of this Bill unless we get some satisfaction. It may be said that this is an altogether unprecedented Motion. It may be for everything I know, and all I can say is the sooner the House sets a new precedent the better. We may further be told it involves an uneconomic proposition inasmuch as it involves the payment of higher wages on contracts which are determined by competition. It is not all gain to the community to pay competition wages. I support this Motion because I believe that works of this character undertaken by the Government, or anybody else, which involve the taking of large masses of labour into any particular district, has a direct effect in depressing the standard of life in that district. We had an instance quite recently when men were shifted from Woolwich to Greenock and where in consequence of no provision being made for their proper housing, they increased the demand for houses in Greenock, with the result that people in Greenock were housed worse than before. Many other instances have come under my observation. One, where public works carried out in the East End of London resulted in increasing house rents in the area. Only last week I was in South Wales in a town where a large industrial undertaking had been set up and I was told that rents had increased from 3s. 9d. to 6s. per week. I say in the first place provision should be made by the Admiralty so as to provide houses equal to the increased demand.

In the second place, I support my hon. Friend because of the difficulty, I might almost say the impossibility, of getting any fair and square interpretation given to the Fair Wages Clause that has been passed by this House. I need not go into that matter in detail, for I have already spoken here in regard to several cases that are well known to the Admiralty, cases where the Fair Wages Clause, moved by an hon. Friend of mine three years ago last February, was not put into operation two years thereafter. There was one case in the West End of London, where notwithstanding the fact that I produced the names of men who were getting below the standard rate of wages, or the rate of wages ordinarily paid in that district, we were fobbed off with a statement that they were paying the rate in that particular area, and the area taken was a few hundred yards round those particular works. I more particularly wish to refer to the difficulty I have had in getting anything like a decent wage paid in the area of Glasgow to men corresponding to those who will be employed on this particular class of work. It so happens that the labourers in Glasgow are organised in a trade union and have set up a standard rate of wages, which, in all conscience, is low enough. It is £1 0s. 3d. per week. Over and over again I have brought forward instances of men who are working for contractors in Glasgow and who are getting 2s. and 3s. less than that miserable rate of wages. I think we have a right to demand from the Government, if they are going to set a large body of men to work in the Grimsby area, that provision shall be made for a decent standard of wages being paid to these men. I want to give one or two figures of a general character showing the effect upon the community of paying these very low rates of wages. It may be said that it is uneconomic to pay higher wages than those fixed by competition. I want to present another view to the House, based upon the figures given by the medical officer of health for Glasgow, as to the effect of paying that rate of wages.

Recently he has tabulated a return as to the over-crowded areas in Glasgow as compared with what may be called the "swell" areas, showing the effects that overcrowding and the low wages have upon life there. I find that in the particular district I represent, which is filled from end to end with working people, many of them very poor, the consumptive death-rate in that area is 1.868 per million, whereas in the area of Langside, which is filled with "swell" people, it is 595. I find from the same return that the death rate in the Broomielaw district, which is filled with dockers, is 22.660 per million, whereas in the "swell" areas of Glasgow it is 9.309 in Langside and 8.888 in the Kelvinside area. These are facts that the House ought to take into their serious consideration when they get a chance of rescuing a number of people from these low and miserable conditions and really placing the Government in the first flight of employers, where they ought to be, and setting an example to other people. The Prime Minister made a speech at Fife a few weeks ago, and gave utterance to these words:— I do not believe that there is anyone acquainted with the conditions of urban and rural life who does not recognise that the first and most important step which is now to be taken towards raising the level, not only of comfort and refinement, but of civilisation itself, is to improve the conditions under which the less well-to-do classes are housed and worked. I submit that these emphatic speeches are all right, but they are not worth much without action. The Government have now a chance in this Bill of acting in the spirit of this speech of the Prime Minister's, and it is for that reason amongst others that I am glad to second the Amendment.


