§ Where an application is made for a grant of a pension or gratuity under Sub-section (3) of Section two of this Act such examination to determine such claim shall be made by a medical board of not less than three duly qualified medical practitioners.—[Mr. Tinker.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Sub-section (7) of Section (12) of the Police Pensions Act says:If a member of a police force or pensioner refuses or wilfully or negligently fails, when required by the police authority, to be examined by some duly qualified medical practitioner selected by that authority, the police authority may deal with him in all respects as if they were satisfied by the evidence of such a practitioner as to whether he is incapacitated for the performance or duty or, as the case may be, as to the degree of his disablement.1533 That is in the first stage of the applicant's claim. Assuming that examination has taken place, it goes on to say, in Sub-section (8):Where, for the purposes of this Section, any person is medically examined by a medical practitioner selected by the police authority, and is dissatisfied with his opinion on any medical question, he may appeal, in accordance with the rules made by the Secretary of State"—and this is the important point—to an independent person nominated by the Secretary of State.It is on that point that this Clause has been founded. We argue that, when a man's future is imperilled, and whether he is entitled to a pension or not, one man should not be the sole person to decide it. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which bears on this matter, thousands of cases were dealt with in this way which have caused great anxiety to our men. I am not questioning whether the decision is right or not, but referring to the impression left in the minds of those who appeal. Sometimes a man is examined perfunctorily, sometimes the examination takes a long time, but if the decision is against him he feels he has not had a fair deal. It would give greater satisfaction if there were three men to decide. In my own case I am not as normal on some occasions as others. It may be that the medical referee who is asked to judge a man may not be in the best of humours on that day; he may have been irritated by something and, therefore, unconsciously, he is not able to do the right thing by the man. Some men who go before the medical referee feel a sense of grievance and speak rather roughly when they are not getting satisfaction and, when one man gives a verdict against them, it leaves a feeling of irritation.
It would give much greater satisfaction to everybody concerned if we could have on the Statute Book, something like the method I have suggested, that not one man but three men shall decide whether or not a man is entitled to payment. It may be argued that they cannot always get three together but I think that several cases could be taken on the same day. Whether this is so or not, I do not think that we should burke the issue when it would give so much satisfaction to those who have to he examined. I do not know how the Home Office feel about it, but my colleagues and I have seen so many dis- 1534 satisfied people that we were determined to bring it to the notice of the Committee at the first opportunity. It may be said that this is hardly the time to bring it forward but, if we allowed this Bill to go through without some protest, we should have to admit later that when this small Measure went through we did not protest, so we have taken this opportunity of trying to persuade the Committee that it should not be left to one man but that a committee of three should judge these cases.
§ Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)
I desire to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in his contention that the Home Office should accept the new Clause standing in the names of himself and two other hon. Members. We are very often exhorted in the progress of legislation through this Assembly to let history teach us. On this occasion, I submit that we ought to let experience guide us in the future legislation which will affect the livelihood of men in the Police Force.
In our experience, since the passing of the Compensation Acts of 1906 and 1925, where we had to submit all cases in dispute as to partial or full incapacity to medical referees, we have found—and I am not saying this disrespectfully about the medical profession—a great deal of which we can complain. Invariably, when a man is referred to a medical referee, he carries with him all the medical evidence surrounding his accident, or it is sent to the medical referee so that when the man appears before him he has most of the evidence. Then he examines the man, but invariably we find that if one man has to determine the destiny of the workman or the policeman, whoever it may be, a feeling of dissatisfaction prevails in the mind of the man that he is not getting a fair deal. Therefore in place of a medical referee we would like a medical board consisting of three highly qualified medical men. The hon. Member for Leigh may not agree with me, but I would suggest that one of the three should be the man's own doctor, in order that he may be able to put all the medical evidence before the board to assist the man getting a square deal.
