§ 9.11 p.m.
§ Mr. LLOYD
I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out "July," and to insert "January."
The effect of this Amendment and the next is to postpone from July to January next the date of coming into operation of the Bill. It was introduced at the end of last year. It was then hoped that it would pass very early in the Session, and that it would be possible to bring it into operation on 1st July, but in view of the delay that has occurred it is not now practicable. It will be necessary, before the Bill can be worked, to set up the proposed advisory committee, to obtain and consider their advice on the kind of procedure to be adopted for consulting the workers and to prepare the draft special Order describing the procedure. The Order has to be issued in draft 40 days before it is made, and any written representations from any interested bodies must be taken into consideration. The House will probably agree that in these circumstances it would be better if the date of coming into operation were postponed.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
All I need say is that, if the hon. Gentleman proposed to put it off till January, 1957, I would support it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, leave out "thirty-six," and insert "thirty-seven."—[Mr. Lloyd.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." — [Commander Southby.]
§ 9.13 p.m.
§ Mr. KELLY
It is surprising that we should have a Measure of this kind calling upon young people to engage in work in a continuous shift for some eight hours, and for even longer periods, probably from 6 o'clock in the morning till 1 o'clock in the afternoon and from 1 o'clock in the afternoon in some cases till 10 o'clock. It is a sorry state that we have reached.
§ Mr. DAVIES
The right hon. Gentleman was a, little premature, and I thought his slight error in proposing the Third Reading was obliterated by the fact that the Under-Secretary had two more Amendments to move.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Third Reading was moved, not by the Home Secretary but by a Minister on the Treasury Bench.
§ Sir J. SIMON
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was proposing to move—I do not know whether he actually moved—formally that the Bill be read the Third time. I desired myself, and arranged with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be convenient, to say a few words a little later, but if there is any informality, and my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will move the Third Reading.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
There is no informality. The Third Reading has been moved. There is no need for a speech by the Mover. I called for the Third Reading, and the answer was given from the Government Bench, "Now." The Third Reading has been moved, and it is now being debated, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is in possession of the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. KELLY
I was speaking of boys and girls at the age of 16 being forced into industry to work at these hours early in the morning, and, in the case of the second shift, late at night. The Bill provides special facilities for transport, and for health. I have tried to picture what will happen in the case of London with regard to those travelling facilities. How are the young people 307 from the South-East of London, if they work in the North-West of London, to reach their employment by 6 o'clock in the morning? There is nothing here which provides that the employment may be refused unless those facilities are at the disposal of these young people. Education authorities in the great cities of this country have spent considerable sums of money in setting up evening institutes and providing facilities for the extended education of young people. They are meeting with some success, after many years of effort, and now we are faced with the position that young people who might be desirous of attending the evening institutes will be kept at work during the hours that the institutes are open in the evening. It is asking far too much to expect these young persons who are at work from 6 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and those who are at work from 1 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night, to attend these institutes.
There is also the breaking up of the domestic circle through these young people having to go to work at hours different from the hours of other members of the family. It is surprising that we should be asked to support such a Bill, or even to permit such a Bill to be enforced in the industries of this country. Surely the industrial and commercial life of this country can be carried on without having to sacrifice our young people, as will be the case under these conditions. I am amazed that we should be called upon to deal with such a Measure, and it speaks ill for the captains of industry, if they are behind this Measure, asking for it to be operated to the detriment of the young life of this country.
§ 9.19 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
As one who has been through the whole proceedings on this Bill from the beginning, I wish to say a few words on the Third Reading. It is not very long ago since I joined with others interested in factory legislation in commemorating the end of the first century of progress in that form of legislation. I do not think I am wrong in saying to-night that the passing of this Bill is the first retrograde step taken for over a century in this country in our 308 factory laws. It is to the dishonour of the House of Commons that we are now, in the year 1936, calling upon young persons of 16 years of age to turn out to work at 6 o'clock in the morning or to work until 10 o'clock at night. What is the reason for such a Bill? It is a concession to the growing speed of modern machinery, and to those who believe that they cannot compete in the markets of the world with the commodities that their factories produce. We are to-day passing a Bill such as this when, in fact, a young girl in a factory in England can produce 50 times as much goods in the same number of hours as her grandmother could produce in the same factory. The Government are taking upon themselves a great responsibility in acceding to the demands of the god of profit.
