HC Deb 23 July 1914 vol 65 cc783-99

Order for Second Reading read.

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


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 am going to say nothing about the merits of the Bill. I am quite content to take the statements made in the Preamble as true statements of facts and I regret the necessity of opposing the Bill because we believe that the works in contemplation would mean a good deal of employment in the Liverpool area, but we must oppose this Bill because it proposes to give powers to a corporation which we submit has not used the powers which it already possesses in a manner consistent with the interests of the community and the interests of the great body of workmen employed. In the first place, this is a close corporation. I need not go back over its history, but I may say that it has obstinately and persistently refused to have any infusion of popular representation. The Corporation of the City of Liverpool have made repeated efforts to get some representation upon the Board, and those efforts have been rebuffed.

We oppose this Bill on three grounds. In the first place, it involves, we think, the closing of access to the Liverpool landing stage in part or wholly. That landing stage has been for a great number of years a popular resort for people living in Liverpool and the surrounding area, and it would be a great pity to have that accessibility in any way interfered with, if it could possibly be avoided. We are standing in this matter for the public interest. It has been said that the Bill involves the closing of the landing stage only at such times as steamers are taking off or landing passengers, but inasmuch as it is contemplated to charge a toll upon all passengers entering the short service steamers going to the North Wales coast and even shorter trips than that, it is obvious that the giving of the power means closing the stage for long intervals of time and over a considerable portion of its length. It is said that the shipping companies generally have agreed to the Bill. The shipping companies, however, do not use the stage to a very great extent. I believe that 75 per cent. of the ocean-going steamers never go into the stage at all.

In the second place, we object to the Bill because of the prohibitive tolls that are going to be imposed upon the short service steamers landing or taking passengers from the stage. I am told that the tariff involves 1s. on first-class oceangoing passengers, 6d. on second-class passengers, and 3d. on third-class passengers. It is proposed, further, to charge a penny for every passenger taken upon a short service steamer, and a penny for landing him again. According to a letter from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, the average short passage fare is about 3s. Therefore, while it is proposed to charge a rich man going to America 1s. on a fare of from £25 to £28, 2d. is to be charged on the passenger going to the North Wales coast or an even shorter trip than that. In other words, while it means 1s. on £25 or £28 to the man crossing the Atlantic, it means 1s. in the £ to a man doing a short turn round the North Wales coast.


Why only deal with first-class; why not mention second-class?


The second-class is considerably less in proportion.


There is 3d. on the steerage passengers?


I am told that the 3d. upon the steerage passengers is only charged on paper, because the steerage folk do not come on to the pier at all; they are taken into the steamer at the docks. We object to the large toll imposed upon passengers by the river, by the steamer, because it is a great charge upon the shipping companies, and because it will also prevent a great many of the working people of Liverpool taking those health-giving trips around the coast. I have a letter from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, and it appears on the basis of last year's trade that they will stand to pay the Mersey Docks Board something like £2,790 more than last year, about 60 per cent. upon the dues paid last year. But if this Bill is passed the 2d. added to a 2s. or 3s. fare will make it prohibitive so far as a very large number of the very poor people of Liverpool are concerned, and therefore the trade will likely be less.

As far as the two points are concerned, I think we stand for the general community of Liverpool and the surrounding area. On the third point I desire to say a word or two of special interest to labour. I am sorry to say that this Board bears a very bad reputation in its treatment of its own workpeople. The strongly organised bodies of workers who are in a position to assert themselves get the standard rates of wages of the district. The Union of which I am a member has about 160 men employed by the Board. They get the standard rate of wages. I believe there is and has been for a long time some trouble between the Board and their Union in regard to other matters, including rate of overtime—into which I need not enter. But we have information regarding other men, large numbers of whom are not paid at the proper rates. For instance, I can give the cases of bodies of men, carpenters, shipwrights and others who are paid 2s., 3s., and, in the case of the shipwrights—between 100 and 200 are employed—4s. per week less than the ordinary standard rate of pay of the Port of Liverpool. We are told further that there is extreme difficulty in getting redress because of the irresponsible way in which the Board acts. Just recently, as an example of the high-minded manner in which they do their work, we are told that the dredgers were reduced from £2 1s. per week to 34s. without asking the men's leave at all. There have been repeated efforts to get redress for these matters, but we have failed.

