As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.
§ Mr. ADAMSON
I beg to move to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of September, 1919."
On the Committee stage I moved a somewhat similar Amendment. My object in moving this Amendment, both in Committee and on Report, is that there may be some little recompense given to those in receipt of compensation for accidents for the very hard time they have been going through within the last two or three years. As I have pointed out in connection with other Amendments, the cost of living has been gradually rising until it has reached well over 100 per cent. The only addition to the compensation payable that has been made up to the present is an addition of 25 per cent. over the pre-war rate made in 1917. That section of our people who have been in receipt of workmen's compensation consequently have been meeting the increased cost of living with an increase of 25 per cent. on the compensation paid to them. This, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, has entailed great hardships upon them, and it would be some little recompense, it would in some little way help them to redeem the miserable position that many of them find themselves in to-day if we were to bring this increase into operation on the 1st September last instead of on the 1st January next year, as provided for in the Bill.
This is a question, like the amount of compensation payable, that was under dis- 1731 cussion between the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the representatives of the Mining Association of Great Britain, and they had come to an agreement on the 28th May last. For some reason or another the other employers of the country could not be got to fall into line with the employers in the mining industry, and instead of this Amending Bill coming in in June or July last, as it ought to have done, it has been delayed until now. Consequently, those in receipt of compensation have gone on suffering and meeting the increased cost of living with only a 25 per cent. advance on the compensation payable before the War. In these circumstances we think it would only be fair to have the compensation made payable from the 1st September. I understood that at a recent meeting between the representatives of the Home Office, the miners, and the Mining Association this matter was again discussed, and they tried to settle it on a somewhat similar basis to this. I do not know what consideration the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State may have given to the matter since that discussion took place, but I hope they can see their way to give us this Amendment.
§ Mr. SHORTT
I quite appreciate the hardships which have been suffered in consequence of the delay—the unavoidable delay, I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite—in bringing in this Bill. At the same time, I would ask the House to recollect what the difficulties were with which we were faced. After all, since 1897 the intention has always been that as far as possible the cost of workmen's compensation should fall upon industry as a whole, and that intention has been carried out largely by means of insurance. You have, therefore, a state of things in which the individual employer insures, as part of a regular charge upon his industry, with certain insurance companies who accept the liability. The liability at the time of the insurance is known; they know exactly how much he insures, and he pays a premium in consequence. If you make this retrospective, instead of making it as from the date put into the Act itself, a date which can be foreseen and is foreseen and can be provided for and readjustments of premium made, what is the result? You have individual employers who are only insured under a certain rate of insurance for 1732 liabilities of a certain limited character, and you put upon them a liability to pay more than they have insured against. That is a great hardship, and instead of the system which has been adopted and carried out ever since the beginning of workmen's compensation, making the industry pay the compensation by means of the insurance companies, you put upon the individual employer a personal liability which he has never had an opportunity of meeting by insurance or in any other way.
But there is another difficulty in addition. There have been since that date a very considerable number of cases which have been settled for a lump sum consideration upon the basis of the payments then made under the War Addition Act, 1917. If you are going to be fair, you would have to re-open every one of those cases, start the whole negotiations over again, and settle them on the basis of the new terms that are to come into existence. The difficulties of that, financially and administratively, would he very great indeed. I am afraid the Amendments have been on rather an ascending scale, and I hope the House will mat take this as a parrot cry if I say that this is a very important Amendment and a very far-reaching one. It imposes liabilities that people have never had an opportunity of meeting, and which, with all fairness, they ought to have had an opportunity of arranging by insurance. It would create difficulties which would make it extremely hard to carry out this Bill. It would require all kinds of new arrangements. Something would have to be done to meet the employers. It would not be fair for this House to put a retrospective liability upon individuals, unless the House were prepared also to come to their assistance, in some measure, at any rate, out of public funds. That we cannot do under this Bill, and therefore it comes to this. The House is asked to do something which is very unfair to individuals, unless some assistance is given, which cannot be done under this Bill, and, therefore, if you are to be fair to them, you must postpone your Bill. Having regard to all the difficulties, and the desire we all have to get a measure of relief for the many hundreds of people who are unable to live properly on the compensation, we have got to do what we can to meet their necessities, and I ask my right hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, but if it is pressed, I shall ask the House to vote against it.