It will be remembered that in 1919 there was a departmental committee, known to us on this side as the Holman Gregory Committee, and when evidence 1535 was submitted to that Committee, there was a very strong desire on the part of many witnesses, in the light of experience from 1906 onwards, that a medical board should take the place of the medical referee. Since 1925 our experience in that direction is even greater and we are convinced, whether it applies only 'to a small section of the community or to a large section, that we ought to see that the injured workman or the injured police officer gets a fair and square deal from the medical profession. It is on those grounds that I strongly support the hon. Member for Leigh in his desire to get placed on the Statute Book the provision of a medical board, one Member of which should, I think, consist of the man's own doctor in order that, when he submits himself for examination, he will have the consolation of having had a fair deal from the hands of the medical profession.
§ Mr. Foster (Wigan)
I wish to support this new Clause because of the principle involved in it. As has been stated, we have had considerable experience of dealing with cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts which have been referred to a medical referee—the usual procedure laid down in those Acts. I venture to say that neither the Home Secretary nor the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs is satisfied with that procedure. As a matter of fact, when the contemplated new Workmen's Compensation Bill is introduced in the House, I am certain that all those who have had experience of medical referees will try to have this principle embodied in that Bill. Generally speaking, the referee who is appointed is a man not even as well qualified perhaps as the workman's doctor, or the employer's doctor for that matter, to judge the facts. What happens under the Workmen's Compensation Act? The workman obtains a medical certificate setting out the opinion of the doctor as to the cause of his condition, and the employer also obtains a medical report. Those two reports are submitted to a medical referee who gives his decision upon them, which is final under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no appeal against that decision and there is general dissatisfaction amongst injured workmen because of what they consider to be an unfair decision by the medical referee. As a matter of fact many cases 1536 could be quoted where a medical referee has decided that the workman has wholly recovered from the injury and is fit for his ordinary employment, yet that workman has broken down from that injury, and subsequent X-ray examinations have proved that he had not wholly recovered. The fact that he broke down when he attempted to resume work proves that was the case. Not that one is in any way casting reflections upon the medical profession, but that it is a question of whether the medical referee who examines a man has sufficient knowledge of the history of the case, and whether he can properly diagnose the cause of the trouble.
I do not think I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Tom Brown) that one of the three members of the proposed medical board should be the workman's doctor. In effect, that would reduce the board to two, for the practice now is to have three doctors—the workman's doctor and the employer's doctor to make reports, and the medical referee to decide on the evidence given in those reports. Therefore I would prefer three fully qualified medical men and surgeons who thoroughly understand the particular case referred to them. Owing to the general dissatisfaction prevailing in regard to medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we have attempted on occasions to try to have certain medical referees removed through the Home Office but we have never succeeded. I remember one case where the medical referee on industrial diseases gave so many decisions against the workmen that we took action to try to have him removed because he was going mental. Ultimately he did go mental, but, in the development stage of this mental instability, he was still acting as medical referee, and we were having any number of cases turned down. What I have just stated is no exaggeration.
In conclusion, I want to appeal to the Under-Secretary to have regard to the principle we are putting forward. I am certain it would give general satisfaction to the workman when he comes to be examined. If I may say so, the Home Office have accepted the principle in respect of a medical board on silicosis and pneumonoconiosis, because the medical board which certifies those cases is composed of three doctors who make a 1537 thorough investigation not only into the industrial history but into the medical history of the case, before they reach their decision. I feel sure that if that principle could be accepted in this Bill it would result in justice being done to the injured workman, or at least the opportunity for justice would be far greater than if the decision is left to one doctor. Doctors, like lawyers, differ. If you submit a case to one doctor he diagnoses something different from another doctor, and it is just the same if you take legal opinion. I am certain that it is much better to have the opinions of three men on these questions rather than of one, and it is because of those reasons that I support the new Clause.
§ Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)
I would like to add a few words on this subject, which is familiar to all those who know the mining industry. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) has said, that perturbation has been caused by some of the decisions given by medical referees. We had one case where a man was certified for work. There were no grounds for appeal; the decision of the referee was final. Yet at the time we were making that appeal the man was back in hospital for a further amputation of a limb which had been injured. We shall be very disappointed with the new compensation proposals, when they come along, if the principle of a board is not accepted, because this principle has been accepted since the war started. We do not send men into the Services on the medical examination by one man alone. We laid it down that people should go before medical boards. If a man going into the Services has to go before such a board surely it is not unreasonable to ask that he should do so when it is a question of a pension. The only difference is that one is going in and that the other is going out.
