§ (1) Section fifteen of the principal Act shall be read as if the following Subsections were substituted for Sub-sections (2) and (3) thereot:—
§ "(2) Every lessor shall, on the determination of a lease the original term of which exceeded twenty-one years, deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the particulars of the land and the estimated value of the benefit (if any) accruing to the lessor by the determination of the lease.
§ "(3) If any person who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this Section fails to deliver such an account within a period of three months after the determination of the lease, he shall he liable to pay to His Majesty a sum not exceeding ten per cent. upon the amount of any Reversion Duty payable under this Act, or, if no such duty is payable, ten 2074 pounds and the like penalty for every three months after the first month during which the failure continues."
§ Several hon. Members had given notice of a Motion to postpone Clause 8 till after Clause 11.
The CHAIRMANWith regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) and others to postpone Clause 8 till after Clause 11, I ought to point out that a Motion to postpone a Clause ought to be to postpone it to the end of the other Clauses and not till a particular place in the Bill. I apprehend, however, that its purpose is to ask the Government for a statement with regard to the further Clauses of the Bill. That would not be in order on a Motion to postpone the Clause, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should substitute for it a Motion to report Progress.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I make this Motion in order to ascertain the position in which we stand. I may say that my hon. Friends and I have put down the Motion which stands on the Paper in order to raise at the earliest moment the question of the attitude which hon. Members of the Opposition in particular are taking upon Clause 11. Our position has been plain and simple from the outset. We have made it perfectly clear that we hold strong views in favour of Clause 11. We regard it as the most important Clause in the Bill, and it is the only one for which we have any desire. It was in view of the importance of Clause 11 from our point of view that we raised no objection on the Second Reading and that the Second Reading was obtained very easily. When the measure came up for the Committee stage the same thing happened. We raised practically no objection to it. I took the opportunity of pointing out that we regarded Clause 11 as an extremely important Clause, and, owing to the impression we received from what was said on both those occasions, we practically raised no objection to the other Clauses, and not only was the Second Reading passed, but Clauses 1 to 7 were also obtained. I think our impressions were quite justified by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). It will be within the recollection of the House that when the Bill came up for 2075 Second Reading, instead of the Speaker calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he called upon the hon. and gallant Member, who raised no point of Order till after he had spoken eleven or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He then raised a point of Order with reference to Clause 6. On that Mr. Speaker pointed out that, when he called on the hon. Member, he thought he had intended to raise a point of Order, and it was obviously inconvenient to raise a point of Order in the middle of a speech. The point of Order that had been raised was with reference to Clause 6. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:—
That is my point. My hope was that it would not affect the existence of the Bill or the Clause.Thereupon Mr. Speaker again said:—It is not desirable to introduce points of Order like this. It will be better for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the hon. Gentleman in the course of his later reply.Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman again said:—There is also a point of Order on Clause 11. I do not know whether or not it will be proper to raise it now.I ask the House to remember that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said this after he had already spoken ten or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Mr. Speaker thereupon added: —It is more convenient, as I indicated just now, not to have points of Order put in the middle of a speech, but at the beginning. I waited for some little time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to see whether he was going to raise his points, but he did not. Preliminary objections of this sort should be taken before the Debate proceeds.Then Mr. Pretyman rejoined:—I thought, Sir, it was better to raise it when I came to the Clause."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th July, 1913, col. 320.The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with Clause 11, later on, with the question of what I may call the retrospective period in the matter of improvements, indicated that it might be possible to give an extension from thirty years to fifty years. In these circumstances we, on these benches, had no doubt about the Clause being safe. A similar course was taken when we came to the beginning of the Committee stage. There, again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved to report Progress in order to put himself in order to deal with various points. He asked about Clause 11 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on coming to that Clause, in view of the criticisms passed during the Second Reading Discussion, it might pos- 2076 sibly be it was not a fair limit, more especially so far as drainage was concerned, and their present view was that they might extend it to fifty years. To that the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) said, "Not enough." My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that that was all he had to say at present, but he gave an indication that there must be a record made of the improvements for fifty years. There is one other point to which I would like to, call the attention of the House and it was the concluding observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in which he said he only desired to indicate to the House and to ask whether the Clause was within the scope of the Bill. We understood naturally that the Clause might be considered safe subject to the Amendments foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend, but in view of what has happened since then on this Clause, it seems not improbable that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends will ask that it be dropped. In these circumstances it is only right to raise the question at the outset, and while I have no authority to speak for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, the Chairman of the Land Values Group, I do say for myself, and I think I can say it for him and his Friends, that we regard this Clause as a very important Clause and as, indeed, a Clause which is the saving of the Bill. We can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, if they think that by taking the course they are taking they are going to get the particular Clause they want and to drop the particular Clause we want—
