HC Deb 09 July 1914 vol 64 cc1330-75

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. CLYNES

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, not because, taking the Bill as a whole, I have any strong objection to its many proposals, though there are in the Bill some few features that are objectionable from the standpoint of those who sib on these benches. There is one proposal, the effect of which would be to raise the salaries of the directors of this gas company by about £2 per head per annum In these days of increased cost of living we consider that even directors of gas companies are entitled to their share of any improvement that may be conceded, and we only hope that as soon as the directors receive even a little addition to their present store they will not forget the manual workers who, it is admitted, even by them to some extent, are not paid as well as workmen doing similar work in different parts of the county of Lancashire. I oppose this Bill mainly because of the company's action in denying to its men the right of organisation and of collective bargaining commonly enjoyed, not only by men in different gasworks throughout the county of Lancashire and the country at large, but also by men in almost all trades and occupations in the land. The company is now seeking to impose, and indeed has imposed, upon its men conditions of service which amount to servitude, conditions which belong to a former age, and conditions which are not approved by the great majority of Members of this House at the present time.

We should not be taken as objecting to the action of the company in instituting, apart from the form in which it was instituted a scheme of co-partnership. It is rather on the ground what the company did following on that scheme that our objection is urged. It seems to me that the company are claiming a form of personal property in the persons of their servants. They say, "Our men are satisfied; they have no grievances; and, if they have, we can arrange them between ourselves." They deny in effect to the men the service which they secure and enjoy for themselves. The position of the shareholders of this gas company corresponds to the position of the workmen. The directors act for the shareholders, and the managers and agents and heads of departments, secretaries and servants of various kinds, represent the interests of the shareholders in the conduct of the business. The workmen supply the energy in that business of gas manufacture, and the workmen claim a right corresponding to the right of the shareholders. The shareholders periodically meet together, receive reports of results, and, I suppose, give instructions to those who act in their interest. We claim that the men should be allowed to act together and meet together for the purpose of collective action, and have the right of choosing persons whom they consider suitable to represent their interests, and to act for them in regard to their work and wage affairs. The financial interests of the shareholders are surely no more important than the wage, industrial and economic concerns of the average servant employed by the company, and the system that operates for the benefit of the shareholders should not be denied by the directors for the masses of the manual labourers employed.

I repudiate this right of any sense of personal property in the workmen employed. I maintain that those men who go to the works to earn their daily bread should, outside their working time, have freedom to meet, freedom to act, and full liberty to choose delegates and trade union servants who have some experience and perhaps some skill to act for them and to pursue their interests. That claim is so elementary that I must almost apologise to the House for so frequently 'offering it as part of our case in dealing with this matter. The methods of the company are exposed in the fact that in the course of one year as many strikes were caused in these gasworks as have occurred in twenty-three years throughout the whole of the county of Lancashire in similar branches of labour so far as the Gasworkers' and General Labourers' Union is concerned. I understand that the company take up this position: "We treat our men well, and they are satisfied." The answer to those assertions is that men do not strike against kindnesses; they do not repudiate the good things if they exist. Further, however well-meaning a body of directors may be, they are not after all in close touch with the men. Gas manufacture is a business subject to recurring changes due to seasonal causes and to repeated alterations in systems of production. It is in that very class of work that men are most exposed to the chances of grievances arising. The man immediately above them—the foreman or retort-house manager—is the man who disposes of the daily action of the gasworkers. Experience has shown us that the Liverpool men have had, and still have, as great causes of complaint as any other sections of gasworkers in any part of the country.

In the course of twenty-three years in the organisation I have named, which has covered a very large number of men employed by gas companies and by gas committees acting for municipal bodies, there have been but two strikes. These have been quite recent, and in neither case was the strike authorised or advised by the responsible officers of the union. It cannot therefore be said that we are strike-seekers. It is no part of our business to cause quarrels between employer and employés. We cannot, of course, help quarrels arising out, it may be said, of a sense of injustice due to want of payment for overwork, but our business is rather to allay strikes, and to mediate so as to bring the quarrel to an end when, unhappily, one arises. These men, up to 1910, were not members of the National Gasworkers' and General Labourers' Union. They asked us to organise them. They appealed to us to arrange meetings, and to put them on the books of our union. It was done, and, substantially, the whole of the manual workers became members of the union. I claim that nothing can be shown to the discredit of the union in regard to what it did, or tried to do, on behalf of the men during the two years that followed. Indeed, I may tell the House that in 1911, when Liverpool was seething with discontent, and thousands of men were on the streets, the Liverpool Gasworkers at that time were prepared to cease work in sympathy with thousands of other men, and would have done so but for the counsel given by the union, and the appeals it placed before the men to restrain themselves. That, and that alone, prevented the company suffering loss by a strike at that time. Therefore we have saved the company from strikes which the men desired us to authorise, and we have never been the cause of promoting one by any action which officially we have been allowed to take.

The company declares that the men are satisfied, and have expressed satisfaction with the terms of the co-partnership scheme. We have never opposed, either in substance or in principle, the scheme of co-partnership at the instance of the local gas workers. But I should imagine, however, that co-partnership means a free and mutual coming together of two parties prepared to make an arrangement on friendly terms, on a contractual basis that will give mutual advantages to both. What was done in this instance was this. One partner—the working man—was not informed that any scheme was in preparation for him. His representatives were kept in the dark, and that is confessed in the publications of the company itself relating to the scheme. It is admitted that the directors planned the scheme, and, having completed it, it was in substance forced on the men, and in the nature of the conditions of their service they had to follow the lead given them, or risk the displeasure of their chiefs, with the possibility of dismissal for not conforming to the company's desires. As I have already said, at the time it was under discussion, we were not opposed to co-partnership if the employers and workers could be said to be real partners. But we object to co-partnership by way of force. We object to one side being asked to accept a scheme without being allowed an opportunity of improving, changing, or modifying the terms secretly decided upon by the other party. Working men are too badly off in these days to discard any methods that will give them improvements, and if they can, by a system of co-partnership, secure monetary advantages and better conditions of labour, then I admit on the other hand the other partner—the employer—is entitled to the yield of any greater attention to business, and even greater exertion of service that may naturally follow on the part of the workmen. But the benefits should be mutual. One side should not have virtually the whole say in arranging the details, and it should not be in a position to enforce its conditions on the other side.

Apart, however, from the terms of the co-partnership, our complaint against the company is that in the rules and terms of the scheme the company so arranged that the men would have to sign documents binding them to work for the company for such a period as the company itself might determine. They were to have no say as to the duration of their service, and the intention was apparently that the men should bind themselves in such a manner as to deprive themselves entirely of any possibility of acting collectively or of securing the services of the organisation. There are six different gas stations under the control of this company in Liverpool, and men working apart in six places are already under a disadvantage that does not apply in the case of ordinary bodies of men in any one establishment. But, in addition to that form of sectionalism imposed on the men, the company secured that different sets of men should bind themselves, respectively, for three months, for four months, for six months, and for eight months, fixing different periods, so as to make it impossible for the men so tied to act collectively. We do not desire that the men should be free merely in order that at any time they wish to they should be able to strike. Strikes are what we desire to avoid, but every Member of this House will know that the absence of a condition of that kind makes men feel a larger sense of freedom, while its presence imposes a restraint on the men and does not permit them to act as freely as bodies of workmen should be in a position to act. That is my principal objection to the general terms of the scheme.

Another objection which I have touches the honour of the gentlemen at the head of this company. Not one word is there in the rules of the scheme, or in any literature issued in relation to it, telling the men that when they bound themselves to be partners under the scheme they were also consenting to entirely abolish any trade-union intervention or service on their behalf. What it means, in practice, is that a co-partnership committee has emerged from the scheme. It is composed jointly of workmen elected by a process of ballot and of representatives of the directors. As to the process of ballot, so far as it affects the manual workers for whom we are speaking, I need only remind the House what it is like when men whose wages vary from 3s. 6d., to 3s. 7d., to 5s. 4d., or 5s. 6d. per day—men largely unskilled, able-bodied, manual workers, not accustomed to dealing with the nicer points of negotiation—are deprived of any advice or counsel of any kind whatever from their leaders or repesentatives even in regard to the process of the ballot. The ballot in use is a mere business whereby the company can arrange to secure from its manual workers almost any terms it chooses, and even the selection of any men it likes for the co-partnership committee. Not one word is there in the rules or in the literature connected with the scheme, telling the men that in future their wage questions and grievances, would be dealt with, not by the directors, who are their real employers, and who formerly did deal with these matters, but by a co-partnership committee.