We are not impugning the medical profession, but it is most unfair that the future of a man should be put into the hands of one medical referee. In matters of compensation we know that the doctors are handicapped by the law. The condition of the man, when he goes before the medical referee, is that which determines the issue of a certificate. It is not given to every man in the medical profession, however highly skilled he may be, to be able to take the responsibility 1538 of making a final decision in these matters. I appeal to the Under-Secretary not to tell us that this principle is too big to be inserted in this Bill, because we are of the opinion that it is never too soon to begin this principle.
§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
I am sure that we all welcome this Bill because it brings relief to people who have been deserving of it for a very long time. I hope the Under-Secretary, if he is not in a position to give a favourable reply on this point now, will, at least, consider it, because a vital principle is at stake. I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been used by hon. Friends, but this practice of giving judicial power to one man—for that is what it means—is very old, and has never been accepted as satisfactory. Most of us could keep the Committee for a very long time giving our experiences of how very unjust and unfair it is to ask one medical man to give a decision in these matters, however honest the doctor may be—and we are making no charges against them at all. One of the worst examples which ever came before me as a trade union officer, and the worst case I ever heard of, concerned a man who was declared to be completely recovered from an accident, but who was subsequently found to have a fractured spine. That case could not legally be re-opened but the employer at once admitted that a grave mistake had been made, the case was re-opened and a settlement arrived at, although, in law, the man had no grounds for such action being taken. If a judge has a case before him in which there are difficult medical aspects it is seldom that he decides to give a decision without fortifying himself with expert medical evidence. Sometimes two medical experts are consulted. At some time in the not too distant future we hope that this whole question will be considered in another connection, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on his usual Parliamentary vigilance in seeing that this did not go unchallenged.
We live in days of medical specialisation; there is a growing number of men in the medical profession who give special attention to special disabilities or diseases. Medical boards are composed of men with varying experience. Generally speaking, a sense of injustice is 1539 caused to the average man who says, "Why should one doctor alone decide my fate and my future?" I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) is the only member of the medical profession in the Committee at the moment, and I am quite certain that he would never claim that his colleagues have so much knowledge of all the disabilities which man is heir to that they can come to a final decision on these matters by themselves. I see that my hon. Friend supports me, and if South Wales and North Wales can join together then I do not think the Under-Secretary will be able to refuse our plea. We shall never be content with a system by which the fate of any one person in the country is put into the hands of one other person, however eminent he may be.
§ Sir George Hume (Greenwich)
I hope the Home Office will pay serious attention to the arguments which have been put forward to-day. Those of us who are in close touch with our constituents have often realised what strange decisions are sometimes come to by medical practitioners. How many men and women have been graded A.1 and taken into the Services who, in the course of a few days or weeks, have shown that they are very far from being in that position? The time is coming when a man's whole future should not be allowed to depend on a decision taken by only one man. Such a practice is not fair or right and leads to a tremendous amount of discontent.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of three of my hon. Friends, who have been long and honourably connected with the mining industry in Lancashire, I must admit that the idea crossed my mind that, possibly, the subject of workmen's compensation-would be mentioned. This Bill deals with a small and limited class of persons, namely, members of police or fire services who have joined His Majesty's Forces and who, in the course of their service, meet with disability or death. While I am not in the least surprised that my hon. Friends should take an interest in these cases I felt quite sure that they had rather wider issues at the back of their minds.
1540 This Amendment would provide that in place of the single medical referee, who at present adjudicates on medical issues under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, there should be a medical board of three members, not in all cases of police or firemen, but in those cases to whom this Bill applies, that is to say, the members of those services who have joined His Majesty's Forces during the war, and in regard to whom the question of granting a pension as policemen or firemen subsequently arises. It is quite obvious that you could not limit the operation of an Amendment of this character only to the police or fire services. If such an Amendment were introduced into this Bill there would have to be further amending legislation dealing with the principal Acts affecting the pensions of policemen and firemen.