For the special information of the hon. Member for Stoke, the navvies employed by the Board, I may say, are paid 5½d. per hour, whilst the ordinary rate of pay paid by firms in Liverpool is 7d. I am told, too, that in regard to working hours, that it is only with extreme difficulty that this Board can be brought into line with other firms. As a matter of fact they have but recently granted a standard normal working week of 53 hours, and they have been eighteen years between other reputable firms in the district in regard to that concession. Repeated efforts have been made to reach the Board by representatives of the men: all these have failed because the Board would not see these representatives. Over 85 per cent. of their own men are actually enrolled in one or other of the trade unions co-operating for the men employed. It is also said that repeated efforts have been made not only by the unions of the men but by several influen- tial men in the districts, and only yesterday a certain nobleman interested, as he is, in the peaceful progress of the port interviewed the representatives of labour well known in the port and to all concerned and offered to be the intermediary with a view to closing up the lamentable dispute now pending with the port. I am told that the port turned a deaf ear to the representations made by him as they have turned a deaf ear to all previous representations of a like character.

We are fighting this Bill just the same as we have fought many other cases and I make bold to say that this contest can have only one end, and I would suggest to those responsible for the promotion of this Bill that they might as well end it now as later on. It must have the same end as in the case of the railway companies who for a long time stood out against the recognition of the unions as this port is standing out now. The railway companies now recognise the unions and great good has resulted. The Bristol Company, the London Dock Board and many others have gone through the same phase as this port and they now treat with the representatives and the unions and have found that at all events comparative peace has followed. In Liverpool itself there has been a joint board in existence for the last three years, and I am told that such has been the success of that board in maintaining industrial peace that in all the turmoil of the last three years and even in all the turmoil of the last week when feeling has been intense, so far as the workmen engaged under the auspices of that board, representative of the employers and the employed, there has been no stoppage as far as these men are concerned.

That fact alone, when the men of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board are on strike or have been locked out, is eloquent of the success of a Conciliation Board and Joint Boards of that character where the representatives of capital frankly recognise the representatives of labour as the agents through which business should be done on behalf of labour. We have had the representatives of the men from Liverpool here to-day and they do not want to hang up this Bill if there is any possible way out of the impasse. We have been told they would not stand in the way of a settlement by insisting, for instance, on the abolishing of the tolls for small steamers, but would be content with some modification. We have been told we must insist upon recognition. We do not ask that all at once a joint board should be set up because, as a rule, as those having experience of such matters know, joint boards generally emerge after a time of frank recognition on both sides, but we do ask and we must insist as a consequence of giving our votes for the Second Reading of this Bill that in future the men employed by the Mersey they do of 85 per cent. trade unionists, Dock and Harbour Board, consisting as should be represented by their duly elected representatives and in that way see that their interests are properly and efficiently put before their employers, and in asking that we are asking the very minimum we could ask with justice to ourselves and those we represent.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to refer to the question of wages paid to the navvies by this Dock Board. Everybody knows that the cost of living must have increased enormously in Liverpool and the circumstances and conditions of Liverpool must have changed enormously, and yet it was the boast of the chief representative of this Board that they required to make no change in the rates of wages paid to their workmen for a very long period. What is the cause of the present difficulty? It is that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will not recognise collective bargaining on the part of the men. If there is any complaint each man has to go before the Board separately so that he may be badgered and intimidated and they treat him practically as a slave or a serf. Surely this Board must be completely out of sympathy with the prevailing opinion of the best employers of labour in the district in the treatment of their workmen. Under these circumstances I should imagine that it is almost impossible for a body of this description to hope to secure the enlargement of its powers from the House of Commons at this time of day unless it is prepared at least to put itself on a par with the ordinary employers of labour in the district. That is the least we can ask them to do. Even to-day there are thousands of men employed in these works and the whole business of the port is at a standstill merely because this big authority absolutely refuse to recognise the organisations of the workmen in any shape or form.