What has happened is this. After the scheme was put into operation, such claims and grievances as we have caused to be put before the directors were at once shunted on to the co-partnership committee. We were not able to get to that committee, and more than that, that committee has no power, either expressed or in practice, in respect of deciding what should be done with the claims. The directors are the final court, judge and jury of the whole question, and we are unable to approach them because they remove these claims. and grievances to the co-partnership committee as soon as they are advanced. I deny that the men are satisfied. If they were, the company would have no fear of collective bargaining. If it were true that the men had conditions which contented them, that were fair in comparison with the conditions elsewhere, this company would welcome organisation, it would welcome collective bargaining and such skilled or intelligent expression of representative action as we might be able to place at the service of the men. But evidently the purpose of the company is to secure for themselves conditions in regard to their employés that do not prevail in any other gas service in the country, either in respect to a private company or a corporation. There is not a single co-partnership scheme or any relationship between employer and employed in any part of the country as that which exists in the case of Liverpool. The spokesmen of the company, as I gather, say—I believe they have said it in communications to Members of this House—that they had no objection to their men being members of a tirade union, and do not even inquire whether they are members or not. Incidentally, it is revealed to us that they can tell us that not many men are members of a union, so that they have ways and means of securing or receiving the information in one form or another.

The right to be in a trade union was finally settled by this House many years ago. It was fought for, and men suffered banishment and punishments of many kinds for it. I appeal to Members of this House not now to allow even so big a company as the Liverpool Gas Company to take from its low-paid manual workers the liberties that were given by this House to most of the workers forty years ago. What is the good of paying homage to the mere shadow of trade unionism and denying its substance to the men who wish to be trade unionists? Directors who refuse to deal with trade union agents are denying to their workmen the substance and value of trade union action. To say that the men are free to pay to an organisation if they wish, and at the same time to tell the men that they must have nothing out of that payment is only denying to the men that to which they are honestly entitled. As to what we have proposed, may I try to show the House how extremely moderate we have been in seeking to discuss the question in this Assembly. An Imperial Parliament of this sort is to some extent degraded by having to listen to these details of wrong, and to the demand on the part of the men that the wrong should be wiped out. I dislike having to seriously pursue this method of resisting a Bill, which in the main I do not oppose, but which I am using in order to ventilate grievances which cannot be expressed in any other form. How far have we sought terms for the men which reasonable men cannot concede? There are three brief heads that we put before the company within the last few days or hours. We have sought, in effect, to see whether peace could be made, and opposition to this Bill withdrawn on the moderate terms that the company should consent to methods that are commonly advocated in this House in the interests of peace and progress in the general business of the land.

Firstly, we have said that the co-partnership committee in Liverpool should confine itself to matters set forth in the rules of the co-partnership scheme, meaning thereby that other uses to which the company has recently put the scheme should no longer be within the power of the company. I need not question the intelligence of the Members of this House by saying that an appeal, merely to limit orders to what is clearly set down in the terms of the scheme, is unreasonable. We merely ask that they should keep within the law, that the Act of Parliament only should be the limit of any action they should take, and that what they call the co-partnership scheme should be used for the express purposes of that scheme and no more. As to the possibility of quarrels, claims, and grievances arising, I have already told the House that this is a class of work more subject to the risk of recurring causes of complaint than most other occupations where a man is throughout the year doing substantially the same thing week after week and month after month. Here you have ever changing conditions of labour. One month there is a larger number of men employed than another. What are called gas beds are let up or let down according to the volume of the demand for gas. All these conditions give rise to recurring grievances. It is, perhaps, some tribute to the practice of trade unionism generally in the country that there are so few cases of strikes and stoppages in spite of the fact that causes of quarrel are constantly recurring in regard to the work of these men. In order to deal with such troubles and in order to deal with working conditions, wage questions and other grievances which may arise, we have said that a board should be created to consist in equal parts of representatives of the company and persons freely chosen by the workmen from their trade unions. Conciliation boards for the peaceful settlement of troubles are now commonly supported by Members of this House. We say that such a board should be created before such things start, so that when a grievance is presented that machinery should be there for dealing with and settling it. Inasmuch as the company does not admit that we may have a direct method of approach as we have in all other cases of gas manufactories in Lancashire, we have suggested the creation of this board on which may sit representatives freely chosen by the men, who could act through their trade union.

As to a chairman or any deciding character in the decisions of such a body, we should, of course, be quite ready to follow the usual practice of mutually agreeing to appoint some judicially-minded man, in whose impartiality and fairness both sides could have confidence. As is well known, boards of this kind do most of their work and come to most of their decisions without the intervention of any judicially-minded man, but we are ready to agree to any such person presiding over a body of this kind. We have put forward as our third proposal that no duration of service should be imposed upon workmen, unless it be a short term fixed to terminate at one time, and unless this condition be hereafter accepted by the workmen by a ballot vote jointly conducted by the parties concerned. The third proposal relates to the condition by which now the company can engage men for varying terms at their own sweet will and keep them just as long as they choose, depriving them absolutely of any possibility of collective action. This company is entitled to no privilege, and will ask for none. We merely appeal to the House to take such action in regard to this Bill as will secure to us neither more nor less than is commonly enjoyed by similar workmen throughout the land. No one who can speak for the company to-night can name any instance comparable to this of the Liverpool Gas Company, or can cite a case where a scheme of co-partnership has been imposed upon the men in this form or is worked in this way, and on that account I appeal to the House to refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. W. THORNE

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to thank hon. Members for what they have done during the last two or three days, because we have made every possible effort for the purpose of trying to agree upon reasonably fair conditions. During the last few weeks Bills have been rejected upon less grounds than are involved here. The Great Eastern Railway Bill was not rejected because the company refused recognition, or because they refused the right of the representatives of the railway servants to interview the directors, but in consequence of the arbitrary attitude taken up in connection with the dismissal of one particular individual. Again, last night and one day last week a Bill was adjourned in consequence of the arbitrary manner in which the Great Northern Railway Company was dealing with the men in connection with a superannuation scheme. There is a great question involved in this case, and I cannot understand how it is that the Liverpool Gas Light and Coke Company are taking up this hostile attitude. For two and a half years Ave had the right of going into that office. Negotiations were carried on between my hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes), myself, and other representatives of the organisation with the engineers. Petitions were presented and everything went off very favourably until, for some reason or other best known to the company, they brought forward this co-partnership scheme, which very many of us will not object to. I am not quite sure whether I take up the attitude of my hon. Friend in regard to the principle of the thing, because for a number of years I have taken a keen interest in regard to co-partnership matters, and on principle as a Socialist, of course, I object to that, but that is not the question we are considering here I know there are a number of men in the House who agree with co-partnership principles. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and one or two of my hon. Friends on this side believe in it, but I do not think there is any co-partnership scheme in existence where you have the same rules and regulations that you have in this scheme.

It is quite true to say that the Gas Light and Coke Company have had a scheme for many years, and the South Metropolitan Company, the Commercial Gas Company, and a number of gas companies in different parts of the country have these schemes. In one of the rules of this particular scheme, it says that there are twenty-four men supposed to represent the co-partnership committee. Twelve of the workmen are elected by ballot by the men themselves; the company have a right to nominate eleven, and the chairman of the company is ex-officio chairman. He has two votes. He has one vote in the ordinary way as a member of the committee, and he has a casting vote. Therefore it is evident, from the workman's standpoint, that they do not have very much chance of getting anything like reasonable terms in regard to hours or wages from a committee of that kind. Again, the workmen who are elected to this particular committee must have worked for the company for five years, and they must have £25 worth of stock invested in the company. Therefore the men who are elected, from the workmen's standpoint, are in a very privileged position, and I do not think my hon. Friend and myself are in a position to know the men who sit upon the committee for the time being, but I am certain that, as far as the men who do the heavy work, the men in the carbonising department, and those who are working at other employment, and yard labourers are concerned, very few of them will be on the committee.

There is another point. One of the rules says that if the men want to withdraw their bonus they can withdraw half of it in cash, but if they do they have to forfeit the other half. You can therefore see that the scheme gives something with one hand and takes it back with the other. I do not know that any principle governs such a system as this or that there is any such system in connection with the companies that I have mentioned. Many years ago I had the privilege of working under the late Sir George Livesey when he was chief of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and there was one thing which may be said to his credit, though he was somewhat hostile to trade unions in the latter-part of his life: Whenever a foreman dismissed a man the man always had a right to appeal to him as managing director, and if the dismissal was unjustified the man was reinstated on more than one occasion. When he was trying to persuade the workmen of the Commercial Gas Company he held a meeting of the men of the three stations—Wapping, Stepney, and Poplar—and he said to them, "If you think that this or any other company is going to give you something for nothing, you are very much mistaken." It is perfectly evident that when these co-partnership schemes are promoted it is done to a very great extent, in the first place, with a view to trying to entice the men from the union, and, in the second place, to a great extent for the purpose of speeding the men up, and persuading them to do a great deal more work than they would do under the ordinary system. Therefore, it is a greater benefit to the company than it is to the men. These schemes have been in operation in the Gas Light and Coke Company, the Commercial Company, and all other companies that I know of, with the exception of the firm my hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) represents, and he has told me that there were practically no rules or regulations at all. There is some reason in co-partnership of that kind, but where you had rules and regulations that bind the men down, there is something to be said against a scheme of that kind. Under these regulations, if a foreman comes along and orders a man to do a particular class of work, if the man is at all insolent and refuses, he may be dismissed without notice, and lose all the money he has invested in this particular scheme. Then, as a matter of fact, the engineer has power to refuse to let a man leave if he wishes to better himself.