§ Mr. Peake
My hon. Friends referred to the comparison with the procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I would draw their attention to one or two differences between that and the procedure under the Police Pensions Acts. In the first place, medical issues under the Police Pensions Acts are referred to a medical referee who is appointed by the Home Secretary to deal with a particular case. There is no medical referee, under the Acts dealing with police or firemen, who holds an appointment as such. An individual referee is appointed to deal with an individual case and I feel quite sure that if there was exception taken on any reasonable grounds to a particular referee who had been appointed my right hon. Friend would pay attention to the representations of the Police Federation or any other body concerned in the matter. That is the big distinction. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts you have particular medical referees appointed for particular areas to deal with particular classes of cases and those referees hold their appointments year after year so that hon. Members get to know their individual methods of handling cases.
§ Mr. J. Griffiths
Suppose a doctor was appointed and he felt that the case had some features on which he would like to consult one or two other medical men. Is it clear that he would be at liberty to bring them in to assist him?
§ Mr. Peake
What is clear is that the referee under the Police and Firemen's Pensions Acts is appointed ad hoc. A man specially suitable to deal with the particular case is selected by the Home Secretary and further—this is an important point—the man's own doctor is invariably allowed to be present, if he desires, at the examination by the medical referee.
§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)
If his own doctor is a panel doctor, could he spare the time to go?
§ Mr. Peake
No. I was pointing out the difference in procedure under the Police and Firemen's Pensions Acts and the existing practice under workmen's compensation. There is the further difference that these difficult technical issues in connection with industrial disease do not, generally speaking, arise in the case of policemen and firemen disabled in the course of their duties. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the diseases of pneumoconiosis and silicosis. As far as I am aware we have not yet had a case of a policeman, even one standing at a very dusty point, contracting pneumoconiosis, and these difficult technical issues of medical science do not, generally speaking, arise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Suppose they do?"] Then, of course, a special medical referee is appointed. The existing system has worked well. It has been in operation, so far as the police are concerned, since 1921. I do not think anyone would demur from the proposition that, generally speaking, the opinion of three medical men is rather better than the opinion of one medical man.
At the same time the Act deals with a very limited class of case and at this 1542 moment, as we all know, the medical profession is working under very great pressure. I do not think it would be the moment to increase by three times the number of doctors required to sit on these medical references. The point has been present to our minds in drawing up the scheme of workmen's compensation which is going to be described in a White Paper to be issued very shortly. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is unable to anticipate his Budget, I cannot, of course, anticipate what that White Paper is going to contain. I can say, however, for the reassurance of hon. Members that this point has been duly noted before and what they have said will be duly noted again, and the White Paper will, of course, contain as many features pleasing to all concerned as it is possible to incorporate. I hope with that explanation the Amendment will not be pressed at this stage.
§ Mr. Reakes (Wallasey)
Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the principle remains the same whether it affects a small minority or a large majority? Further, is he prepared to tell the Committee that he believes in the infallibility of any single doctor or specialist?
§ Mr. Peake
I have already said that, broadly speaking, we all accept the proposition that the opinion of three medical men is better than the opinion of one, but that this is not the time, owing to the pressure under which the medical profession is working, to introduce this change in a very limited class of case.
§ Mr. Reakes
The fact that it is a limited section does not alter the fact that the principle is important, and an important principle is applicable to a minority to the same extent as to a majority. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to assure the Committee that he believes in the infallibility of any single doctor or specialist, he should be prepared to recommend support of the suggestion put forward by hon. Members.
§ Mr. Tinker
I must take this to a Division. I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He says it is a small matter and the Government want to deal with big issues, but the principle ought to be established that three is far better than one. If the principle is accepted, the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the opinion of the Committee. The whole of his speech is in favour of it. This is one of the occasions when I think the Home Office ought to accept the wish of the Committee and make a change in what has been the established custom for a long time. It does not mean much to the Government but it means much to workmen and I must test the opinion of the Committee.