The Amendment raises two issues. The first has reference to the provision of housing and hospital accommodation, and the second is the question of the rate of wages. With regard to the former I think the hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) is under some little confusion of thought, and that his desires are met in anticipation. Let me read the Standing Order to which he made reference. We did not proceed on these lines in connection with the Rosyth contract, the last great work we undertook, because it was signed on 1st March, 1909, and this Standing Order was not adopted until 1912. The Standing Order is an instruction to Parliamentary Committees on Bills:— In the case of every Bill authorising the construction of works outside the county of London or any municipal borough the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall take this Order into their consideration, and if they are of opinion that such a number of workmen will probably be simultaneously employed upon the works as having regard to the nature and situation of the works to make such an inquiry desirable, they shall inquire into the question of the sufficiency of the accommodation and service available or proposed by the promoters to be provided under the Bill—

  1. "(1) for the proper housing and sanitary requirements of persons employed in constructing the works authorised by the Bill;
  2. "(2) for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident, including accommodation for dealing with infectious disease;
and if they think that further accommodation or service for those purposes ought to be provided they shall insert in the Bill such Clauses as in their opinion are necessary to secure the provision of satisfactory accommodation or service for those purposes by the local authority, company, or person authorised to execute the works. When the Bill goes to this Select Committee we desire that it should have full power to consider whether the case is one which calls for the application of the powers of this Standing Order. My impression is that the Select Committee is a Parliamentary Committee. If there is any doubt about the matter may I put the point to you, Sir.


I think the point really is this: This Bill is not a private Bill. It is a public Bill, but if the proposals of the Civil Lord are accepted, it will then be treated as a private Bill. These Standing Orders do not apply to public Bills. They relate to private Bills. The question then arises—does a Standing Order which is intended to relate to a private Bill apply to a public Bill when it becomes a private Bill] Personally, I should have thought it did. If there is any doubt about the matter, it can easily be cleared up by means of an Instruction. A Committee sitting upon the hybrid Bill would probably be guided by the Standing Order relating to a private Bill.


I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your assistance, which is entirely in accordance and in line with our desire. We fully desire that this Select Committee, when it comes to sit upon this Bill, shall see whether this is a case of having a large number of men who require accommodation, and shall make the provision that is contemplated in the Standing Order. That is our purpose, and if there is any doubt about it after what you have said, let us proceed in such a way as to make it clear. If my hon. Friend will look at Part VI., Clause 14 of the model Bills and Clauses, House of Lords, he will find that the Parliamentary Committee, when it comes to sit upon the Bill, will have presented to it a model Clause, which is prepared and designed to assist it in carrying out this provision of the Standing Order 184 (a). We desire that it should have power to take the necessary steps to make the provision effective. I think I am entitled to put to the House that it is not fair to complain that we did not do this in 1909 when the Rosyth contract was signed. This Order was made this year. That is my answer to the charge that we have been lacking in our duty in regard to a contract signed three years ago. So far so good in regard to this matter of housing and hospital accommodation and provision in the case of accident and sickness.

I come now to the second issue raised. It is no less, as I am sure the House will recognise, than a proposal to set up a statutory minimum wage for navvies. On the merits of that as a general proposition I do not propose to enter at this moment. This is neither the time nor the occasion, I submit with great respect—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] If I may be allowed, I will tell the House. Parliament has declared its policy deliberately in the matter of fair wages for work done under contract, whether for navvies, engineers, shipbuilders, tailors, or bootmakers. That policy is set out in the Fair Wages Resolution of 10th March, 1909. That Resolution is on the line of the latter part of the Instruction to which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ward) directed attention. The Resolution has rather an interesting history. It was the result of a private Motion on which I think I am right in saying a great deal of care was expended by the Labour party. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Hodge), and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. George Roberts), for whose speedy recovery from a serious illness we all hope. It was amended, by consent I think I may say, on the Motion of the then Postmaster-General, the present President of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent gave it his blessing, although I think it is fair to him to say that he did reserve in his mind something in regard to administration. It was carried without dissent. Into the contract for this work that Fair Wages Resolution will have to go. This is a very important principle which he now seeks to have introduced under the guise of a regulation with reference to this little wooden pier at Killingholme. The Fair Wages Clause provides: The contractor shall, in the execution of this contract, observe and fulfil the obligations upon contractors specified in the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 10th March, 1909, namely:— The contractor shall … pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and Trade Societies (or, in the absence of such recognised wages and hours those which in practice prevail amongst good employers) in the trade in the district, where the work is carried out. Where there are no such wages and hours recognised or prevailing in the district, those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar shall be adopted. The hon. Member tells me that the rate at Grimsby (the nearest district) is 6d. If that be so, and with great respect I cannot always accept what my hon. Friend says—


It is mutual.