§ Mr. HARTSHORN
I am very surprised to hear the statement to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill came before the Committee an evening or two ago Progress was reported in order that we might clear up some misunderstanding that had arisen, and we have held a meeting at the Home Office since then with representatives of the employers and representatives of the trade unions. I understood we had come to an arrangement—a very fair and definite arrangement so far as employers and eve were concerned, unquestionably—that this Bill should date back to the 1st September, that the twenty-one limit should go out, and we agreed to accept the flat-rate instead of the scale that had been suggested and previously agreed to.
§ Major BAIRD
As to what occurred, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, there is no conflict. It is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman and his friends representing the workmen, and representatives of the mine-owners did agree undoubtedly, but they did not represent the whole body of the industries concerned, and, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given to-night. I said it was quite impossible for me to pledge the Government to that course of action, but that I would represent to my right hon. Friend how strongly the hon. Gentleman and his Friends felt on the subject. But I made it perfectly clear that I could not give a pledge on the subject so far as the Government was concerned, and I feared it would be impossible to meet the views put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. HARTSHORN
I am prepared to admit at once that the hon. Gentleman did not definitely pledge the Government, and that he stated that before he could he must make representations to the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. HARTSHORN
And to the other employers. I think that is correct, but we understood that that was all to be done before the Bill came up for Report, because we discussed how it could be done, and that as it had been passed in Committee, it could only be brought up on Report. We have done this, as we understood, in accordance with the arrangement made. I know that Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, repre- 1734 senting the employers, said, "We will go down and see the representatives of the employers in the House. We cannot say they will support this, but we will say that they will not oppose it." And they came down to get this thing fixed up. I am very surprised, after the negotiations that took place, that there is any quibbling about this at all.
§ Major BAIRD
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There is no question of quibbling whatever. What we said we would do we did. We have consulted the other people, and have been unable to obtain their consent.
§ Mr. HARTSHORN
What was the use of our going to the office at all? We got Mr. Smillie and you got the employers, and we had a joint conference for the purpose of coming to an arrangement. We had these points in dispute, and why were we discussing these points with these people if we could not come to terms? I can only state that Mr. Smillie reported to the Miners' National Executive that we agreed to accept the 75 per cent. flat rate, that you had agreed to delete the twenty-one years of age provision, and that you had agreed, or rather that the employers and we had come to an agreement, and we understood that, subject to the approval of this House, these arrangements were going into this Bill. After all, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, as representing their association, have been in communication with employers in other industries. As a matter of fact, it was they, in the first instance, who supplied you with the views of other employers. The employers and ourselves agreed as a mining industry as far back as 28th May. The sub-committee that was appointed, so far as the owner side was concerned, said, "We will put it before our association, and you should have a definite reply by 20th June." On the 20th June they agreed, but they said, "Before we go to the Home Secretary, we want to consult the other employers," and in July they had consulted the other employers, and supplied you with the-information as to the views entertained by the other employers. When we were discussing that the other day, we were certainly under the impression that we were fixing up an arrangement which was subject only to the decision of the House. I do not know whether it is in order to report Progress here, but I should certainly move if it 1735 is in order. In any case, I would rather this Bill were deferred again than that we should have this misunderstanding.
Mr. T. WILSON
I think my hon. Friend has given a clear résumé of what took place at the first meeting yesterday in connection with this Bill. We certainly understood at the later meeting that the whole of the employers had agreed—we heard so.