§ Mr. Baxter
I hope this will not be pressed to a Division. The Under-Secretary has stated the case clearly and very effectively. The strain upon the medical service makes this addition an unwise thing. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has often been fair and wise in not making an artificial division, and we should accept what the Under-Secretary has said.
§ Mr. J. Griffiths
We expect that we are going to have legislation in the near future in connection with workmen's compensation and we take it for granted that the single medical referee is going to disappear.
|Division No. 20.||AYES.|
|Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)||Guy, W. H.||Shinwell, E.|
|Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Sloan, A.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Kendall, W. D.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Brown, W J. (Rugby)||Kirkwood, D.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Buchanan, G.||Mack, J. D.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Charleton, H. C.||MacLaren, A.||Thorne, W|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Dunn, E.||Mathers, G.||White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Foster, W.||Maxton, J.|
|Gallacher, W.||Montague, F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Glanville, J. E.||Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)||Mr. G. L. Reakes and|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Oldfield, W. H.||Mr. J. J. Tinker.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)||Ritson, J.|
|Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'der's)||Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.|
|Adamson, W. M, (Cannock)||Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.||Douglas, F. C. R.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh).||Brooke, H. (Lewisham)||Dower, Ll.-Col. A. V. G.|
|Apsley, Lady||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Bull, B. B.||Eccles, D. M.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Burden, T. W.||Ede, J. C.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Cadogan, Major Sir E.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Beechman, N, A.||Castlereagh, Viscount||Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Beit, Sir A. L.||Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.||Emmott, C. E. G. C.|
|Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)||Cobb, Captain E. C.||Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Benson, G.||Colman, H. C. D.||Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)|
|Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)||Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Findlay, Sir E.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Culverwell, C. T.||Furness, S. N.|
|Boulton, W. W.||De Chair, Capt. S. S.||Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.|
|Bower, Norman (Harrow)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Gammans, Capt. L. D.|
|Bower, [...]dr. R. T. (Cleveland)||Denville, Alfred||Gates, Major E, E.|
§ If so, it will be an anomaly to retain him in this Bill.
§ Mr. Peake
I should like to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I am aware of what is in hon. Members' minds in regard to workmen's compensation and the forthcoming White Paper. We shall do all we can in the White Paper to please them, but I cannot go further at present and I ask hon. Members not to carry this to a Division. The members of the police and fire services are really not dissatisfied with the existing position. So far as I am aware, they have not asked for this feature to be incorporated and it will be a great mistake to go to a Division upon a matter in which the position is not unsatisfactory to those immediately concerned.
§ Mr. T. Brown
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a promise straight from the shoulder that he will incorporate a board in place of a referee in subsequent legislation?
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 140.
|Graham, Captain A. C.||MacDonald, Sir Murdock (Inverness)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Grant-Ferris, Wing Commander R.||Macdonald, Captain Peter (1. of W.)||Silkin, L.|
|Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||McEntee, V. La T.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Greenwell, Col, T. G.||McEwen, Capt. J H. F.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||McKie, J. H.||Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.|
|Hail, W. G. (Colne Valley)||Magnay, T.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.||Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver|
|Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Storey, S.|
|Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-||Mellor, Sir J. S. P.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Higgs, W. F.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Mitchell, Colonel H. P.||Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.|
|Hogg, Hon Q. McG.||Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)||Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)||Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)|
|Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)||Muff, G.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Turton, R. H.|
|James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.||Ilfeld, Major B. E.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|John, W.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.|
|Keir, Mrs. Cazalet||Petherick, M.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Key, C. W.||Peto, Major B. A. J.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)|
|Leigh, Sir J.||Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Price, M. P.||Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Levy, T.||Proctor, Major H. A.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)|
|Lewis, O.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wootton-Davies, J. H.|
|Liddall, W. S.||Rankin, Sir R.||York, Major C.|
|Linstead, H. N.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Loftus, P. C.||Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—|
|Longhurst, Captain H. C.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Mr. L. R. Pym and Mr. C. Drewe|
|McCorquodale, Malcolm S.||Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)|
§ Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.