It seems to me that these rules and regulations are lop-sided, and if you wish a co-partnership scheme with proper rules and regulations the representatives of the workmen should be on one side and the representatives of the company on the other side of a common table, drawing up and agreeing upon the rules and regulations. In this case the rules and regulations were sent down to the men for their acceptance. I hope that on this occasion we shall get the same amount of support as was given in the case of the Great Eastern Railway Bill. As a matter of fact, there is a greater principle involved in the question now before the House than in the Railway Bill which was rejected within the last few weeks. I understand that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is going to speak to-night. I wish to thank him again for what he has done in this matter. I know that he has done his best to try to persuade the directors to make reasonable conditions. Is there any man who would not refuse to accept conditions of the sort proposed? We do not altogether object to this co-partnership being in existence, but we do say it is absolutely unfair that if petitions are sent along for alterations of wages or hours, they should be relegated to the co-partnership committee consisting of twenty-four members, twelve of whom are elected by the workmen, eleven nominated by the company, with the chairman of the company on the committee ex officio, the chairman having a casting vote. It is perfectly evident that, under a system of that kind fair and. reasonable conditions cannot prevail at all.

The hon. Member will make a statement in regard to the wages paid to the men. It is a well-known fact that the wages paid, by the Liverpool Gas Company are lower than the wages paid in other parts of the country. The directors have pledged themselves to rectify that at the earliest opportunity. The men are not going to-gain a great deal by the particular scheme which is proposed. It is a sliding scale, and if a man is receiving 35s. a week, and if the price of the gas is 2s. 1d. per 1,000, the amount of bonus which the man will receive is 1s. 10d. a week. If the selling price is higher, of course the percentage of the bonus is reduced. I admit that is to the interest of the company to sell gas as cheap as they possibly can, because the cheaper the gas is the more the dividend will be. That is the system in operation in connection with many gas companies in the country. I hope the House will reject the Bill until the directors are willing to concede to the men what my hon. Friend describes as fair and reasonable conditions.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

It is with very great regret that I find my Ron. Friends and myself have been unable to persuade; the company to come to an agreement in regard to this Bill. As my hon. Friend has been kind enough to say, that is not due to any want of zeal on my part in the negotiations which have taken place. I am not going to raise any complaint, because I do not think any complaint can be raised against my hon. Friends for the position they have taken up on this very important question. At the same time, I think it is fair for me to call the attention of the House to the fact that in this measure of many Clauses there is only one Clause which refers to the co-partnership, and that Clause refers rather incidentally to that particular fact. I think I have a right to point out that this Bill has gone through a searching examination before a Committee of the other House. When it was first brought forward it met with the almost united opposition of the local governing bodies of the districts served. Under the Statutes which formerly existed the company was entitled to charge up to 4s. 6d. per 1,000, and at the same time to do that without reducing their dividend; and the local governing bodies asked that there should be a sliding scale by which the company should be enabled to increase its dividend on the reduction of its costs. I will come to the result of that presently. The company met the local governing bodies in the frankest and fairest manner on this point, and arranged a sliding scale under which a reduction of price brings benefit to the consumers in cheaper gas, to the shareholders in larger dividends, and to the workmen in a larger bonus. Since the company met the views of the local governing bodies on this question, they have not only withdrawn all opposition to the Bill, but they have urged every Member of the House to support it in its new shape. Therefore, in asking the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, I represent all the governing bodies in the districts concerned.

As to the illuminating standard, the company seeks power to maintain the gas at an equally efficient level, and at the same time to considerably reduce the cost of the gas to the consumers. The Bill further asks the House to permit the company to raise something like £600,000 of capital to be spent in the erection of works. This £600,000 is made necessary by the demand of the districts which are not yet served by this company to have the company serving them. I believe I may say with the assent of my hon. Friends opposite that this is regarded as a good, efficient, and fair company. I am not talking now of the question raised by my hon. Friends. The price of 2s. 1d. per 1,000 I believe compares favourably with the price at which gas is sold by almost every other gas company in the country. In fact it is as low, if not the lowest, in its charges. My hon. Friends have, however, in this Debate, opposed the Bill mainly on the question of the co-partnership. The co-partnership committee is, it is quite true, composed of twelve representatives of the working men and, I think, six men nominated by the board. The statement made to me by the representatives of the board, and I have no reason to doubt their reasonableness and good faith, is that the first twelve men are the twelve men who are elected by the workmen themselves under the ballot. I believe that the qualification of the five years' service in the co-partnership scheme is in abeyance at the present moment, as is also the provision with reference to the £25. Certain other members are nominated by the board. That might suggest that the board picked and chose among the workmen who were put upon the co-partnership committee those who, they thought, would be inclined to act in the interest of the company rather than in those of the men. But that would be an unfair inference, because the workmen representatives who are nominated on the committee by the board are the men who stand next on the ballot-paper and who have just narrowly escaped being elected. To that extent I think I may say that all the workmen members of the co-partnership committee are members selected by the workmen themselves. Given that this ballot is carried out fairly, I think that that is a fairly democratic body to deal with such matters.

My hon. Friend objects that this co-partnership board, in addition to dealing with questions of co-partnership, also deals with wages and conditions of labour, and he contends that this is not the kind of body to deal with such questions. My information on that subject is this: that this extension of the sphere of the co-partnership committee was more or less an evolution from the original purpose of the committee, and I think that this is not an unnatural result to follow. Here is a body of men meeting frequently the members of the board in the discussion of co-partnership, and certainly it is very natural, and I would say almost inevitable, that these men brought face to face with the board would raise any grievances that occurred to them with regard to wages and conditions. The board of the company strenuously deny that this extension of the functions of the co-partnership committee has been anything but the natural and voluntary growth of the sphere of that committee. My difficulty in this matter is that I am rather more in sympathy with my hon. Friend in some respects than with the directors of the company. My hon. Friends demand recognition of the union and the right of audience by the representatives of the Unionists. I have no sympathy with the directors on that point. In fact, I was bound in candour to state to them that I thought the refusal to recognise a trade union and to give audience to trade union officials was a lost cause, which is now left to the most reactionary bodies. My opinion is that as the directors, when they come in contact with anyone, are entitled to the assistance of the most trained expert minds in the shape of solicitors and counsel, so also a body of workmen have the full right, which ought never even be brought into question, to the benefit of the expert knowledge of their union officials, and the more independent position that an official must always have as compared with an employé. So far as I am concerned, I will use every exertion I can, not merely with the board of directors, but with the men themselves, to insist upon that right. I will even go the length of saying that if only a comparative minority of the men in the works belonged to the union and the majority were outside the union I would still think that the body of unionists have a right to demand that their trade union officials shall have the right of audience with the directors.

Furthermore, I am in thorough sympathy with the suggestion of my hon. Friends that they should have a board of conciliation. I think that in a great and difficult business like this it is foolish of any board of directors not to put between themselves and any disturbance, above all a strike, the protection both to themselves and the workmen of a fairly constituted board of conciliation. So far as my small influence may go I will urge the directors and the men that a board of conciliation should be formed on proper and just lines, namely, equal and fair representation both to employers and workmen in this concern, with the right in case of failure to agree to call in an independent arbitrator. I have not yet succeeded in carrying out that project, but I will certainly not desist in my efforts to bring about that result. What is the difficulty of the present position? Three of the works of this great company are in my own Constituency. A large number, I am not sure that I should not be entitled to say the majority, of the workers in these gasworks, are my own countrymen. At the moment, for reasons into which I do not think I am called upon to go, the Union is not strong in these works. I am strongly in favour of the principle of Trades Unionism and its full recognition, but I have been receiving from all my countrymen in this company who have addressed me at all, and from all the representatives of my own people in Liverpool, the strongest and even the most vehement appeal to oppose my hon. Friends opposite, and to support this Bill. I do not want to trouble the House with a lengthy speech, but I think that I am bound to prove that statement. I have here, for instance, a letter from Mr. Austin Harford, who has been elected an alderman of the City of Liverpool. He is the Chairman of the Irish party—because they have an Irish party there—in the Liverpool Corporation, and he writes me strongly, begging, me not only in his own name, but in the name of his friends and of mine, to support this Bill. He says:— The people are anxious that you should prevail of Messrs. Clynes and Crooks"— that is a mistake— to stay their hand and to allow the Bill through. Quite a large number of the employés are members of branches of oar organisation, and many of them called here this morning to see me and ask me to communicate with you to try to secure the passage of this Bill. I have a similar letter from Mr. Thomas Burke, who is also a member of the Irish party in the Liverpool City Council, of which he is a very important and influential member, and he says:— As a member of the Gas Lighting Committee of the Council, may I know that we have made a satisfactory bargain as to reducing the price of gas, and it is proved that the calorific quality is not reduced by reducing the candle-power? With the incandescent mantle the lighting power is not lessened. I read that part of the letter to show that if this Bill is rejected you will deprive the citizens of Liverpool, and all the other districts which are served by this company, of a very important improvement in their condition, both from the industrial and domestic point of view. Hence they are not opposing the Bill at this stage. There can be no doubt about it that the workmen wish to see the Bill through, and, as there is a large number of the workpeople benefited by the co-partnership scheme, you will see that they do not want to lose the increased bonus, which will probably be 30s. per cent. Of course, the House realises that the rejection of this Bill will seriously affect the bonus of the workmen too. I understand that the principle is that the reduction of the cost per thousand feet of gas will be followed not merely by a reduction of the price to the consumer, but also in an increase of the bonus to the worker. Therefore, the destruction of this Bill, and of the means by which the price of gas can at once be reduced and the bonus of the men be increased; would be a loss to that community and to the workmen. I have several other letters, one from Dr. T. W. Byrne, a well-known Irish gentleman in Liverpool, and I believe a member of the City Council:— A deputation of the workers of the Liverpool United Gas Company waited upon me on Saturday, and asked me, in the absence of Mr. Austin Harford, if I would write you to ask for your support in the Bill which the Liverpool Gas Company are promoting. They told me the Labour party are opposing the Bill, but they, as workmen, are fully satisfied with the co-partnership scheme which the gas company has adopted, that they are fairly paid, and that on old age or disablement they are given 10s. per week for life. I do not think I need elaborate that. I think my hon. Friends may take it from me that so far as my own countrymen are concerned, and from the representations which have been made to me—which is the only information at my disposal—they are strongly in favour of the passage of this Bill. In addition to that, though I am afraid my hon. Friends will not attach much importance to their opinions—the co-partnership committee have discussed this Bill, and have unanimously by resolution agreed to it. The difficulty is as to the directors. I have expressed my opinion that they ought to have a conciliation committee. I believe they are prepared to have a conciliation committee, though they lay down certain conditions, but I believe that in principle they are in favour of a conciliation committee, and when occasion arises they will be prepared to constitute it. In my opinion, the only fair demand that can be made on any body of employers, is that they should preserve a neutral attitude as to the question of their men joining or refusing to join a trade union.