In these circumstances it is almost impossible that there can be fair bar- gaining between the Board and their workmen. It is only necessary to imagine what the position of a workman must be appearing before the engineer or a foreman and having to state his grievance himself, dealing with experts while he has no ability at all beyond that of performing the ordinary work of a labourer. It is impossible for such a man to match himself against his employers under such conditions. In an interview of that kind a word wrongly placed or misinterpreted and his whole future is ruined and the future of his family at home may be destroyed. Under these circumstances it is only right and just that the representatives of the men should be received by the Board and even the legal gentlemen in this House ought to do their best to support us on this occasion. They have an immense and powerful organisation to look after their interests. They allow no blacklegging or undercutting or underselling in their trade. They are probably one of the best organised trades in the country. And the medical men here, they have their own organisation. They defend their interests. They work together. They insist on forming combinations for the purpose of maintaining the status of the business in which they get their living. What is good for the professional man surely ought to be equally good for the working man who has to work long hours for such low wages. All that we are doing in this case is to appeal for common justice for the worst paid and worst conditioned body of labour there is in any part of the whole country, and for that reason I second the Motion of my hon. Friend


I have often had the opportunity of advocating the interests of engineers in company with my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars division (Mr. Barnes). He and I belong to the same trade, and we have worked together in the interests of the workers in that trade. It is because I sympathise very largely with what he has said to-night that I rise in the hope that some peace-making effort may be possible to prevent what threatens to be a very great disaster to the port of Liverpool My hon. Friend has not explained to the House the general purport and object of this Bill. The Liverpool landing stage is a very important structure. It was burnt down in 1874. I was present at the burning of it. It was reconstructed and enlarged so that in 1903 it had a length of 1,370 feet. Big ships began to come alongside it and dredging took place to enable them to do so. The proposition which is the main feature of this Bill is the immediate enlargement of the landing stage by some 36 per cent. so as to increase its length by 500 feet. The estimated cost of that work in the largest, or one of the largest, ports in the whole Empire is £100,000, and it is for the expenditure of that £100,000 that the Docks Board have come to this House for authority under the Bill. At least £80,000 out of £100,000 will be locally expended in wages, of which the members of the trade represented on the other side will have a beneficial share. There will be a large increase, if this improvement in the port is effected, in the traffic, and much benefit to the trade of the whole port, in addition to the special benefit to these trades which are concerned in the extension of the landing stage will result.

This matter is very urgent because of the intervention of the Post Office, which has given directions altering the hours at which the great Atlantic mail steamers shall come alongside its side. The directions which they gave and the alterations of hours insisted upon have made it impossible for the existing facilities at the landing stage to cope with the work which has to be done. These alterations were directed to be made by the Post Office only in March last, and the Docks Board posthaste made their plans and have now come to this House for authority to carry them out. The matter brooks no delay if it is to be dealt with in the present Session of Parliament. Big steamers for Canada used to be able to come alongside at three o'clock and sail again at five o'clock; now under the directions of the Post Office they come alongside at noon and sail at half-past two. This has the effect not merely of congesting the traffic but it interferes with the very traffic which my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. John Ward) may be supposed to have a direct interest in—the traffic of holiday makers, especially on Saturday afternoons, to the Isle of Man and elsewhere. I should like to illustrate the effects of the congestion which occurs at the landing stage under present conditions and I think it is important I should do so in order that the House may appreciate the immense inconvenience which is being caused, and may see the necessity of passing this Bill without delay. I will take a period from the 30th May to the present day. No fewer than thirty-three large steamers have been delayed in that period and that represents no less than an aggregate of fourteen days' delay in a period not extending to two months. That proves the very great urgency in the interest of the Port of Liverpool and in the interests of the workers connected therewith, upon which this Bill is founded.