Had agreed that the Bill should be retrospective as from the 1st September. I want to put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. He made it appear that the employers did not insure at the higher rate when compensation was to be paid. I put it to him during the last five years the employers have been paying a great deal higher rate of premium than they paid for the individual men before the War. I mean that the employers insured their workmen on the wage basis and not on an individual basis. The wages now, and for practically three years at least, have been 90 per cent. and in some instances probably 110 per cent. and 120 per cent. higher than before the War. This means that the insurance companies have received a very largely increased premium for the insured individuals. Having, therefore, received that very much higher premium for the men employed, the companies are in a position now to pay compensation back as from 1st September last. To prove what I am saying, I am given to understand that the Mine-owners' Association came to an agreement some time ago with the insurance companies to reduce the amount of premium paid by one-third. We must not forget the men and boys employed in the mines meet with an extraordinarily large number of accidents. That being so, if in an industry where a large number of accidents occur, the insurance companies can afford to accept one-third less premium for insured persons than before the War, that in the case of other industries in the country, where they have been paying the full premium—I am told they are now—the insurance companies must be in a position to pay increased compensation as from 1st September. I do not think that the administrative difficulties are quite so bad as from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman they would appear to be. The Bill would 1736 certainly be received with much more appreciation if the Home Secretary dated it back to 1st September, and give some of these men—and women as well—increased compensation from that date. If the right hon. Gentleman is not himself prepared to make the change, I would suggest that he should leave it to the free judgment and vote of the House as to whether or not this Amendment should be accepted.
§ Mr. SHORTT
The fact that the Mine-owners' Association agreed with the, Miners' Federation is not in the least binding upon the shipbuilders or engineers or any other of the employers.
§ Mr. SHORTT
No; but it has been so argued. The mere fact that the workmen and owners come together in one industry cannot possibly justify the Government in imposing a liability upon other industries. The amount paid, and the amount received in wages, is wholly irrelevant. It does not matter what are the premiums paid; the point is what, under the policy, are the insurance companies liable for? The companies are only liable for the-specified amount of the policy. If this, as suggested, he added, the insurance companies can say, "It is all very well to make that arrangement retrospective, but we will not pay it." We have gone into the matter most carefully, and there are administrative difficulties. Other employers, the engineers and so on, will not agree to this. This is a temporary Bill which has been subject to great negotiation.
§ Mr. SHORTT
After all, if this Bill had been brought in to deal with the coal industry alone we should have had it in then summer—I quite agree. But other industries are concerned, and have to be consulted. Negotiations have to be entered into, and we cannot he held responsible for not being able to bring other industries into line with the coal industry so quickly as we should like.
§ Mr. SHORTT
The hon. Member does not know how much trouble we have taken. For him to make that remark, having regard to what we have done, is-not quite called for. He does not know a 1737 [...]enth of the difficulties we have had to overcome with regard to this Bill. The Bill is based on negotiation. Where you have a Bill based on negotiation you are bound in honour not to do things which tell against the arrangement entered into. Where a Bill is based on negotiation you must keep faith with those with whom you have negotiated.
§ Mr. SPENCER
The inability of the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment to the Bill has come as a very rude shock to us. We were labouring under the impression till to-day, in view of the representatives of the mining community meeting at the Home Office, that whilst the Government were not in a position to accept the provision antedating this Clause to July, they were in a position, on the joint understanding of the owners' and men's representatives, to accept 1st September of this year. Now we find the right hon. Gentleman giving, no doubt, proper reasons why the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment It seems a pity that the Government, being unable to get one section of the employers to agree, that another section of interested parties are to be deprived of the advantage of an arrangement. If the right hon. Gentleman and the employers in other industries could have seen their way to accept this very simple and moderate request I am quite certain it would have gone a very long way to reconciling us to the provisions of this Bill. It does not at all meet the situation, which is a very alarming one, as has already been stated. The right hon. Gentleman is not associated with the workmen and the sufferings of those who come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He does not know the enormous distress that has been caused throughout the community, and that section of the working classes that are so subject to accidents as are the mining community.