If he is right in saying that 6d. is the rate at Grimsby, then under the Fair Wages Clause if there is no local rate that will be the rate which the contractor will have to pay.


The Advisory Committee is inquiring into what is the district rate at Rosyth. Therefore we have no guarantee that some lower paid district than Grimsby will not be dragged in by the Admiralty to decide what is the rate.


That is a very unfair comment. When I referred the question at Rosyth to the Fair Wages Advisory Committee I definitely said that I would give them no information, documents or books. I refused to tell them what I thought of the district. I said "This must be an absolutely independent inquiry; you must fix your own district." I have given the lion. Member for Bow and Bromley, who put to me the question, an undertaking to answer a question on Monday, if he will put one, stating the finding of the Fair Wages authority, and it will confirm the Admiralty in every respect.


I am not surprised at that.


My hon. Friend applied for this judgment and must stand by it. If his contention that the nearest rate is 6d. be right then he has got what he wants under the Fair Wages Clause.


Why not put it in then?


I have explained that. Then in regard to the conditions of employment, it says:— Further, the conditions of employment generally accepted in the district in the trade concerned shall be taken into account in considering how far the terms of the Fair Wages Clauses are being observed. The Contractor shall be prohibited front transferring or assigning directly or indirectly, to any person or persons whatever, any portion of his contract without the written permission of the Department. Sub-letting, other than that which may be customary in the trade concerned, shall be prohibited. The Contractor shall be responsible for the observance of the Fair Wages Clauses by the Sub-Contractor. That is the deliberate policy of the House of Commons, which has been blessed by my hon. Friend for work done under contract. Let the House of Commons consider what my hon. Friend asks us to do. Under the guise of this small piece of work he asks us to tear up the Fair Wages Clause and substitute the policy of a statutory minimum for navvies. The statutory minimum may be a good or bad thing; I will not discuss that now. But let the House quite realise that that is what my hon. Friend desires.

I think it is a curious change with which I am confronted. I once addressed an open-air meeting with my hon Friend, and I remember—he will remember, too, perhaps—an incident which occurred. It came to my mind in connection with this change which has come over him. On leaving the meeting I was told that someone who had been listening to us, in walking away said, "Macnamara is all very well, but the man I like best is the 'converted navvy.'" And what a conversion we have here! Supposing we tore up the Fair Wages Clause in order to adopt the proposal of a statutory minimum, I would ask my hon. Friend if he seriously thinks that this is the occasion on which to make such a change of policy as that which is now put forward. Is it fair to the House of Commons to ask us to destroy our own deliberate and definite policy with regard to the payment of workers under Government contracts, and to do that under cover of a Bill for this comparatively small and insignificant wooden pier? The House deliberately adopted the Fair Wages Clause with the assistance of my hon. Friend.

If the House desires to amend that policy by adopting the alternative of a statutory minimum—which is the serious matter of this Amendment—I emphatically and with great submission insist that we will have to do that openly and with a full review of all the arguments for and against the proposition. You cannot introduce such a principle as that into this small piece of legislation incidentally and I may say surreptitiously. But supposing we did do it, apart from any other consideration, what would happen? Existing contracts, public or private, municipal or Government, would be very seriously affected, and affected to the limit of administrative confusion. If my hon. Friend wants this change, he should come forward with a general Motion that after this date no navvy engaged upon Government work shall be paid less than 6d. an hour. That is a perfectly clear issue, but it would be the abandonment of the Fair Wages Clause. It would be treating navvies as if they were engaged in a sweated industry. But as I have already said, that is not a change which should be obtained through the medium of such a Bill as this, nor should the House be asked to consider a change in our policy on a small measure of this kind. For such a proposal a systematic and properly ordered procedure is demanded. Why do the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Blackfriars make this proposal? The first part of it as to the housing is gone, as that will be attended to. I think I can tell them why they make this proposal, and that I know exactly what is in their minds. They are both naturally in favour of the Fair Wages Clause, but their quarrel is with the administration of the Board of Admiralty, and they say by way of a counsel of despair "tear up the Fair Wages Clause; do not let the Board of Admiralty"—


It is a broken reed.