The directors of the company assure me that they have brought no pressure whatever on the men not to join the union. They go further and say, that if the time comes when the majority of the men have joined a union, they will accept the situation, as of course they are bound to do, and will be quite ready to receive the official representatives of the men. But I go further than that, for I think that the company ought to be ready even now to receive the trade union representatives of any body of men in their works who join a union. Those are the facts of the case. The majority of the workmen, so far as I know, do not take the view of my hon. Friends opposite as to the conditions of the co-partnership. They believe that they are fairly treated, that they are dealing with a reasonable company, and when they change their mind, and want to have a union, then I think the directors are ready to recognise the union at the request of the men. I do not think it is fair to ask the company to force a union on their men, and for those reasons I think I have made it clear that I must resist the proposal of my hon. Friends opposite.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

(who was indistinctly heard): The statement of the hon. Member who has just spoken had reference to those who are working at the north end, and I have a communication from those at the south end, which deals, with the whole matter. I will read from it the following passage:— We can assure you, Sir, as the men's representatives that the action of the Labour members does not meet with the slightest support of the men at the works, and they look with regret, mingled with indignation, upon their attitude, and therefore we, Sir, on behalf of the workmen, respectfully assure you of their loyalty to the company, the co-partnership scheme, and their unbounded satisfaction in the working of the elected Committee, who are ever willing to discuss any grievance or other subject relative to the workers' benefit. I think it will be acknowledged that this is a strong endorsement of what the hon. Member below the Gangway has said regarding the spirit of the men. I need hardly emphasise the fact that the Bill is a very great measure in the interests of the City of Liverpool. I have a letter from the Town Clerk, who opposed the Bill in the House of Lords, but who now writes to say that the corporation have had negotiations with the company, with whom they will be able to arrange the adoption of a very valuable sliding scale. He points out that if the Bill is lost it would be a great disadvantage to the people of Liverpool, who of course desire that the price of gas should be lowered. In regard to the Bill, it is now entirely unopposed. It has gone through in such a way that if it passes this House to night it becomes an unopposed measure and will get through Committee with art adjustment of Clauses and will be ready for decision in a very short time. So far as the co-partnership scheme is concerned, there is only one Clause—Clause 25—which could possibly in any way refer to the co-partnership scheme, and that Clause is in favour of the workers, while it is of advantage to the ordinary holder of the stock of the company; so that as regards the Bill itself it is thoroughly acceptable to the consumer and everybody concerned. Therefore it is hard to believe that this House will reject the Bill on a question which, however important the interests may be which it affects, is still under discussion, and I do not think anyone can say that trade unions have hitherto suffered by the action of this Liverpool Gas Company. One or two statements have been made by hon. Members opposite which I think are open to question. I do not say that my figures are more correct than theirs, but I have a comparative statement of the wages paid in this and in other undertakings which shows that Liverpool bears very favourable comparisons in this respect with all other big gas undertakings in the Kingdom. In the course of the discussion about this question, I think it was pointed out that there was only one class of men who were receiving a less rate of pay, and the company promised that they would look into that at once, and see that it was considered. I think we are all interested in co-partnership, and I am of opinion that co-partnership should not be used for the reduction of wages, but should be an addition to the full wages which the men ought to receive, and I think co-partnership should not be taken as a means of trying to get men to accept an inferior position by giving them the temptation of co-partnership. We have many Members in favour of co-partnership, and we believe you must pay your men the equivalent to everyone else before you bring co-partnership into existence, and that undoubtedly is the case here. As regards what hon. Members opposite have said, at first there were six points mentioned, and in a letter to the company it was stated:— Unless on all these points there is a satisfactory change, we must meet the hostility of the company by opposing the Bill. Those six points have now come down to three, so that something has been gained in the considerations which have taken place. The company make no difference whatever in engaging their men as to whether they are trade unionists or not. The trade unionist is received into the Liverpool Gas Company's work just as freely as the non-unionist. As hon. Members opposite know there is no question of the kind, and it is never raised. There may be a majority of trade unionists or there may be a majority of the others. The company does not know, and is taking no steps to ascertain. It is quite clear that the co-partnership scheme which the company have submitted has pleased the men, and as shown by the evidence they are quite satisfied with the position which they now occupy. If a majority of trade unionists come into the works there is nothing whatever to prevent them appointing their own committee. They can appoint the eleven men or the sixteen men on this committee.

Mr. W. THORNE

The qualification prevents them.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

Both the qualification and the term of years are in abeyance and not acted upon.

Mr. W. THORNE

They are in the rules.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

They are in abeyance and not acted on. Therefore there is nothing whatever to prevent trade unionists joining and taking such steps as they think fit to carry out regulations of which they approve. I have never been against trade unions, and I have found it an advantage as a large employer of labour to treat with them; but still I think it is a very arbitrary exercise of the power that you should come to this House and say as to a Bill that everybody wants, and that gives the men the fullest wages the men can earn in addition to the co-partnership scheme, and gives the people of Liverpool advantages as to gas, and the men advantages in the price of gas, and the men want it and every one approves of it, that we in this House are to go to the local gas company and say to them we will not allow your Bill to go through because of what has been said. The directors to my knowledge are reasonable men and I am sure do not wish to go behind this Committee. The Committee is there, the men have accepted it, and I venture to hope that this House will not override the expressed approval of the men who are employed in the Liverpool Gas Company and throw out this Bill, which will be of immense advantage to them.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) referred very kindly to some exertions which several of us have been making in the last few days to try and bring the two parties concerned in this agreement to one mind. Perhaps I may say, for my part, my reason for taking a small part in these negotiations is that I have been for the last twenty-two years very actively connected with the Co-partnership Association, which has during that period had no little success in calling public attention to co-partnership as a great improvement upon our present industrial system. That association has never during all that time taken sides in any dispute between capital and labour. It is not its business. Individuals may form their opinion as to the rights being on this side or on that side in any par ticular dispute. Co-partnership exists to preach not the victory of one side or the other in a particular dispute, but to put forward a better way, a better system between the two necessary factors in industry and in the production of wealth and well-being in this country. I am glad to have heard to-night from my hon. Friend who moved the rejection the declaration that he was no opponent of co-partnership and that he recognised, therefore, no inconsistency between co-partnership and trade unionism, with which he is so prominently and honour ably connected. As a matter of fact, there is no quarrel between the two, and that is what I desire to say, and say very strongly in this House to-night, that there is no quarrel between co-partnership and trade unionism—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

Under the practice of the House there is a very wide range allowed in Second Reading Debates on Bills of this kind, and matters are discussed which are really not in the Bill, but I think I must protect the Chair by suggesting to the hon. Member that speeches and remarks on general principles however interesting, unless they are distinctly relevant to the matter which is raised are out of order.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

I bow to your ruling, but perhaps I may be allowed to say, as this is the Bill of a gas company, that there are more than thirty gas companies in this country practising the co-partnership principle, and the united capital of those gas companies exceeds fifty million pounds, and the bonus they have paid to their workers under co-partnership exceeds £1,000,000, and a very large sum of that is now the property of the workers and invested in shares and loans in those companies. This, therefore, is no small system. It is a great system, which has spread immensely in this and other industries of the country. To us who have advocated that system it is a lamentable thing to see the appearance of conflict between trade unions and a co-partnership company. But as we have never taken part in any such contest, so to-night I shall take no part, and I shall not vote on this Bill.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