The Bill does one thing which annoys me beyond measure. In all occupations outside production there has been a growing tendency to limit the number of hours during which people work in banks, insurance offices, shops and in all commercial occupations—to start work at 9 o'clock in the morning and finish at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while on Saturday offices in the great cities of this country close almost universally at noon. The Bill, however, permits the employment of girls and boys at 16 years of age up to 2 o'clock in factories on Saturday afternoons. The right hon. Gentleman has done one thing. We have worked hard at this Measure —and the right hon. Gentleman's Under-Secretary has been very industrious in this matter—and have succeeded in obtaining one very important concession. It is right that we should say this. We have secured that the ballot to be taken by the workpeople involved shall be held in secret. That is all to the good. We are, however, still afraid of one thing, that the granting of orders in certain emergencies may indeed bring about a state of affairs, as far as the workpeople are concerned, that may be very undesirable.
The right hon. Gentleman is to set up an advisory committee. Now that we have failed to secure the inclusion of the advisory committee in the Bill, I appeal to him, in appointing the advisory committee, to have regard to one thing above all others. The people who are supposed to represent the workpeople should not 309 be some of those who say that they represent the social side of industry, but men and women who have actually experienced the difficulties of working in factories and workshops. I do not care how kindly disposed and well-intentioned anybody may be, he cannot understand what it means to have to work in a pit or a factory unless he has been there himself and has experienced the difficulties. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to bear that fact in mind.
We have failed in one respect in this Bill, and I am very sorry. There was a recommendation of the Departmental Committee, upon which the Bill is based, that where a woman or young person declined to work on the two-shift system for reasons that were good in law, such person should not be deprived of unemployment benefit. We were told that if we inserted a provision of that kind in the Bill it would upset another Act of Parliament. There was great force in that, but I appeal to the Home Secretary finally on that score, that although we have not been able to insert that provision in the Bill he will try to see that no person who declines to work the two-shift system shall be deprived of his unemployment benefit because of that.
§ 9.25 p.m.
§ Mr. MARSHALL
This Bill will be characterised by working people as the most reactionary piece of legislation introduced into this House for a large number of years. It has been stated that it will do young life irreparable harm, but I want to make a further charge against the Measure—that it will place a premium on cheap labour. That, to me, is one of its most serious aspects. We have about 2,000,000 people in this country unemployed. The most urgent thing that we want is work for them. Yet we have selected this time to extend the opportunities of employers to employ cheap labour. From that point of view I am justified in saying that it is a reactionary Measure. There is another point that we should emphasise. It is that possibly for the first time in industrial legislation we have drawn the Civil Service into industrial disputes. If one of the factory inspectors should put a firm from the one-shift to the two-shift system. there might be an industrial dispute about it. Disputes take place about matters of far less importance. We may have the position 310 in which a factory inspector will have given consent for a certain firm to employ women and young persons on the two-shift system, and there may be a strike against it, and the Government will then be in the position of taking a definite side in an industrial dispute. I hope the Home Secretary will see that in another place that Clause is eliminated.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The vigour of speech of the hon. Gentleman makes me wonder whether the real situation of this legislation in relation to our existing law is even now appreciated, and I would like, before we part with it, briefly, and I hope uncontroversially, to state what that true position is. This Bill is not a Bill that establishes the two-shift system. It is not establishing any new departure at all, good or bad. The present situation is that year by year Parliament continues an Act passed in 1920 which made provision for the two-shift system. That has taken place in every Parliament and under every Government. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they did it every year, and it is a complete confusion—which I am sure hon. Members opposite will do their best to remove from the minds of those they address—that this Bill is establishing the two-shift system. The difference between the law as it is operating now and as it will be after this Bill becomes law is this: Not that under the present law there is not a two-shift system and that this Bill establishes it to the prejudice of anybody, but that under the present law there are no provisions adequate to protect the people concerned, and that this Bill in a series of Clauses endeavours to lay down what that protection should he. There is nothing in the present law which provides for a, secret ballot. I am glad to hear with how much approval the hon. Member opposite referred to it. It was a. proposal put forward by the Government, and I am glad that it is so universally approved. It should be a secret ballot with which neither the trade unions nor anybody else can interfere, and it will be so long as I administer it. That was a flaw in the existing law, and I am glad that it is being put right.
There is nothing in the present law providing that the Home Secretary, in making an Order for the operation of the two-shift system, must procure that proper conditions are laid down for the 311 welfare of the people concerned, and provision as to their being assisted to their work. Everything in the Bill now proposed for the protection of the work-people is new, but the two-shift system is not being established by the Bill. Reject this Bill, and you will have the two-shift system as you have had it without effective protest for 16 years, and you will not have any of the protection contained in the Bill. That is the real character of this legislation.
While it is right and proper that we should discuss each provision candidly, and if necessary forcibly, I think it desirable that it should be understood once and for all that this is not a Bill which establishes a two-shift system, for the system has existed by Jaw for 16 years. It is a Bill which introduces a series of statutory conditions designed, with the help of all parties, for the purpose of protecting the workers. When with vigour and rhetoric I hear hon. Members opposite denounce this Bill as the first retrograde step for 100 years, I ask myself whether there was not a Departmental Committee on which the authorised spokesmen of labour were invited to nominate their representatives? Did they not nominate two distinguished representatives, who served on that Committee with all good faith; and did not those representatives agree with the other members of the Committee that the lines of this Bill were lines which they could approve?