That is it—"mal-administer it any more, and put in its place a fixed definite statutory minimum." What is the real nature of my hon. Friend's quarrel with the Board of Admiralty. He says that we do not carry out the Fair Wages Clause properly. We go about he says, or, as he told the House once, we find out who is paying the lowest wages and we say that is the rate current. I can assure him he is quite wrong We take the greatest pains to carry out the Fair Wages Clause. Our decisions do not satisfy him—why? I will tell him. He wants us, in fixing the wages to be paid under contract, to have regard, not to the existing condition of things. He wants us to see that things are not as they are, but as they ought to be. That is really the position. I think he will find our decision in regard to Rosyth will endorse that view. I am very sorry, but if I am charged with carrying out a contract, whatever my private view may be as to what these men ought to receive, I have got to carry out the contract to the best of my ability, and I cannot legislate in defiance of the House of Commons. If I did the contractors would take us into a court of law for breach of contract.

I cannot say I will have the work administered as I think it ought to be, and no Minister for any party could do so, but he has to administer the contract as he finds it. If I have not pleased my hon. Friend his quarrel is with the form of the Fair Wages Clause. I venture to suggest that his duty is perfectly clear. If he wants to set up a statutory limit for navvies, which I understand to be the last part of the Amendment, he has got, in fairness to the House, to bring that up as a general proposition. I am not discussing it. I do not discuss the merits of it, and this vote is not taken on it. I cannot let slip in a complete reversal of public policy in a Bill about a wooden pier. For the rest I venture to say he has got to stick to the Fair Wages Resolution until the House determines to amend or destroy it or put something in its place. Whilst sticking to the Fair Wages Clause he is entitled to watch my administration of it with the greatest care, and if he thinks I have done an act of injustice either to the contractors or the men his duty is equally clear. He has to-fall upon me with all his giant strength, and if anything survives it will be my duty to devote myself to amending my ways. For the reasons I have stated, I could not under any circumstances accept this Amendment, except in so far as the questions of housing and hospital accommodation are concerned, which we could no doubt settle satisfactorily.


I should like to endorse every word uttered by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) with regard to Rosyth. The Admiralty are at the back of the employer every time. Men do a certain class of work, the employer calls it by another name; the Admiralty accept that name, and allow the contractor to pay lower wages than the men doing that particular work ought to have. As far as the dockyards are concerned, the Admiralty encourage low paid work there also. They employ unskilled workmen to do skilled workmen's work, and by so doing pay a sweating wage for the class of work. The Admiralty seem to find all the sweating contractors in the country to do their work—contractors who will not observe the Fair Wages Resolution if they can help it, and the Admiralty help them out of their difficulty. But with regard to the Amendment, I am afraid the 6d. an hour minimum will be applied by the contractors to skilled workmen, and a considerable number of carpenters will be employed upon this pier. I would, therefore, move to add the words "to the labourers employed on such work."


That Amendment cannot be moved until the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke becomes the main Question.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 43.