But for the concluding observation of the hon. Member opposite, I should not have taken part in this Debate. I am a little at a loss to understand how the hon. Member can divest himself of his character as a Member of Parliament, even though he is an advocate of co-partnership. It appears to me to be my duty to make up my mind on the merits of this particular discussion, quite irrespective of any general opinion that I may hold on the question of co-partnership. I do not propose to make a controversial speech. I rose principally to make two observations. In the first place, it seems to me that the right of this. House to reject a private Bill on Second Reading ought to be carefully watched. This is a Bill which the representatives of Liverpool tell us is very much desired by the people of Liverpool, and, as far as we know, by the working men themselves. The Bill is of great importance, undoubtedly, to the gas company. It is of a perfectly ordinary character, to extend the limits of the gas company and to raise additional capital. It is a dangerous precedent to establish that in order to enforce some principle quite extraneous to the Bill, it is right to reject a Bill of this character on Second Reading. It is not as though there was a great dispute in progress or some great wrong being done. That is not alleged. It is a question of principle apart from the Bill, and it seems to me to be a very dangerous course to take to ask the House to reject the Bill on that ground. In the second place, I wish to support as strongly as I can without infringing the Rules of Order the statement of the hon. Member opposite, that those who advocate co-partnership are in no degree hostile to the principle of trade unionism. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think of me—and I know that some of them are tempted to think rather harshly of any opinions on political matters—I trust they will accept my assurance that I have no hostility whatever to trade unions, and never have had.

May I deal very shortly with the three points put forward by the hon. Member opposite? He complains that the co-partnership committee discuss wages. I do not pretend to be familiar with the way in which this company transacts its business, but I think the hon. Member will see that it is almost impossible for a co-partnership committee to avoid discussing wages. They have to discuss questions arising from the working of the co-partnership scheme, and that scheme must involve, from time to time, questions as to whether the co-partners are getting a fair share of the profits from the undertaking. That must in itself raise questions as to whether the men's wages, apart from the bonus, are fair. It is almost inevitable that these questions of wages and hours should become matters of discussion. Is the committee a very unfair body to discuss such questions? It is representative both of the men and of the employers. It is quite true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that in case of a difference of opinion, with the employers on one side and the men on the other, the chairman would have a casting vote. But the hon. Member did not give any instance where that has occurred. As far as my information goes, there has never been a case where the chairman by his casting vote overruled the votes of the men. The hon. Member wishes to put in the place of the committee an elected board. So far there is no distinction between that and the copartnership committee. But the men are to act through their trade union. As I have said, I have no hostility to trade unions, but surely it is rather unfair to say that a body of some 2,000 men, of whom not more than fifty or a hundred may be members of a trade union, shall necessarily act through their trade union in appointing members of the board! That is surely a very harsh and I should have thought an unjust condition to lay down. As to the duration of the agreements, if there is anything unfair or underhand or deceptive about the way in which the agreements were entered into, that is a very fair subject of complaint. But, as far as I know, no such accusation has ever been made. All the agreements were entered into quite freely. No pressure was used. The men entered into the agreements because they thought they were to their advantage. They now tell us through their representatives that they still think that they are to their advantage. I submit, therefore, that to ask the House, on the ground that there are objections to details of the scheme, not substantiated by any specific instances, but resting purely on general considerations, to reject a Bill admittedly of great public utility, admittedly desired by the people of Liverpool, admittedly supported in this House by the whole of the representatives of Liverpool and the surrounding districts, is to make a demand which surely cannot be persisted in by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

The last sentence of the Noble Lord's speech is one which would have considerable weight with the House, and not least with us who sit on these benches. But there is something else which this House must consider. I can very well conceive a Bill complying with the standard which the Noble Lord has laid down, but in connection with which the advantages might be gained at the expense of the workers. I am perfectly certain that the Noble Lord will agree that that would be an important consideration. That is where we take our stand to-night. The view we have taken all through about these Bills on Second Reading, is that this House having granted certain powers, we are bound, when granting new powers, to express our opinion as to whether the directors have worthily used the powers that have been given them before. That is the whole question. Therefore it is perfectly germane to the Second Reading of these Bills to raise questions of general conduct, because the general conduct we have experienced on the part of the directors in days gone by will, we must assume, be continued in the days to come under the new powers. As my hon. Friend made it perfectly clear, we do not desire to defeat these proposals or to put the companies to any unnecessary expense, but if these directors are unreasonable they must be prepared to defend themselves. That is the position in regard to this company. I asked my hon. Friends when my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, was reading those very interesting letters, how many letters of protest they had received. They have received no letters of protest. There has, so far as I have been able to gather, been no communication received by any of my colleagues from any of the workmen or anybody representing the workmen in these gas undertakings. That is a singular affair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I can assure hon. Members opposite that on occasions like this previously, workmen who have not been members of trade unions, workmen who have not been sympathetic with us, have written to us; but in this case we have received no such letters.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

Neither have we.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

My hon. Friend opposite had received a sheaf of letters from certain political friends—

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

In support of the Bill?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has not followed me, probably it was my difficulty in expressing myself. What I said was that we have received no letters of protest against our action.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

I thought you meant aginst the Bill.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

My hon. Friend opposite tells us that a workman——I suppose in his own time, and not during working hours—went to his friends and got up a petition of workmen protesting against the Labour party in opposing this Bill. The hon. Member who followed him read a letter from the gasworks. All I can say about it is that if you will put me in communication with the gasworker who wrote that letter, I shall be very glad to appoint him as my private secretary. Without in any way casting unfair discredit upon those communications we have had them before in other connections, and we know perfectly well how these things are procured. I tell the House candidly that if one of the work men employed in these gasworks had him self written a letter of protest it would have weighed with us ten thousand times more than those communications which have come through second persons, and which have evidently been written by people who are, I suspect—

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

That is not fair at all.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I am bound to say that that is how the letter struck me. It seemed to be a letter written by one who, like the hon. Member or myself, uses a pen much more frequently than a gasworker does. I am perfectly certain the House must concur in that. The letter was a very admirably written and exceedingly well-phrased letter.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

The letter was handed to me.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I never suggested that the hon. Member got it in any other way. What I do suggest is that whoever wrote the letter, it was not a gasworker. It is perfectly well known that letters of this sort are not written by workmen, and letters written on the promptings of workmen are, let me put it, not of the same value as letters written by the workmen themselves.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

You have forgotten the school board.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

No, I have not, nor have I forgotten the effect of hard manual labour upon the gas workers. But the point that I want to make is simply this: If this strong feeling upon the action of my hon. Friends here really does exist on the part of the workpeople, and the men employed in the gasworks, it is a most extraordinary thing that its only medium of expression has been the letters written by second parties, and read by my hon. Friends opposite, and that no single communication, either directly or indirectly, has been received by any of us from the workmen themselves.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

Why should they send any?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

They should, surely! There are organisations in Liverpool that do take charge of these things. What is more, even if it is true, is it not an extraordinary thing that all the letters have been written by second people, and have been communicated, not by working men themselves directly, but from somebody who says they have—

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

That is not so.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

I have received several letters from countrymen of mine who are engaged in the works.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

That is, of course, a new fact. The hon. Member will do me the justice to remember that he did not state that in his speech. The letters he did quote, and the letters to which he referred, were letters written by members of the city council, and not from workmen. Still the fact remains, that although we have direct communication with Liverpool labour, we have received no complaint from any workmen, or any organisation of workmen, or anybody authorised to speak for the workmen during all the days the negotiations were carried on.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

Because you did not represent them!

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Yes, we did. The only point I want to emphasise is this: In this co-partnership scheme, when the men were active members of a trade union, the directors refused to recognise the union and to allow negotiations between themselves and the workmen to be conducted by the agents of the union.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

How many of the men were members of the union?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

The majority at the time. The numbers have been published. I do not think any hon. Member will deny that at the time the majority of the workmen employed in these works were members of the union. When they asked the directors to conduct the negotiations in the ordinary trade union way, the directors refused to do it, and the co-partnership scheme was started immediately afterwards. In reference to the point of the Noble Lord referring to the naturalness of the wages question being referred to this committee, I think he is a little bit mistaken. The co-partnership committee deals with the profits of the company after the wages have been paid. I think the Noble Lord, if he will consider the situation will see that the question of wages consist fundamentally of the first payment for labour, is not the same question, even in its nature, which the co-partnership committee have got to decide in reference to profits, and that the election of the committee is a totally different thing. The election of the committee is formed within the works of those holding a certain stake in the company, and a certain length of service; although of course this rule has been kept in abeyance. Yet from the very nature of the circumstances, from the economic position of the business, the co-partnership committee represents the workers' interests as profit-sharers, and not as wage receivers merely.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It is really of more academic interest, but the point is this: Suppose the question arises as to whether the profits, the rate of profits, is fair or not to the workers, or whether they should have, it may be another 1 per cent., on their wages, immediately the question arises as to whether that is fair considering the amount of wages that they are being paid. That would be brought immediately into consideration? In that way I do not say that theoretically and logically, the hon. Member may not be right, and that there is an absolutely necessary connection, but I think the hon. Member will in fairness see that it is very natural that a discussion which began on a question of profit should go on and deal with the whole position of the workmen.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I would not resist that for a single moment. If it was a question of how the profits were to be distributed, then the question of the wages paid comes into consideration, and the authority for considering it may be the co-partnership committee. But when it is a question of what the wages are to be, quite apart from profits and before the profits are struck, then it is combined labour acting in a different capacity from the co-partnership committee and the company that should handle the question of wages. The company elected specifically for the determination of the distribution of profits—I do not think—is fulfilling its duty, and this House should be very careful in giving this company more power than it still has