§ Mr. H0LLINS
Was it not a fact that, instead of their being nominees of the trade union movement, their names were submitted by the Home Office and were merely approved?
§ Sir J. SIMON
I do not think that it would be suggested that Mr. Arthur Shaw or the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) are not persons of the greatest authority on this subject. Therefore, it cannot be said on the Third Reading of the Bill that there has been some trick in regard to the appointment of members of the Departmental Committee. The committee was appointed from people who were drawn from all quarters, and they arrived at an absolutely unanimous conclusion. The offence that has been committed by the Home Secretary, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, is that he has introduced a Bill 312 in strict accordance with the unanimous recommendations of that Departmental Committee.
There is another thing which should be put on record. These things are complicated, and some hon. Members opposite are masters of their subject, but anybody would suppose from some of the language that they have used—if we are not careful it may be used outside the House, but, of course, it will not be used when I have pointed out the mistake—that we are by this Bill inflicting upon unfortunate victims exceptionally long hours of labour in the interests of some select and favoured class of employers. Nothing of the sort is true. This is a Bill which provides, as the law for the last 16 years has provided, that under certain conditions the system of two shifts may be worked, one of which lies between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m., with an interval for meals, from Mondays to Fridays, and from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. or earlier on Saturday. I am not denying that those are considerable hours of labour, but I do not for one moment believe that the women who vote in favour of this system do not deeply appreciate the fact that it is a system which does give them, once they have completed their 'morning shift, a completely free time for the rest of the day, or if they are on the afternoon shift they have a free time until the afternoon.
These shifts alternate weekly, and that means that in a fortnight the maximum hours that are authorised will be 11 eight-hour shifts, which is equivalent to 44 hours per week, inclusive of meal times. If we take out meal times, it is something like 41¼ hours per week. Is that putting on the Statute Book some extension of the authorised working week, or is it not, in fact, much shorter than the ordinary working week? In a non-textile factory today the law provides that such persons may work 60 hours in a week, exclusive of meal times. In a textile factory they may work 55½ hours a week, exclusive of meal times, and in busy times such hours are far from being unknown. Next year, I hope that we shall have a new Factory Bill and that we shall all co-operate to bring the factory laws up to date. Hon. Members will believe me when I say that there is no one more anxious to secure their friendly co-operation than I am, or more anxious to bring the factory laws up to date. In the meantime, do not let 313 us talk nonsense, especially nonsense to ignorant people. Do not let us tell them that this Bill is a retrograde step, in that it puts upon these people much more serious legal hours of work than the existing law allows, because it does nothing of the sort.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Member may be right, but what I am inviting him and his friends to co-operate with me in doing is to make it quite plain that there is no truth in the statement that the two-shift system is imposing upon people hours of work which are beyond those which are now provided for by law. Let us at least realise that it does nothing of the kind. I agree that there have been difficulties in regard to the Bill, and we are grateful to hon. Members opposite for whatever assistance they have been able to give in regard to Amendments.
One point was raised by an hon. Member opposite with regard to new factories. Before the two-shift system is introduced into a factory which is an existing going concern, I agree that it is perfectly right that the workpeople should be consulted, but if you are dealing with a new factory, with new machinery, which may be installed for the purpose of working the two-shift system, machinery which is to be continuously run, it is, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, pointed out, extremely difficult to know how you are to consult the workpeople concerned. Are you to produce a sort of stage army of workpeople who, ex hypothesi, have not yet been employed, and get a vote from them in the name of those who are to be employed afterwards? If when a new factory is being erected at great expense and expensive machinery is being installed, you were to say to those who are the proprietors of that factory: "You must get a vote of the workpeople concerned before an authorised two-shift system may begin," you would be confronted with the difficulty as to who are the workpeople and how you are to find out who they are to be. If you attempted to get any vote under those circumstances it would be on an entirely fictitious basis. That is why the Departmental Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and Mr. Shaw said: "By all means have a plan by which you can consult the workpeople, but you cannot do it if you are setting up a new factory."
314 I think the right answer is that that situation undoubtedly means that there will be a very grave responsibility on the Secretary of State for the time being when he is making an order in regard to new works, because he will not have as much help as he would have in the case of an old works, and I shall not be at all surprised if in days to come hon. Members opposite, so long as they are in Opposition, put questions on this subject from time to time if and when they think the authorisation has been wrongly or foolishly operated.