Division No. 272.] AYES. [10.40 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Addison, Dr. Christopher Ainsworth, John Stirling
Acland, Francis Dyke Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Alien, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)
Adamson, William Agnew, Sir George William Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)
Armitage, R. Guiney, Patrick Money, L. G. Chiozza
Arnold, Sydney Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Mooney, J. J.
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Hackett, J. Morgan, George Hay
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Hancock, John George Morrell, Philip
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Morison, Hector
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Barnes, George N. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Muldoon, John
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Barton, W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Needham, Christopher T.
Beale, Sir William Phipson Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Neilson, Francis
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nolan, Joseph
Beck, Arthur Cecil Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Norman, Sir Henry
Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Bentham, G. J. Hayden, John Patrick Nuttall, Harry
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hayward, Evan O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boland, John Pius Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Hemmerde, Edward George O'Doherty, Philip
Brady, P. J. Henry, Sir Charles S. O'Donnell, Thomas
Brocklehurst, W. B. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Dowd, John
Brunner, J. F. L. Higham, John Sharp O'Grady, James
Bryce, John Annan Hinds, John O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Malley, William
Burke, E. Haviland Hodge, John O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hogge, James Myles O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Shee, James John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Byles, Sir William Pollard Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Outhwaite, R. L.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hudson, Walter Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hughes, S. L. Parker, James (Halifax)
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Chancellor, H. G. Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Chapple, Dr. W. A. John, Edward Thomas Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Clough, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pirie, Duncan V.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pollard, Sir George H.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Ruchcliffe) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Power, Patrick Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cotton, William Francis Jowett, Frederick William Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Joyce, Michael Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Keating, Matthew Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crean, Eugene Kellaway, Frederick George Pringle, William M. R.
Crooks, William Kelly, Edward Radford, George Heynes
Crumley, Patrick Kennedy, Vincent Paul Raffan, Peter Wilson
Cullinan, John Kilbride, Denis Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) King, J. Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Lamb, Ernest Henry Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Reddy, Michael
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Pedmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lansbury, George Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Dawes, J. A. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Delany, William Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Dickinson, W. H. Leach, Charles Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Donelan, Captain A. Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Doris, William Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Duffy, William J. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Robinson, Sidney
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Lundon, T. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Lynch, A. Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Elverston, Sir Harold Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roe, Sir Thomas
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) McGhee, Richard Rowlands, James
Esslemont, George Birnie Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Rowntree, Arnold
Falconer, J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Farrell, James Patrick Macpherson, James Ian Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson M'Callum, Sir John M. Scanlan, Thomas
Ffrench, Peter M'Kean, John Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Field, William McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas, Bridgeton)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Micking, Major Gilbert Sheehy, David
Furness, Stephen W. Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Sherwell, Arthur James
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Marks, Sir George Croydon Shortt, Edward
Gill, A. H. Marshall, Arthur Harold Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Ginnell, Lawrence Martin, Joseph Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Meagher, Michael Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Goldstone, Frank Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Menzies, Sir Walter Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Millar, James Duncan Sutherland, John E.
Greig, Colonel J. W. Molloy, Michael Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Molteno, Percy Alport Tennant, Harold John
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Thomas, James Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Thorne, William (West Ham) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Toulmin, Sir George Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Webb, H. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Verney, Sir Harry Wedgwood, Josiah C. Winfrey, Richard
Wadsworth, John White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Walters, Sir John Tudor White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Walton, Sir Joseph White, Patrick (Meath, North) Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Whitehouse, John Howard
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Whyte, A. F. (Perth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Wardle, George J. Wiles, Thomas
Waring, Walter Wilkie, Alexander
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Neville, Reginald J. N.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Newdegate, F. A.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Newman, John R. P.
Ashley, W. W, Fleming, Valentine Newton, Harry Kottingham
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Fletcher, John Samuel Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Baird, J. L. Forster, Henry William Nield, Herbert
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Baldwin, Stanley Gibbs, G. A. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Goldsmith, Frank Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Paget, Almeric Hugh
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Greene, W. R. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gretton, John Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Barnston, Harry Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Perkins, Walter F.
Barrie, H. T. Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Peto, Basil Edward
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Haddock, George Bahr Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Randles, Sir John S.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hamersley, Alfred St. George Rees, Sir J. D.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Royds, Edmund
Beresford, Lord Charles Harris, Henry Percy Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Bigland, Alfred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bird, A. Helmsley, Viscount Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Sanders, Robert A.
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hewins, William Herbert Samuel Sanderson, Lancelot