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The company is still responsible and retains its power about wages, so I understand. As a matter of fact, they do consider any representations made to the committee. Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the hon. Member that 95 or 97 per cent. of the workmen employed in these works are copartners.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

That is perfectly true, but I do not pursue this point because of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the discussion has travelled some distance from the question before the House.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I followed this very interesting Debate, but the point we were dealing with was this: that is this company, instead of dealing with the wages question by the directors, and allowing the workpeople to approach the directors, transferred the responsibility for dealing with wages to this other committee, and the consequence is that the workpeople never can protect themselves by making representation to the directors, except in this very indirect way. And our claim is that from our experience of low paid wages, this method of dealing with wages is always bound to lead to low wages and unsatisfactory labour conditions. We have resisted this and made this Motion simply to see whether it would not be possible for this House, as this is a public company, deriving its authority from this House, to make its will known to those directing a public company, which would have no existence at all and no power at all if we did not give it to them, and compelled the directors to do the same sort of thing that we are constantly getting out of our own public Departments, for which we are responsible, to do. That is all we want, and it is perfectly legitimate. I do not believe there is any hon. Member of this House who has heard the case who could possibly say that the workpeople of this company have got any such guarantee as they would have if they were allowed to combine in a trade union.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

They are a trade union.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Nominally, yes; but actually, no. The thing works in such a way that trade unionism is impossible. It is like planting seed upon a soil without sustenance. You may say if the workers were members of a trade union the directors pursue a certain policy, and now that the business is worked in a certain way through co-partnership, even if a man does join as a trade unionist he finds it is absolutely useless. This condition produces a state of things in the Liverpool gasworks which makes it quite impossible for a body of workmen to get into such a combination as to increase their wages and improve their labour conditions. On these grounds we ask the House to reject this Bill.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I was sorry to hear the hon. Member cast doubts upon the documents read by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, in which I have no doubt he enjoys some musical copyright. I would suggest to the Labour party—they are a young party in this House, that they would be well advised to follow another plan in their operations. Naturally, in a matter like this, they think they must state their views in public, existing as they do on the public opinion of their views. If they would be guided a little bit by me, they would allow this Bill to be read a second time without a Division, and then conduct their process secretly.

Mr. CLYNES

I may inform the hon. and learned Member that we have been trying that for weeks.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

But the secrecy I mean is different. I do not mean by going to private meetings with directors, or any other matter of that kind. I mean this: first square the Board of Trade, then square the Committees of this House. Nothing is easier. Let them do what was done, for instance, on the Kingstown Bill. Square your Committee. Go to the Committee of Selection, get additional men put on. Pack the jury!

Mr. W. THORNE

That is what we object to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. and learned Member he is now reflecting on the bona fides of Committees of this House, and that is not in order.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I will not reflect upon the Committees of this House, I will only suggest to Members of the Labour party that they should so construct the Committee as to have a majority and in chairman of their own. And then my suggestion would be this: Let them get a Bill, called the Compulsory Co-partnership Bill, which was brought in by a very prominent Member of the Irish party, Mr. O'Shee, on the 4th May, 1914, and they might allow one Member of that party on the Committee—and in Committee on the Liverpool Gas Bill let them insert the provisions of the Compulsory Co-Partnership Bill, whereby, instead of allowing the modest proposal of the Labour party to-secure the co-partnership which they desire, they would find it laid down in this Bill that every company, including municipal undertakings, is at the instance of the Board of Trade to be dissolved; that an arbitrator is to be appointed, and that he is to divide two-thirds of the profits of the company amongst the workers engaged in it. That is a Bill which has been prepared, introduced, and approved of on behalf of the Irish party as to how they would deal with the working classes. I am somewhat surprised when this modest Gas Bill is brought in that hon. Members opposite should be prepared at this stage to stop this measure on its Second Reading, instead of allowing the Bill to proceed in the normal way to Committee, and then in Committee demand from those who so largely control private legislation the O'Shee minimum for the Gas Workers' Union. That is the respectful suggestion which I make to this House, and I hope it will be the means of composing the temporary difficulties between the Labour party and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.

Mr. PETO

I thought that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) would have given us some real reasons against the manifold advantages of this Bill, which have been so clearly put forward. We have heard from the hon. Member for Leicester that, although it might be a very good policy to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is approved by all the workmen and the representatives of the districts concerned, yet it would not be good policy if these manifold advantages were gained at the expense of the workpeople. I thought we were going to hear something interesting on that point, but the hon. Member for Leicester did not attempt to make any case against those advantages to the public, among which I would include the peaceable operation of a great industry, with a steady rise in the wages and a steady diminution in the cost of the articles supplied. We did not hear the slightest word in support of the allegations that it was against the interests of the workmen. The hon. Member told us that he and his party had not received a single protest from any workmen concerned. We know that out of the 1,744 workmen employed in this concern, 1,726 are co-partners and desire the continuance of the scheme.

I think it is obvious why the members of the Labour party have not received any complaints. Why should the workers complain. The hon. Member for Leicester complains of the form in which they put forward their support of this Bill, and it has been said that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has only quoted second-hand support for this measure. I thought that what the hon. Member for Leicester said about the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division was hardly candid or fair. He said that a great number of these workmen had called on their way to work. What simpler method of communication could any workmen proceed by than to call on a fellow countryman on their way to work on a man in their own town whom they knew understood all the circumstances of the case, and who was a member of the town council! When letters are read we are told that they are too great a literary effort, and are not genuine. Was ever a more flimsy case put up? The fact is that the hon. Member for Leicester and the Labour party have not got a finger in the pie at all. This happens to be one of the few matters which are going on smoothly and simply. This company wants to raise fresh capital to enable it to confer greater benefits upon its workpeople and the people it serves, and that is entirely distasteful to the hon. Member for Leicester and his party, and although they are not immediately connected with this concern, although they have received no complaints, they interrupt the course of this Bill and occupy the time of the House in preventing useful social legislation being-promoted by a private company.

One of the principle points of the hon. Member who started this Debate is that the directors do not directly deal with questions of wages, but that wages questions are allowed to be discussed and almost settled by a committee which is composed mainly of the workpeople themselves. I ask the House to consider what would have been the case if the directors, had taken exactly the opposite course. Suppose the directors had said, "We have a co-partnership in which we give the fairest possible representation to the workmen, and we only claim a certain proportion on this joint board ourselves. We feel, however, that this vital question of wages is one that we will not allow this co-partnership committee to have anything-to do with." If that had been the attitude-I could have understood the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, but when the workmen are given a fair share and a voice in all these vital matters which are concentrated in the question of a daily or weekly wage, then hon. Members opposite are not satisfied because an autocratic board of directors do not take this matter entirely into their own hands. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert-Cecil), in answering the Member for Leicester, very properly pointed out that it is perfectly impossible under any co-partnership scheme, or even under any industrial scheme, whether on a co-partnership basis or not, to decide exactly-where profits begin and where wages end. I do not want to go into any general question, but this is germane to the particular point.

The main objection to the Bill is that the wages question is settled in the way it is. I say that the whole basis of the scheme under which this gas company is, working peacefully, is that capital on the one side and labour on the other, are each paid their fair minimum wage, and above that wage profits commence. How can we settle not only the distribution of profits, but when they begin, and how great they are, if the same body that settles the question of profits and their distribution is not given any voice in the matter of what constitutes the wage which must be paid, and which ought to be paid, before any question of profits arises, or their distribution comes in. It is impossible to dissociate the weekly wage, which is merely maintenance money, from the other question. I did not intend saying anything upon this subject, but I feel very strongly on the co-partnership question, and I was tempted to say these few words because of the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. After hearing that speech I could not help calling attention to the fact that that was all they had got to say in opposition to this Bill, and that opposition has occupied the time of the House for two hours already.

Mr. BARNES

It seems to me the whole question which has emerged from this Debate is whether we are going to have a co-partnership scheme here or whether we are going to have trade unionism. We cannot have both—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think that is a fact which emerges, not only from this Debate, but from all the incidents leading up to the Debate. From what I can gather there had been a strong trade union in these particular works, and the great bulk of the men were members of that trade union. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has been stated.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

It was only in one of the works out of six.

Mr. W. THORNE

It was in all the works. What do you know about it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" We know, and he does not know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Order yourself!

Mr. BARNES

There were, at all events, a considerable number of trade unionists working for this gas company prior to three years ago.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

There were.