The Mover of the Amendment based his objection on three points. The first was that access to the landing stage for the purpose of promenading would be interfered with. Surely that is a point which can be dealt with by the Committee upstairs and it is one too on which the Docks Board should not be unreasonable. Then the hon. Member spoke of the prohibitive character of the tolls that would be imposed in the case of the smaller steamers. That again is a kind of matter which this House is accustomed to deal with by evidence and by discussion upstairs. But the main point on which the hon. Member founded himself more than on any other was the question of the recognition by the Docks Board of the trade societies. I want to say, sympathisng as I do very largely with many of these claims, that I think it is wrong in principle to use the process of the House in dealing with a Bill so urgent and so important as this to delay that Bill if any other means can be found of pressing such a point upon those who are affected, and I also believe that means could be found to do so in this instance. I believe other means exist for bringing about peace and preventing the disaster which would result from the rejection of a Bill so necessary and so urgently needed not only in the interests of the port but in the interests also of the workers connected with it for whom the works projected will provide much employment. We do not want this scheme delayed for another year or two and I do therefore urge upon hon. Members opposite to consider whether the injury which they will bring about if they succeed in delaying the passage of this Bill will not prove an evil for those whom they represent that might outweigh the immediate good they expect to obtain by their present action.


Tell the Board about it.


I am telling this House about it, because the question has been brought before the House, and because the discussion is pertinent to this House. Why should I tell the Board what I have a perfect right to tell the House? I am endeavouring to make my statement perfectly fair to both sides. This dispute might be settled in such a way as will not produce the injuries, one of which I have described and the other has been described by the Mover of the Amendment. He referred to conciliation boards. I am a great believer in conciliation boards, and I would suggest that if behind the Speaker's chair it could be possible to arrange the general conditions on which the conciliation boards could be established and the Docks Board would agree to consider such a suggestion, then the whole object of hon. Members opposite would be attained, a disaster to the port of Liverpool would be avoided. From my personal knowledge of the port of Liverpool—through the whole of my life I have been working and visiting there—I know that no greater disaster, having regard to the position of the Atlantic trade, could occur to it than the postponement of this most urgent and necessary work. I hope the suggestion I have ventured to make may commend itself not only to Members on the other side but to all those who are concerned.

Mr. HOLT (who was indistinctly heard)

Perhaps I may be allowed, as a member of the Liverpool Docks and Harbour Board, to say a few words on the subject. I should like to correct errors into which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) appears to have inadvertently fallen. He described the Board as a "close corporation." They are freely elected by a body of about 3,000 electors appointed by Act of Parliament, who contribute a certain amount towards the revenue of the Board, just as local ratepayers control the appointment of local bodies. He also complained that the Docks Board refuses to allow representatives of the Liverpool Corporation to be appointed to the Board. He appears to be ignorant of the fact that in 1857 Parliament deliberately removed representatives of the Corporation from the old Dock Trust, and it is therefore no part of the business of the Docks Board, as constituted, to take it upon itself to bring back persons Parliament deliberately removed from that assembly.

With regard to the first point my hon. Friend raised, I think I can completely satisfy him and the House. He complained that the effect of this Bill might be that those persons who have used Liverpool landing stage as a promenade would be deprived of their privilege. It is a privilege and not a right. I am authorised to say in the most plain and categorical terms that it never was and is not the intention of the Docks Board to deprive any person of the privilege of enjoying that most admirable and delightful promenade, except in so far as the enjoyment of the promenade is inconsistent with the main object of the stage, that is, the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers. It is clear that you cannot allow the embarkation of passengers to be stopped by promenaders, but, subject to that, the promenade will remain as before except that after the Bill is passed it will be 500 feet longer and more enjoyable. I have not the least idea how the notion that the promenade was to be stopped ever got about because there has never been any intention of doing so. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Flannery) gave an excellent account of the reasons why the work should be put in hand and I understand that my hon. Friends below the Gangway do not dispute the desirability of the works in themselves.

