§ Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question proposed [14th June] on Order read for Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), "That the words 'the former Committee' be inserted in the Main Question, as amended":—
§ Which Amendment was, to leave out the words "the former," and to insert instead thereof the words "a Select,"— [Sir Frederick Banbury.]
§ Question again proposed, "That the words 'the former' stand part of the Question."
§ Mr. FELLWe had a very considerable discussion last Friday on this question to which Committee the Bill should be recommitted. I am not sure whether the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth), or that of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), had most favour, but I think it is approaching the time when we might come to some decision on this question, because there is a large number of important Amendments to be considered, and a good many more have been put down since last Friday, so it is evidently a matter which excites great interest, and the sooner we get to the discussion of the Amendments on the Bill the better. I hope we may now come to a decision.
§ Sir GODFREY BARINGI hope the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will see his way to withdraw his Amendment which he had great difficulty in supporting. To recommit the Bill to a Select Committee would involve a great deal of expense and waste of the time of those who have given evidence, and the hon. Baronet was unable to show any reason why a matter of this kind, which had been laboriously investigated by a Select Committee, should be sent back. Under the circumstances I am sure we may appeal to him to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI shall be very pleased to withdraw my Amendment, but I do not think the speech in which the hon. Gentleman asked me to withdraw was couched in a very conciliatory tone. I do not know whether he meant it, but I disagree with him altogether when he says I am not able to advance an argument in favour of it or that I did not advance 2005 an argument in favour of it on the former occasion. I may not have convinced the hon. Gentleman, but that is not my fault. It is the fault of the hon. Gentleman, who either was not attending or did not understand the subject. I certainly convinced all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, if not some on the other side. However, I shall be very pleased to withdraw on the understanding that the hon. Member withdraws his.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am willing to respond to the appeal of the hon. Baronet, but I think it is necessary to remind the House of the position in which this discussion was left. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that we have had sufficient discussion, but on this particular Amendment they voted against the Closure. If that meant anything at all, it meant that hon. Members opposite thought there should be a considerable amount of discussion. We on this side thought the point had been exhausted. I did not rise to address the House at all, and the discussion was almost wholly confined to hon. Members opposite. They telephoned and hunted about for Members, and then when the Closure was moved on this very point they voted against it. We on this side followed the lead of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill who moved the Closure, but we were met in the Lobby by the whole force of the Opposition, who endeavoured to make this a party vote. On reflection they found that they made a false move, and now they have abandoned their point. They are anxious to discuss the Bill now on the Report stage. I would assent to the appeal made to me if we could get the assent of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne) who informed the House last Friday that the Bill had not been considered in any practical way by the Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet has masked leave to withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment, and the question now before the House is whether the House will give leave. If the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) objects he is entitled to do so, but he must confine his remarks to that point.
§ Mr. BOOTHMy point is that we all ought to withdraw our Amendments and then proceed with the Report stage of the Bill. I want an assurance that, if we withdraw our Amendments as to procedure, we shall be allowed the opportunity of dealing with the Bill on the Report stage 2006 in a proper way, in order that we may make up for the deficiency of discussion on the part of the Committee upstairs to which the Noble Lord called attention on Friday last.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs it the pleasure of the House that the proposed Amendment be withdrawn?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI rather regret the step taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) in accepting the suggestion to withdraw his Amendment. The Amendment if put to the vote would be carried, and the Bill would be recommitted to the Committee upstairs, where all the Amendments on the Paper could be considered. That seems to me to be the only satisfactory way of getting these Amendments considered. If they are considered in the full House on the Report stage on a Friday afternoon, there can be no doubt that they will not receive consideration on their merits. They will only be discussed with the view to the Bill which stands next on the Order Paper (Housing of the Working Classes Bill) being prevented from coming forward. I submit that is not the proper way in which the Amendments should be considered. Surely we do not wish to repeat the absurd example we gave to the country last Friday. Hon. Members have put pages of Amendments on the Paper, but we know perfectly well their only object is to prolong discussion up to five o'clock, when they hope that the Bill will go through.