Boyton, J. Hill, Sir Clement L. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Hills, J. W. Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Bridgeman, William clive Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bull, Sir William James Hohler, G. Fitzroy Spear, Sir John Ward
Burgoyne, A. H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanier, Beville
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Butcher, J. G. Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Horner, A. L. Starkey, John Ralph
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Houston, Robert Paterson Staveley-Hill, Henry
Campion, W. R. Hume-Williams, William Ellis Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick Stewart, Gershom
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Ingleby, Holcombe Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Jackson, Sir John Swift, Rigby
Cator, John Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Sykes Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cave, George Joynson-Hicks, William Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Talbot, Lord E.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Kerry, Earl of Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Keswick, Henry Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chambers, James Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Kyffin-Taylor, G. Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R. Touche, George Alexander
Collings, Rt. Hon. J, (Birmingham) Larmor, Sir J. Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Tullibardine, Marquess of
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lee, Arthur Hamilton Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craik, Sir Henry Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Croft, H. P. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Dalrymple, Viscount MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Winterton, Earl
Denniss, E. R. B. Mackinder, Halford J. Wolmer, Viscount
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Magnus, Sir Philip Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Malcolm, Ian Worthington-Evans, L.
Duke, Henry Edward Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Moore, William Yate, Colonel C. E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Fell, Arthur Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir R. Baker and Mr. R. M'Neill.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Mount, William Arthur
Division No. 273.] AYES. [11.50 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Acland, Francis Dyke Gladstone, W. G. C. O'Doherty, Philip
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Greig, Col. J. W. O'Donnell, Thomas
Agnew, Sir George William Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) O'Dowd, John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Hackett, John O'Malley, William
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montross) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)
Armitage, Robert Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Shee, James John
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) Hayden, John Patrick Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Hayward, Evan Pirie, Duncan V.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hazleton, Richard Power, Patrick Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S) Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Boland, John Plus Hinds, John Radford, G. H.
Booth, Frederick Handel Holmes, Daniel Turner Reddy, M.
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Brady, P. J. Howard, John Geoffrey Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brunner, John F. L. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Bryce, J. Annan Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Burke, E. Haviland- Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Robinson, Sidney
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Joyce, Michael Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Keating, M. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Kelly, Edward Sanders, Robert A.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Kilbride, Denis Scanlan, Thomas
Chancellor, H. G. King, J. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B
Clancy, John Joseph Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Sheehy, David
Clough, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Shortt, Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Craig, Norman (Kent) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Levy, Sir Maurice Sutherland, J. E.
Crumley, Patrick Lewis, John Herbert Tennant, Harold John
Cullinan, J. Lundon, T. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lynch, A. A. Toulmin, Sir George
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) McGhee, Richard Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Dawes, J. A. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Waring, Walter
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Scott MacVeagh, Jeremiah Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Doris, W. M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Webb, H.
Duffy, William Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeaton)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Molloy, M. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford) Morison, Hector Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Esslemont, George Birnie Muldoon, John Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Falconer, J. Nannetti, Joseph P. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Farrell, James Patrick Neilson, Francis Winfrey, Richard
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Joseph Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Field, William Norman, Sir Henry Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Nugent, Sir Walter R.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Furness, Stephen O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Adamson, William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Rowlands, James
Addison, Dr. C. Hodge, John Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Hudson, Walter Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Swift, Rigby
Bentham, G. J. Jowett, F. W. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Bigland, Alfred Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Thomas, James Henry
Boyton, J. Kellaway, Frederick George Thorne, William (West Ham)
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Lansbury, George Touche, George Alexander
Chambers, J. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wardle, G. J.
Crooks, William Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Wilkie, Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Martin, J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goldsmith, Frank Money, L. G. Chiozza Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Goldstone, Frank O'Grady, James
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pollard, Sir George H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. John Ward and Mr. Barnes.
Hancock, J. G. Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection."


I do not know whether I should be in order in moving my Instruction now or whether it will come up upon the next Motion.


I do not think the Instruction is necessary. What I am prepared to do is this. If the Committee, having gone into the Bill, comes to us and says "you ought to put this Instruction into the Bill" we will do so. The Bill is now a private Bill and as I say if the Committee says to us "you ought to put this into the Bill" I will undertake to adopt its advice or else to move the Instruction.

Question put, and agreed to.


I beg to move "That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill; That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; That three be the quorum.


On this question, may I say I have not the slightest doubt as to what the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) intends to do, but the Bill may go through without the Committee having taken the subject matter of the Standing Order into consideration. Therefore I think something more definite than the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, should be given, so that the intention of the Admiralty may be carried out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Twelve o'clock.