We then come to the question whether there should be any tolls to pay for the works. The Clause in the Bill simply says:—

"On the commencement of the user of the extension of the Prince's Landing Stage by this Act authorised the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Mersey Dock (Various Powers) Act, 1893, shall apply to the Prince's Landing Stage and the said extension thereof."

So that the charges the Board are asking for are merely those granted on the last occasion when the stage was extended by both Houses of Parliament. We ask that those powers which applied to the last extension should be extended to cover the new stage and the whole of the old stage. The rates quoted by my hon. Friend are not in the Bill. They are rates which were agreed between the Docks Board and the representatives of the various steamship companies with the exception of two particular companies carrying a very large amount of coastwise traffic, the Isle of Man Company and the North Wales Company. The whole of the rest of the traders have agreed to these rates. That is not all. If this Bill is passed the question of the suitability of the charges becomes a very proper point to be discussed before the Committee. It is to discuss these questions that we send these matters to Committees Furthermore the Bill as it stands provides that the amount of the charge has to be authorised by the Board of Trade so that there are really three safeguards to the company in whose interests my hon. Friend has spoken. First of all there is the fact of the maximum charge for embarking and disembarking—not a very excessive toll. It is rather difficult to see how it could be less. Secondly there is the further protection of appearing before the Committee, and thirdly there is the additional step of going before the Board of Trade. It seems to me that is ample and as far as the merits of the Bill are concerned the House should have no difficulty whatever in accepting it. The Board must get revenue from somewhere to pay for the work. There is no other means of paying for it except what is paid by persons who use it.

I come to the other question which is not relevant to the Bill and which I understand is the main portion of the objections raised below the Gangway. As I had no notice of these circumstances it is impossible for me on the spur of the moment to answer. I am told that the wages of the men referred to were reduced from 40s. to 34s. per week because they wished to be put on time payment instead of piece work, but I cannot on the spur of the moment vouch for that. The gravamen of the charge against the Board is on the question of recognition. On that question I am not in accord with the views of my colleagues, and I think I am entitled in justice to myself to make that point perfectly clear. At a meeting as long ago as two years ago last November I entirely dissented from a resolution which was then passed by the Board. I stated that I saw no reason why the Board should not do what practically everybody else had done—recognise the trade union. I pointed out that they would come under no obligation to comply with demands made, and that recognition merely implied that the union representatives would be able to discuss with the Board matters affecting the interests of the members of the union.

I stated that I did not think there was any exception on the question of recognition, except perhaps in the case of railway companies. I understand that since I spoke the position has been altered with respect to the railway companies Why the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should stand out I do not know. I have stated to the House the opinion I expressed to my colleagues, and that is the opinion I stand by to-day. I am very sorry that I am not in a position to meet the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) in the way I myself should like to meet him. I am sorry also that there is no means of getting a meeting of the parties at Buckingham Palace or some other suitable place. What the House has got to consider is whether—merely because the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will not grant recognition to the trade union, which I think they ought to grant, and which I am perfectly convinced public opinion will in a few months compel them to grant—a necessary public improvement should be withheld. I would remind hon. Members below the Gangway that a considerable sum of money is going to be spent in carrying out the proposed works, and that it is not unlikely during the coming twelve months trade will not be so good as it has been. If there is a falling off in trade, there will be a good many people who will be very glad to draw the wages which will be spent in carrying out the works. I would most earnestly ask the House in all the circumstances to give the Bill a second reading.