If it had been possible to have accepted this Amendment it would have reconciled us to this measure. Now it is bound to create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction has been outlined in many of our mining meetings at which we have been told that we have been asleep. We have done our best in this matter, and, though it is imperfect, I say that if we could have gained our point about the elimination of the provisions in regard to those under twenty-one, and this Amend- 1738 ment, we should have been somewhat reconciled, and I believe it would have given a degree of satisfaction to these men who have been suffering for a long time. This Bill will not be satisfactory so far as the provision itself is concerned; but, what is worse, it will be unsatisfactory so far as negotiations are concerned. We are totally dissatisfied in respect of the negotiations, because we were led to understand that we were being led to a point along with the employers at which we were going to accept this Amendment. Therefore, we are dissatisfied both with the Bill and with the negotiations, and we feel very strongly upon this point—in fact, we should go almost as far as wrecking the Bill but for the sake of the poor people who are suffering. We fully recognise what the Home Secretary has said, that the improvement which will be made will be of inestimable value to those who are suffering, and we do not want to deprive them of that advantage. I hope even now that it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter reconsideration and make a change in the direction we have indicated, for that would give a degree of satisfaction of which the right hon. Gentleman is not aware. I hope he will listen to those who have made this plea and, if possible, reconsider this point.
§ 9.0 P.M.
Mr. NEIL NIACLEAN
I join in the appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. So far as I can gather frosts the defence which has been made by the Home Secretary, while I admit his appreciation of the difficulties and the conditions of the people who have to suffer, the main reasons why he cannot accept the Amendment are the difficulties in regard to insurance paid by employers. So far as the Government of this country is concerned, when they are talking about the conditions and circumstances of those who have been injured they should not be placed in the background in order to serve the interests of the insurance companies. Everybody knows of the large profits made by insurance companies through the lapse of policies and other matters. The individuals who have suffered the accidents are now suffering badly, and they are only receiving a 25 per cent. increase upon their pre-war allowances. I think the Government might have been a little more active in trying to induce employers in other industries to come into line with the 1739 employers in the mining industry, and they should have tried to get the same agreement for those engaged in other industries. The mine-owners and workers agreed to the present terms in May of this year. I think the Government was to blame and is to blame for not setting up conferences of workers in other industries in order to arrive at the same agreement as that which has been reached by the miners and mine-owners. I do not think we can represent those who sent us here in a proper manner unless we divide the House on this matter. For these reasons I trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, and make this particular allowance retrospective from the 1st of September.
§ Mr. WIGNALL
This Bill has been described as an allround and comprehensive measure, and those reading the Report may be led to think that it is simply a measure to meet the requirements of the miners. I endorse all that has been said by the previous speakers, and I am connected with all outside body of workers who have long been looking forward to this overdue measure to assist weak men who have been bearing the heaviest of burdens. I can assure the House that for many months all the employers that I have come in contact with have been looking forward to a measure that would give a larger amount of compensation than is being paid, because I think everybody is agreed that the time has gone by when this measure should have been introduced. The Home Secretary stated that he has had great difficulty in getting the various interests to agree to this measure, and I think I am right in saying that there is a very large section who have not agreed and who have not given their consent to this measure being introduced at all. Some of the larger associations may have done so, but there is a very large body of employers who would never give one single penny of an advance, it they were left to themselves, and consequently there is not that measure of agreement that one may be left to suppose exists.
As regards this retrospective payment, I know that the insurance companies will object to it, and certainly the employers will object, because they will say they have not made provision for it. Nevertheless, I think they have been putting a bit aside for it, and they will be grateful if they 1740 are not called upon to pay it. Retrospective payments are objectionable, but how many times have we, in Courts of arbitration on wages questions, argued against a hostile body of employers for retrospective payment and they have protested and argued and declared emphatically that if the Court of arbitration made the payment retrospective it would ruin the industry, and some have said, "Even if you do award it we will never pay it." The Court has awarded it, and with very few exceptions they have paid it. If the Home Secretary and the Government can see their way clear to give this measure of fair play to the persons who can least afford to suffer to-day, it will be greatly appreciated. We in the Labour movement come face to face with these cases, end we see the poverty, suffering and hunger very often acute to the greatest possible measure in the home. We should not want compensation if we could prevent accidents happening, but, while they happen it is unfair to let the weakest men suffer because they have not the power of resistance. We are not asking for a gift; we are only asking that these people should be given that to which they would have been rightly entitled if this Bill had been brought in when it should have been brought in six months ago. We are now only asking you to split the difference, but there is no spirit of compromise in the Government. If we had claimed all that is due, we should have asked for the six months, but we have split the difference, and you will not accept our compromise, although the benefit would go to those in greatest need of it. After all, there is not a great multitude of cases to meet. I daresay that it would amount to thousands, but they are all cases that can be easily dealt with, because the records are kept. Of course, you will have grumbling. It is natural to insurance companies, but they always pay with a grunt. Give them an opportunity in this case to give some of that which is due to men who have been made to suffer not only pain, but hunger and poverty, which adds to their torment. I hope that the Government will see their way to meet us in this matter.