§ Sir G. BARINGIs the hon. Gentleman entitled to go into the whole of the proceedings on Friday last in connection with the question now before the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI rather deprecate the raking up of these matters. Hon. Members on both sides are anxious to withdraw their Amendments, and I venture to suggest that, if the Amendments on the Paper are to be dealt with on both sides, that should be done in an amicable manner and in such a way as will enable the House to get on with the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think it is rather important that this matter should be discussed. Here are those who are anxious to preserve the rights of private Members, and who are anxious to put an end to the silly sort of game we had last 2007 Friday. If this Bill is sent to the Committee upstairs, we have every chance of getting to work to-day on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. That is a Bill which has secured a great deal of support outside the House of Commons, and it is one which the vast majority of this House wish to see passed into law. The Committee spent a dozen days upon it, and we have made it a useful Bill, but because a few Members on both sides object to the measure, they wish to occupy time in discussing the Bill now before the House. This Bill is to be used to block the other measure, and therefore I hope that the House will vote that it should be recommitted to the Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. KINGI wish to support the view taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood). Does the House expect that if we go on with the Report stage of this Bill at once we shall get through ten pages of Amendments? We may get through them at five minutes before five, but let us be sincere if we really want to do something practical to-day. The only way to do that is to send this Bill back to the Committee and to proceed at once to deal with the housing question.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDIt seems to me that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) amounts almost to an insult to the Committee. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne), in a cryptic speech which he delivered a week ago, and which takes up thirteen columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, pointed out how utterly absurd it was to propose that the
§ Bill should be recommitted to the same Committee. To send the Bill back to that Committee would be practically to pass a vote of censure on them and to declare that they had done their work in such an absolutely unsatisfactory way that they ought to do it over again. It would be far better to send the Bill to a Select Committee than to the Committee that formerly considered it.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTIn reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. John Ward), it seems to me a far more effective vote of censure on the Committee to retain the enormous number of Amendments which appear to-day on the Paper. I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) in his argument that we should not consider this Bill in its details, but should proceed to the Housing Bill. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Bill, but I may express the hope that we on this side of the House shall not be guilty of any obstruction to that Bill.
§ Mr. MARTINrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would appeal to hon. Members not to continue this rather futile Debate. I may remind the House that this is the last Friday which is given to private Members, and I would assure them that they are really staking their chances in the future of keeping Fridays, and devoting them to some useful purpose. I would suggest to them that the time has come to take a decision on the matter.
§ Question put, "That the words 'the former Committee' be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 87.
2009| Division No. 105.] | AYES. | [12.30 p.m. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Harris, Henry Percy | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Thynne, Lord Alexander v |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Macpherson, James Ian | Watt, Henry A. |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Munro, R. | Whyte, A. F. |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Wedgwood and Mr. King. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cripps, Sir C. A. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Crooks, William | Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Crumley, Patrick | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Doris, W. | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Essex, Richard Walter | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Fell, Arthur | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Goldstone, Frank | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Gretton, John | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Clough, William | Gulland, John W. | Jones, William (Caernarvonshire) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Martin, J. | Sheehy, David |
| Joyce, Michael | Mason, David M, (Coventry) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Keating, M. | Mooney, J. J. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Kelly, Edward | Morton, Alpheas Cleophas | Summers, James Woolley |
| Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Muldoon, John | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | O'Doherty, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| teach, Charles | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Webb, H. |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lundon, T. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Winfrey, Richard |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| McCallum, Sir John M. | Pointer, Joseph | |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Lansbury and Lord Robert Cecil. |
§ Remaining words omitted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe original Question was, "That the Bill be re-committed." To put those words would not make sense, and therefore I assume the House will negative that.
§ Question, "That the Bill be re-committed" put, and negatived.
§ Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to move that the following new Clause (to be inserted after Clause 1) be read a second time:-