While I believe that this Bill is urgently required for developing the trade of the port of Liverpool, I should like to join in the request that the promoters should see their way to relieve the small coastwise steamers of the charges which will fall upon them under this Bill. It is stated in the Preamble that the object of the Bill is to increase the accommodation for large trans-Atlantic ships. If they require it, let them pay for it. The coastwise ships do not require any extension of the docks beyond what is provided now, and I fail to see why the owners of these ships should have an increased burden placed upon them. I know one instance of a ship which is engaged in holiday passenger traffic to the Isle of Man. I am informed that in that case in order to make good the increased cost of dues on a trip it would cost them another £27 10s., and when you take into consideration that the men who go on that trip are working men I fail to see why they should be called on for this increased burden. I appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway who have put forward certain criticisms not to prevent this Bill from passing because I believe that they will do far greater harm to the men whom they represent by delaying the Bill than by taking the action which they have suggested they are going to do. I should like the promoters to be given some chance so that not only should the increased dues be considered favourably, but that in the Committee stage they will endeavour to meet us in some way. I should not oppose the Bill, but I beg the promoters to give us some pledge that the claims put forward should be considered.


I regret very much that I feel myself bound to oppose this Bill. The objects of the Bill are very simple, to enable the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to add about 500 feet to the length of the landing stage, and also—a thing to which I very much object—to give power to them for the first time to impose a passenger tax upon all the people who are going on a coastwise voyage, either to the Isle of Man or any of the places in North Wales. It is very unfortunate also that this Bill happens to be brought before the House at a time when there is a very serious strike. I do join with the hon. Baronet in very much regretting that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are practically the only great employers of labour of this kind that have up to now absolutely refused to acknowledge the unions. It is not anything like the case which we had in the other Bill which came on to-night which has been arranged. In the case of the Liverpool Gas Company there were very few of the men in the union, but in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board a vast majority of the men belong to the Union, and I have always felt that it was a very great hardship and injustice that when the men had anything to complain about—and I am sorry to say that the men employed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board frequently have things to complain about—they are compelled to go personally and state their grievance and argue their case, and they have to meet not only the Board but the Board's solicitor, and their secretary and engineer and their staff of skilled advisers, whereas the men who have got the complaint are not allowed to have any assistance whatever.

I have a great respect for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, many of whom are friends of my own, and I do not think that they would do that in their own business, and I fail to understand why they should not acknowledge the unions in the same manner as nearly all large employers of labour have found it in their interests to do up to now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The principal point which I wish to urge is a very strong objection to the Clause of this Bill which enables the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to make a special charge for the first time upon the coastal traffic. This landing stage was constructed originally by the Corporation of Liverpool, and it was free to the inhabitants of Liverpool to use it for all purposes. The importance of that statement cannot be denied when it is pointed out that out of four or five miles of front of the river there are only a few hundred feet to which the public have got any access. All the rest of the mile of front and the many miles of dock space the public are prohibited from using

Therefore this privilege which the public have enjoyed ever since the landing stage was there, using it to get to the coastal steamers, is one which ought not lightly to be interfered with. I had an opportunity three weeks ago of using the stage to cross to the Isle of Man myself, and I had the chance of seeing the class of people who have been enjoying this privilege, and whom it is now sought to tax. Every year they number some hundreds of thousands, and they consist of working men and their wives and children. Clerks, the better class of artisans, small shopkeepers and people of that sort who cannot afford to go to an expensive place for their holidays go to that beautiful island, and they have been allowed to use the landing stage all these years without any tax. I object to a tax being imposed upon them. It is really a far more serious matter than hon. Members apparently think. Any member who represents this body of people in Liverpool is entitled to come here and protest against this tax being put on. Ocean liners come alongside this stage, and that, of course, in itself is a very excellent thing, but it is they who ought to pay, and I hope the House will support the opposition to this Bill.