Question put, "That the words 'commencement of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 52.1741
|Division No. 153.]||AYES.||[9.8 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Forestier-Walker, L.||Nail, Major Joseph|
|Ainsworth, Captain C.||Forrest, W.||Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)|
|Armitage, Robert||Faxcroft, Captain C.||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Oman, C. W. C.|
|Astaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Gangs, E. S.||Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)|
|Atkey, A. R.||Gardiner, J. (Perth)||Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)||Pearce, Sir William|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)||Glyn, Major R||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Barnett, Major Richard||Grayson, Lieut.-Col, H. M.||Pickering. Col. Emil W.|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Green, J. F. (Leicester)||Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Gretton, Colonel John||Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Griggs, Sir Peter||Pratt, John William|
|Bennett, T. J.||Guest, Capt. Hon, F. E. (Dorset, E.)||Pulley, Charles Tharnton|
|Bigland, Alfred||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leis., Loughboro')||Purchase, H. G.|
|Bird, Alfred||Hacking, Colonel D. H.||Raeburn, Sir William|
|Blades, Sir George R.||Hailwood, A.||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Blair, Major Reginald||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Berwick, Major G. O.||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Rankin, Capt. James S.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-||Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)||Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.|
|Bowles, Colonel H. F.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Breese, Major C. E.||Hennessy, Major G.||Renwick, G.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Britton, G. B.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Bruton, Sir J.||Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.||Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)||Rogers, Sir Hallowell|
|Campbell, J. G. D.||Hinds, John||Rowlands, James|
|Campion, Colonel W. R.||Hood, Joseph||Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)|
|Carr, W. T.||Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)||Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hen. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Hudson, R. M.||Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)|
|Chadwick, R. Burton||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Hurd, P. A.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Hurst, Major G. B.||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, S.)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.||Inskip, T. W. H.||Smithers, Sir Allred W.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Jameson, Major J. G.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)|
|Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Jodrell, N. P.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Coots, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)||Johnson, L. S.||Stevens, Marshall|
|Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sugden, Lieut. W. H.|
|Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)||Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Kerr-Smiley, Major P.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Lister, Sir R. Ashton||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)||Lonsdale, James R.||Ward, Dudley (Southampton)|
|Davies, T. (Cirencester)||Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)||Wardle, George J.|
|Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Waring, Major Walter|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.||M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Dixon, Captain H.||M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)||Whitla. Sir William|
|Dockrell, Sir M.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Wild, Sir Ernest Edward|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Maddocks, Henry||Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.|
|Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)||Matthews, David||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Elliott, Lt.-Col, Sir G. (Islington, W.)||Middlebrook, Sir William||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Elveden, Viscount||Moles, Thomas||Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander||Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Cot. J. T. C.||Younger, Sir George|
|Falcon, Captain M.||Morrison, H. (Salisbury)|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)||Talbot and Mr. J, Parker|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)||Simm, M. T|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hanna, G. B.||Sitch, C. H.|
|Bell, James (Ormskirk)||Hartshorn, V.||Spencer, George A.|
|Benn, Captain W. (Leith)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)||Stanton, Charles Butt|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Swan, J E. C.|
|Brace, Rt. Hon. William||Hirst, G. H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Bromfield, W.||Holmes, J. Stanley||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)||Jephcott, A. R.||Wallace, J.|
|Cairns, John||Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)|
|Cape, Tam||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander||Wignall, James|
|Carter, W. (Mansfield)||Kidd, James||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Casey, T. W.||Lawson, John||Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)|
|Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc,)||Lann, William||Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)|
|Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)||Lynn, R. J.||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)||Rattan, Peter Wilson|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Robertson, J.||Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.|
Ninth Resolution read a second time.
§ Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.