Mr. BARNES

Then there were some labour troubles in Liverpool, and the union, of which two of my hon. Friends are members, did to a considerable extent save and protect the interests of the men while they were trade unionists. I take it that it was that fact which was the determining feature in getting set up this particular scheme of co-partnership. It is one of the most singular schemes of co- partnership of which we have heard. We have no love for co-partnership schemes at all, except those schemes which are carried on co-operatively by the workmen who themselves hold the capital. We have invariably found that they have been started by gas companies and other companies for the express, and very often the very obvious purpose of breaking up trade unionism. If a little additional money is given to the workmen for a time it is only to buy them off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] That has been our experience. It may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the schemes are put forward quite honestly in order to increase the earnings of labour. Some are put forward with that view, but—

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

On a point of Order. Is the question as between co-partnership and trade unionism in order? It is a very large question which has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. HODGE

Might I direct you attention to the fact that the question of co-partnership is dealt with in Clause 25 of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have already on two or three occasions directed attention to the Motion which is before the House. The discussion must have direct relation to the proceedings of this company. It must be directly relative to the conduct of the company in its business.

Mr. BARNES

I come back to the actual terms submitted to and, as I gather, imposed by the gas company on every man entering their service. The Clause, into which I will put a name, reads:— The said Liverpool United Gas Company agrees to employ the said John Smith for the period of—months from the day of the date hereof, at one or other of the stations, works or premises of the said Company, if he shall remain sober, honest and industrious, and loyally and faithfully perform the work allotted to him to the best of his skill and ability. There is a further provision that the said John Smith shall agree to serve the company for a period of—months. What is the object of that provision? It must be obvious to anyone of ordinary intelligence that the object is to break up any possible organisation these workmen may join, or, if they should form an organisation of their own, to make sure that it shall do no harm to the company. The directors, of course, fill in the blanks. They may engage John Smith for six months, and Tom Robinson, who comes along a month later, may also be engaged for six months, while others may be engaged for lesser or longer periods, and the result is that, although the men may have a union of their own, that union by this process is rendered absolutely helpless, and is able to do nothing for them. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) stated he believed the gas company would offer no objection to the men in the service of the company joining a union, and he hoped there would be such an organisation. But there can be no union, at all events none of any service to the men under these conditions. That is the simple reason why we object to the Second Reading of the Bill. We believe that the company, in exercising the franchise already granted it, have taken a mean advantage of the men, and we are not going to give them further powers until we have some assurance that the powers they already possess will be exercised with due regard, not only to the interests of the consumer at Liverpool, but to the interests also of the labour in their employ, and to the maintenance of the rights of these men to associate themselves with their fellow workers in a union if they think fit.

Mr. MARSHALL HALL

We have been told we must be very careful not to sacrifice the interests of the men to the interests of the public. It sees to me, that if the full effect of this Bill were known, that the hon. Member is attempting to sacrifice the interests of the men to the interests of trade unionism. He bas stated a proposition, but he does not in any way prove it. What I want to know, and what the House wants to know, is whether this scheme is approved by the men engaged in this particular industry? The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has told my hon. Friends who represent Liverpool, and who believe the scheme has the undivided support of the men, that the letters they had read to prove that are not genuine, and has stated that he is willing to provide a post as secretary for the writer of one of the letters. What evidence will the hon. Member accept as conclusive that this Bill has the undivided support of the workmen in this great undertaking? I should like to call his attention to a resolution passed at a meeting of the co-partnership committee. Before doing so, I will specially allude to the constitution of that committee. It includes five officials: the chairman of the directors (who was in the chair), the deputy-chairman, the engineer, the trea- surer, and the superintendent of the works, while eighteen members of the working body constituted the rest of that committee. I am informed that at this meeting the chairman referred to the company's Parliamentary Bill, and announced that it had been blocked on the Second Reading by the Labour party in the House of Commons, the alleged reason being the co-partnership provision. The committee were invited to express their views on the matter, and after free and exhaustive discussion, they unanimously agreed that the scheme of co-partnership had given general satisfaction, and, as had been previously recorded, there was no compulsion used in signing the agreement. The men were anxious to join, and the directors would rely upon the support of all the co-partners in protecting the scheme.

May I call the attention of the hon. Member for Leicester, and others, to the fact that this agitation was started by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion to read the Bill a second time three months hence. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. William Thorne) and the hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. dynes), as early as 1911, as soon as ever this co-partnership scheme was mooted and put into operation by the directors of this gas company, came down to Liverpool and commenced to agitate, by meeting and otherwise, against the scheme. They had every opportunity of addressing the workers who attended the meetings, and they failed entirely to dissuade the workmen connected with this industry from joining and taking advantage of the co-partnership scheme. From that time forward, as the correspondence shows, no effort whatever has been spared upon the part of those two hon. Members to induce the working men connected with this industry to give up the co-partnership scheme, the sole reason being that they would not toe the line at the request of the members of the Gasworkers' Union. The resolution I have just read was followed by a second resolution passed as late as 29th June. There, again, the chairman of the directors, the deputy-chairman, the engineer, the treasurer and the superintendent were the only officials present, all the rest were men who, as I think the House thoroughly understands, are elected by ballot. Although the directors have the power of nominating further members after the ballot has been exhausted, as a matter of actual practice the next names appearing on the ballot are selected by the directors to fill the other posts on the committee. Any question of a £25 qualification, or of five years' service, has long ago been left in abeyance.

At the meeting on 29th June, after a free and full discussion, in which fourteen of the workmen's representatives took part, and a unanimous and emphatic opinion having been expressed that the employés were perfectly satisfied with the fair, complete and courteous manner in which all questions were met by the directors, that they greatly appreciated the democratic construction of the co-partnership committee and the freedom of speech encouraged therein, and that they therefore did not desire the intervention of the trade union officials, it was unanimously resolved that the directors should be informed accordingly. The chairman expressed his gratification at such unanimous testimony, and said the company had not at any time inquired whether the employés were members of any trade union or not, and now, having been assured that it was the general wish of the co-partners that the Bill should pass the House of Commons, he would report accordingly to the board of directors. I will ask the hon. Member for Leicester if he trusts his own men when they get into a position of authority like that of a co-partnership committee, or whether he believes they lose their sense of responsibility. I am sure he will not make any such charge. The best evidence you can get has been afforded in this House that there is a conclusive expression of opinion on the part of these men and of the workmen they represent that they approve of this co-partnership scheme, and I ask the House not to say that this legislation shall not be passed merely because members of a trade union do not approve of the co-partnership scheme as a whole.

Sir A. MARKHAM

In my humble judgment it is a perfect outrage that the House of Commons should have been engaged two and a quarter hours in discussing a question which ought to have been sent to a Committee and dealt with upstairs. The hon. Member for West Ham has been very prominent in this matter on the question of the Gas Union. I should have thought that he had had enough of that business at Leeds, where he brought the whole town to a stoppage.

Mr. W. THORNE

That is entirely wrong.

Sir A. MARKHAM

At all events, the hon. Member's influence and efforts have been entirely unsuccessful.

Mr. CLYNES

My hon. Friend did everything he could to stop—

Sir A. MARKHAM

Other Members of this House, besides the Labour party, have a right to speak. They cannot all talk at once like you do. It has always been the practice of the House to give a Second Reading to all Bills unless a great principle is involved. We see that 2,000 men employed in these works are unanimously in favour of the measure, and the representatives from Liverpool are unanimously in favour of it, but the Labour party say the House is not to pass it because they themselves think it is not in the interest of the enlightened citizens of Liverpool. I always thought the people of Liverpool prided themselves on their intelligence and advancement of thought, and I have always had a very high regard for the people of Liverpool, which the Labour party do not seem to have. When the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) says that the working men cannot write an educated letter he takes the standard of the Labour party, and not the standard of intelligence that working men are able to display on this simple question, which they are just as well able to discuss as any Member of the House. There is no question of sweated wages. There has not been in the whole course of the Debate any statement made that the wages paid in those works are not tradeunion rates of wages.

Mr. W. THORNE

made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.

Sir A. MARKHAM

If the wages were not a fair rate, surely 2,000 workmen would be able to express an opinion on that question, and the representatives for Liverpool in that case would not be supporting the Bill. It is a perfect outrage that in this Session, when so much wrok has to be done, the Labour party should take up two and a quarter hours of the time of the House in passing a measure which ought to have had a Second Reading without debate and been sent to a Committee.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

I have generally found myself on matters between employers and employed which have arisen in this House on the side of the men, and on several occasions I have been almost the only man of my party to support those views. In supporting this Bill I am again entirely on the side of the men and am opposed to the Labour party who are attempting to force a trade union upon an unwilling body of men. A very small proportion of the men employed belong to the trade union. Hon. Members opposite would like to be the party who arranged the wages, and so on. My object in getting up at this stage is to say, that as one of the Members for Liverpool, I consider I was one of the proper persons to be addressed by any constituent as to whether he supported or objected to this Bill. I have received a number of letters, and I am prepared to show them to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). He can form his own opinion as to whether they were the product of literary gentleman of ability, both in regard to grammar, the writing, and so on. I have every reason to believe these letters to be genuine. They come from my own Constituency, and every one. of the writers beg me to be in my place to-night to support this Bill. They are from men in the employment of the gas company.