12.0 M.


As I am one of the Board and as many of my Constituents are employed by this Board, I hope I may at this late hour be allowed to state my case. I regret very much that the Bill comes before the House under present conditions. There is a strike, I am afraid rather a bitter strike, going on in Liverpool at this moment between the men and the Board. I have endeavoured to take up the position of peace maker between the different parties, and I have strongly impressed upon the members of the Board that in refusing recognition to the trade unions they are preparing for themselves further trouble. I have suggested to them many methods by which those troubles could be averted in future. I have made the same proposal that was suggested by my hon. Friend below me, of the formation of a conciliation board. I was encouraged to do so by the fact that in the docks of Liverpool, where strikes were very rampant some few years ago, a conciliation board has worked most successfully. It is quite true that there have been disputes that even the Conciliation Board has not been able to put down, and in a large community of workmen divided into so many grades, these things are likely to happen. But any disturbance or disorder, any dispute or any strike that has taken place in the docks in Liverpool since the Conciliation Board was brought into existence has been frowned upon and put down by the labour representatives. At this moment there is a placard in the docks warning men against those breaches of agreement, and that placard has been put up with the full assent of the labour members of the Conciliation Board. As a matter of fact, if the directors of this body held their eyes open to a clear appreciation of events, they would recognise that it is the Conciliation Board that has helped them to keep many of the men employed although a strike is going on. I suggested to the Board that the

best guarantee of peace would be to have a free exchange of views between the men and between the Board. Their answer is that a free exchange takes place at present. I entirely agree with the view as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) that the working man is just as much entitled to expert advocacy and to independent advocacy in the consideration of his claims as the members of the Board are to the expert advocacy of the solicitor for the Board.

I impressed on the Board with all the power at my command the desirability of their accepting this principle of recognition. I believe I was justified in saying that that was the best guarantee of all this work, resulting in peaceful relations between employers and employed in Liverpool, without which all this expense will be in vain. I have failed. I was joined in those appeals by hon. Gentlemen from other parties in this House besides many hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The hon. Baronet below me suggests a board of conciliation. He knows very well that that is a suggestion that will not be adopted. We have done our best to save this Bill. We have found it impossible to move the Board, and therefore I have no choice but to vote against it.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 113.

Division No. 199.] AYES. [12.3 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gilmour, Captain John Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Glazebrook, Captain, Philip K. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Baird, John Lawrence Greene, Walter Raymond Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Baldwin, Stanley Gretton, John Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Royds, Edmund
Barnston, Harry Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Haddock, George Bahr Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bigland, Alfred Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Sanderson, Lancelot
Boyton, James Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Bryce, J. Annan Helmsley, Viscount Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Staveley-Hill, Henry
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Houston, Robert Paterson Swift, Rigby
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Ingleby, Holcombe Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Joynson-Hicks, William Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Clough, William Kerry, Earl of Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Touche, George Alexander
Courthope, George Loyd Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Valentia, Viscount
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Dalrymple, Viscount Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Maclean, Donald White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Falconer, James Peto, Basil Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Gibbs, G. A. Pollock, Ernest Murray Holt and Mr. Stewart.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Hancock, John George Parker, James (Halifax)
Adamson, William Hardie, J. Keir Parry, Thomas H.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hayden, John Patrick Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Barnes, George N. Hazleton, Richard Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Higham, John Sharp Reddy, Michael
Bentham, George Jackson Hinds, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Boland, John Pius Hodge, John Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Bowerman, Charles W. Hughes, Spencer Leigh Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) John, Edward Thomas Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Robinson, Sidney
Clynes, John R. Jowett, Frederick William Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Kelly, Edward Rowlands, James
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kenyon, Barnet Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Kilbride, Denis Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crooks, William King, Joseph Scanlan, Thomas
Crumley, Patrick Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Cullinan, John Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Sheehy, David
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lundon, Thomas Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Dawes, James Arthur MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sutton, John E.
Delany, William McGhee, Richard Thorne, William (West Ham)
Devlin, Joseph Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Toulmin, Sir George
Dillon, John Marshall, Arthur Harold Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Doris, William Meagher, Michael Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Duffy, William J. Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Molloy, Michael Watt, Henry A.
Ffrench, Peter Muldoon, John Webb, H.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fitzgibbon, John Murphy, Martin J. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Needham, Christopher T. Wilkie, Alexander
France, Gerald Ashburner Newton, Harry Kottingham Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Nolan, Joseph Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Glanville, Harold James Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Winfrey, Sir Richard
Griffith, Ellis Jones O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Gulland, John William O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Donnell, Thomas Arthur Henderson and Mr. Charles
Hackett, John O'Sullivan, Timothy Duncan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for three months.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.