After all the hard work which we have done, I should like to acknowledge the welcome help which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given throughout, especially when other business has kept me away. I am conscious that nobody could have done the work better, with more equable temper and more acceptably. No one is more happy in that knowledge than I am. I ackowledge his skill and help.
Now that we have reached the end of our work on the Bill, I hope that all who have a special interest in the matter will see that this proposal is not a new proposal but a proposal under which existing conditions are given a fair trial. I do not suppose we have come to the end of this story, but we have thrashed this thing out with a great deal of care. The Home Office have no politics or sides to take in it whatever, and admittedly the factory inspectors of the Home Office are one of the most impartial and finest public services in the world. I have also the knowledge behind me that those who advise me believe that this Bill is one which will make for the improvement of industrial conditions. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of anyone that we should refuse to impose these statutory protections, which do not now exist, in order to resume the hand-to-mouth habit of passing, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, these provisions every year. Therefore, after all this controversy—more controversy, I think, than might have been expected, having regard to the composition and the unanimous view of the Departmental Committee—I invite the House to approve this Bill, and I hope that those who have felt obliged, with so much vigour, though with unfailing good temper, to criticise certain features of the Bill will none the less recognise that in parting with it we 315 are parting with it with an earnest desire to serve the general interests of all concerned and to promote good industrial legislation.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 111.317
|Division No. 183.]||AYES.||[9.48 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke||Everard, W. L.||Owen, Major G.|
|Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)||Foot, D. M.||Palmer, G. E. H.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col, G. J.||Furness, S. N.||Peake, O.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Penny, Sir G.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Ganzonl, Sir J.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Apsley, Lord||Gibson, C. G.||Petherick, M.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Goldie, N. B.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Assheton, R.||Gower, Sir R. V.||Porritt, R. W.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Radford, E. A.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Griffith, F. Klngsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Grimston, R. V.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'II, N.W.)||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)||Guy, J. C. M.||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Hanbury, Sir C.||Rankin, R.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Hannah, I. C.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Blindell, Sir J.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Harbord, A.||Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Hepworth, J.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)|
|Bracken, B.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Holdsworth, H.||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Holmes, J. S.||Rowlands, G.|
|Bull, B. B.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)|
|Burghley, Lord||Horsbrugh, Florence||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Salt, E. W.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Hudson, R. S. (Southport)||Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Hunter, T.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Cary, R. A.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.||Selley, H. R.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Christie, J. A.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Kimball, L.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Leckie, J. A.||Spens, W. P.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Stourton, Hon. J. J.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Levy, T.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Lewis, O.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Critchley, A.||Llddall, W. S.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Crooke, J. S.||Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lloyd, G. W.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Cross, R. H.||Loftus, P. C.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lovat-Fraser, J, A.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Lyons, A. M.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Culverwcll, C. T.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Davies, C. (Montgomery)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)||McKie, J. H.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.|
|De Chair, S. S.||Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Magnay, T.||Wallace, Captain Euan|
|Denville, Alfred||Mander, G. le M.||Ward, Irene (Wallsend)|
|Dodd, J. S.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Waterhouse, Captain C|
|Donner, P. W.||Markham, S. F.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Dower, Capt. A. V. G.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Wells, S. R.|
|Drewe, C.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||White, H. Graham|
|Duggan, H. J.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Wickham Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H,||Wise, A. R.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Emery, J. F.||Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J|
|Entwistle, C. F.||Nall, Sir J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Ersklne Hill, A. G.||Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.||Ward and Commander Southby.|
|Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Bellenger, F.||Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)|
|Adamson, W. M.||Benson, G.||Burke, W. A.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Bevan, A.||Charleton, H. C.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Broad, F. A.||Chater, D.|
|Barr, J.||Bromfield, W.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Batey, J.||Brooke, W.||Compton, J.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||John, W.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Daggar, G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Dalton, H.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Ritson, J.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Kelly, W. T.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Rowson, G.|
|Day, H.||Kirby, B. V.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lathan, G.||Shinwell, E.|
|Ede, J. C.||Leach, W.||Short, A.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty)||Lee, F.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Leonard, W.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Gallacher, W.||Leslie, J. R.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Logan, D. G.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Garro-Jones, G. M.||Lunn, W.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Gibbins, J.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||McGhee, H. G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||McLaren, A.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Maclean, N.||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Malnwaring, W. H.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Groves, T. E.||Marklew, E.||Walker, J.|
|Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Marshall, F.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)||Messer, F.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Hardle, G. D.||Milner, Major J.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Montague, F.||Westwood, J.|
|Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Muff, G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Oliver, G. H.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Holland, A.||Paling, W.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Hollins, A.||Parker, H. J. H.||Woods, G. S, (Finsbury)|
|Hopkin, D.||Parkinson, J. A.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Jagger, J.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Potts, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Price, M. P.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.