I did not at first quite understand the hon. Member for Leicester—I am sure it was my fault—when he said that they had received no complaints. I gathered that what he meant was that they had received no complaints against the Bill, but it was evident later on that what he meant was that they had received no complaints against the astonishing conduct of the Labour party. The point is not the conduct of the Labour party. The point we are debating is the merits of the Bill, and, therefore, if anybody has any complaint to make against the measure, the proper persons to send complaints to would be the Members for Liverpool, who are naturally the people to receive communications from their own constituents. Out of the 1,700 men in the employment of this gas company I do not believe that half a dozen have written to anybody against the Bill. I myself have not seen or heard of a single letter objecting to the Bill on the part of the men or anybody else. Under these circumstances the opposition that we have had to-night to the Bill is merely on the part of organised trade unionism which has taken fright at the success of the co-partnership movement in Liverpool, which has been introduced by this company, and which has been quite satisfactory. When the company comes here for powers to get extra facilities for the consumers of gas, the opponents of the Bill are seeking to avail themselves of this opportunity to try and force the House of Commons to do something which will improve the position, not of the men, but of the trade union. I am on the side of the men and also on the side of the consumers, and the whole of the bodies affected by the Bill who are in favour of it. I think it is very unfair that we should have been subjected to-night to the loss of so many hours of Parliamentary time. It is also unfair that this Bill should have been opposed in this manner by speakers who have endeavoured to give everybody the idea that the labour affected is against the Bill when such is not the case. One of the Members who spoke on behalf of the Labour party made the assertion that the men in the employment of this gas company were paid a very poor wage.

Mr. W. THORNE

What I said was that they were paid less than in Lancashire towns and in other towns.

Mr. W. RUTHERFORD

I have seen a comparative statement of the wages paid in the different gasworks of Lancashire and other places, and all I can say is that the figures show that the workers are paid a comparatively high rate of wages by the Liverpool Gas Company. I think it is an unfair thing to state anything to the contrary without giving figures, and without showing that such a statement has any foundation.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY

I rise merely to ask one question of the promoters of the Bill. I am very reluctant to vote against the Bill, which is for a purpose of which, on the whole, I approve, and which I feel to be of great public utility. But I do feel that there is serious substance in the objection raised to the particular form of co-partnership involved in this case. I want to ask whether it is possible to meet one part of the objection to this Bill by an amendment of Clause 25 providing for some alteration in the particular form of the method by which the committee of management is chosen? At present I gather that a large part of the objection to the scheme is that the employers always, through the appointment of the chairman, have control and direction. I would like to know if it is possible by having a neutral chairman to avoid the party bias which is given by its constitution to the committee. If that can be done I shall vote for the Bill. If not then I shall with the greatest reluctance vote against it.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

There is more sympathy than would appear from the course which the Debate has taken with the opinion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division in criticising the action of the directors. I am not alone in that attitude that if the Bill is read a second time to-night it by no means follows that it will not be opposed on the Third Reading, unless some agreement is arrived at. I understood the hon. Member for the Scotland Division to say that he was not without hope that there would be some further concession made, or some agreement come to. We shall look forward to that when the Bill comes down from Committee before making up our minds upon it.

Mr. T. C. TAYLOR

Perhaps I may have two claims to say a word on this, because I have endeavoured along with other Members to reconcile the two sides to this question, and I have taken a great interest in the question which has inevitably cropped up in the course of this discussion, the question of co-partnership. In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Clause 25 is not capable of such amendment as he wishes. It has simply relation to the method of purchasing the stock to be allotted to the co-partners. But I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bury that this thing, whichever way it goes, will not be settled to-night, that is to say, unless the two parties are prepared to meet each other; and I would very strongly urge at this, the eleventh hour, in the interests not only of this Bill, of Liverpool, and of the company and its workers, and other workers as well, but in the interest of general peace and good harmony, and the success of the principle of co-partnership, that this should be done.

The hon. Member for Blackfriars said that he had no love for co-partnership. I do not wonder that trade unionism has no love for co-partnership if co-partnership is used as a means of injuring trade unionism. It is inevitable that that principle must be discussed to-night. My position is very difficult. I would have liked to vote for the Bill, and I should be very glad to vote yet for it, and I have no doubt that we could get the Bill through quite easily if the directors would recognise trade unionism. As to the question that employers should be called upon to recognise trade unions, I have been an employer myself for forty years, and I have never asked the repre- sentative of a trade union how many men he represented, I do not think that a wise question to ask. If the directors of the company will admit the right of their employés, whether many or few, to be represented by trade union officials, and if those employés desire to be so represented, then I can see that something might be done. The principle of recognising trade unionism is pretty generally recognised in this House, and if the directors say they will not do that, then they will have to reckon with opposition in every quarter of the House, more or less. It is an antiquated idea that trade unionism can be ignored; it cannot be anything of the sort. I do hope at the eleventh hour, those who speak for the directors will accept the proposal made to them, and say they are willing to recognise a committee appointed for the express purpose of regulating wages—not the co-partnership committee, but an elected committee consisting half of directors and half of representatives of the men, elected by ballot, to settle wages questions in future. This is a very serious question. The Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) made a number of charges which have not been answered by the Friends of the Bill. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the company made agreements on different terms with their men, so that when those agreements terminated they do not terminate at one time. If it be alleged, in this particular case, that there are several reasons why the men should not be allowed to strike at all, let it be said so plainly. I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division, on behalf of the directors, said they would rectify inequalities in the wages of the gasworkers as compared with similar workers.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am not sure that I said so, but I say so now.

Mr. T. C. TAYLOR

I hardly know what I have heard inside or outside the House. I would strongly urge upon the promotors of the Bill at the eleventh hour to authorise someone on their behalf to say something which will enable us to go home with the comfortable reflection that they have recognised trade unionism and preserved undamaged the principle of co-partnership. I am quite sure that co-partnership is a blessing to workmen, but only on condition that it is not such as a means to damage trade unionism; and I am convinced that trade unionism and co-partnership can work together—neither being hostile to the other—to the benefit of the public, as well as of the workmen.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 68.

Division No. 162.] AYES. [10.50 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Peto, Basil Edward
Baird, John Lawrence Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Stanley Gulland, John William Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Pringle, William M. R.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Hackett, John Prothero, Rowland Edmund
Barnston, Harry Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Randles, Sir John S.
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beck, Arhur Cecil Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Reddy, Michael
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Hayden, John Patrick Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish Helme, Sir Norval Watson Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Blair, Reginald Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Boland, John Plus Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hinds, John Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith Hoare, S. J. G. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hohler, G. F. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bridgeman, William Clive Houston, Robert Paterson Salter, Arthur Clavell
Brunner, J. F. L. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bryce, J. Annan Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) Sanderson, Lancelot
Burn, Colonel C. R. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Campion, W. R. Joyce, Michael Sheehy, David
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Kilbride, Denis Shortt, Edward
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) King, Joseph Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Clough, William Levy, Sir Maurice Spear, Sir John Ward
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Stanier, Beville
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cotton, William Francis Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cowan, W. H. Lundon, Thomas Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Crumley, Patrick MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Stewart, Gershom
Cullinan, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Dalrymple, Viscount M'Callum, Sir John M. Swift, Rigby
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford).
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Talbot, Lord Edmund
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Marks, Sir George Croydon Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Delany, William Meagher, Michael Tickler, T. G.
Dillon, John Molloy, Michael Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Doris, William Molteno, Percy Alport Verney, Sir Harry
Duffy, William J. Morison, Hector Walker, Col. William Hall
Elverston, Sir Harold Morton, Alpbeus Cleophas Weston, Colonel J. W.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Muldoon, John White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Neville, Reginald J. N. Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Newdegate, F. A. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Farrell, James Patrick Newton, Harry Kottingham Williamson, Sir Archibald
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Joseph Wills, Sir Gilbert
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Nuttall, Harry Worthington Evans, L.
Gibbs, George Abraham O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Gladstone, W. G. C. O'Dowd, John Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Goldsmith, Frank Palmer, Godfrey Mark TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greig, Colonel J. W. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Sir John Harmood
Gretton, John Pearce, William (Llmehouse) Banner.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
NOES.
Adamson, William Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Holmes, Daniel Turner
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) John, Edward Thomas
Arnold, Sydney Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Barnes, George N. Glanville, Harold James Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Bentham, George Jackson Hancock, John George Jowett, Frederick William
Bowerman, Charles W. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Kenyon, Barnet
Clynes, John R. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Hayward, Evan Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Crean, Eugene Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) McGhee, Richard
Crooks, William Higham, John Sharp Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hodge, John Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Dawes, James Arthur Hogge, James Myles O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
O'Malley, William Roe, Sir Thomas Webb, H.
O'Sullivan, Timothy Rowlands, James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Parker, James (Halifax) Rowntree, Arnold Wiles, Thomas
Parry, Thomas H. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Sutherland, John E. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Sutton, John E. Yeo, Alfred William
Pratt, J. W. Thomas, James Henry Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Rendall, Athelstan Toulmin, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Roberts, George II. (Norwich) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Arthur Henderson and Mr. Goldstone.
Robinson, Sidney Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Forward to