The CHAIRMANA question of this sort is only allowable to draw a statement from the Government, and not to raise questions of general controversy. We cannot allow a Second Reading Debate.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI bow to your ruling. I will put the matter in this way: We really want to know what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this Clause. We have all along regarded it as an integral part of the Bill, and if it is the desire of this House that this Bill should pass, our desire is that Clause 11 should be in it. We should like to be assured that the Government are prepared to regard Clause 11 as an integral part of the Bill and to insist upon it as well as on the other Clauses. That is the question my hon. Friend and I wish to raise. We see breakers ahead, and we consider ourselves bound to take those steps which any Members of this House naturally 2077 would take to frustrate a proposal such as would appear from the Opposition Press to be contemplated in certain quarters. Our object is to secure Clause 11 being retained in this Bill. We want the Government to regard it as part and parcel of the measure, and if they will do that we see no difficulty in the Bill passing very shortly.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNot with the Clause as it now stands.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI do not say necessarily as it stands, because my right hon. Friend has foreshadowed an extension from thirty years to fifty years, but I would suggest that it be passed subject to certain small and not unreasonable Amendments which have been indicated. We want to know whether or not we can have the Clause in substance. It is because of rumours that we have heard on this point that I am rising to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of telling the Committee exactly how matters stand at the earliest posible moment.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. I think it is rather for the Government to ask him and his Friends what their intentions are with regard to this Bill. It is perfectly clear the Bill can only pass as a non-contentious measure. Anyone looking at the Order Paper, and seeing about thirty pages of Amendments, must realise that if hon. Members who have put the Amendments down intend to persist in them it will be quite impossible to carry the Bill. The Prime Minister three weeks ago, in making his statement with regard to the business it was intended to proceed with, made it quite clear to the House that this Bill could only be treated as a non-contentious measure. There was a great deal of pressure brought to bear by both sides of the House upon him to get the Bill through, but the right hon. Gentleman, while promising to find some little time, indicated on that occasion that he could not find time for a Parliamentary struggle to be prolonged over several days. The Revenue Bill is a Bill which lends itself to such a struggle. You can move Amendments to every part, and to every law which affects the collection of the revenue of this country, and you could cover the Order Paper with even more Amendments that the ingenuity of my hon. Friends has enabled them to 2078 devise. What I would like to elicit before this Debate goes on is whether it is intended to treat Clause 11, on the one hand, as contentious or, on the other hand, to treat its omission as contentious. I had some discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I told him quite clearly that the Bill cannot go through if there is any opposition to any part. I do not mean to say if there are Amendments which can be discussed shortly, but if any part of the Bill is to be treated as really contentious we cannot possibly get it through. The hon. and gallant Gentleman intimated that, if Clause 11 were dropped, he would not regard the remainder of the Bill as contentious, subject to certain Amendments being made in other parts.
I understood from my hon. Friends sitting below the Gangway that they did not consider Clause 11 as satisfying their requirements at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) bears me out in that view. As a matter of fact, a letter appeared from the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, which criticised the Clause and showed that, from their point of view, it was not regarded as satisfactory at all. Seeing that hon. Members on this side of the House who pressed the Government were not satisfied with the Clause, and seeing that hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed the Clause, 1 thought there would be the most perfect unanimity about dropping it. When the first intimation was given that the Clause was to be dropped, at once its merits were appreciated. It is a little belated to discover merits in the Clause. I entered into an arrangement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I took it that it was a Clause which did not commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, and that it was not a Clause the beauties of which were appreciated by my hon. Friends below the Gangway. Inasmuch as I discovered that the rest of the Bill commended itself to the vast majority of the Members of the House, I thought the best thing to do was to carry the Bill through seeing that it was late in the Session without the Clause, I will not call it the obnoxious Clause, but the Clause which was not acceptable to anyone. That was the arrangement I made. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds me to it, I shall stand by it. I regard it as a Parliamentray arrangement, and I must stand by it. I could not go back upon it. Therefore, 2079 the position is this: If Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by the Opposition, the Bill cannot go through, and if the dropping of Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by my hon. Friends, there again the Bill must be dropped. My suggestion is this. I do not despair, even now of passing the Bill, seeing that the bulk of it commends itself to every section in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, I think I can say that the bulk of the Bill commends itself to the vast majority. I think that is true of both sides. I know that certain of my hon. Friends rather protest against parts of the Bill, because they think I have gone too far in the direction of concessions. I promised Clause 11, or something of this sort, earlier in the Session, and definitely promised it. I thought I had redeemed that promise. My hon. Friends do not think I have done so. I never thought it possible to carry through a contentious Revenue Bill late in the Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite think it ought to have been introduced earlier in the Session. That is a criticism which hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to put forward. That is another matter, which raises issues of a very different character, that do not appear to be in order upon this particular Motion. What I suggest is this: That the Motion to report Progress should be assented to. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can see his way to reconsider his decision with regard to Clause 11, I must be held to the arrangement I made with him, and I stand by it. Therefore, it rests with him, so far as I understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "And with your hon. Friends."] I have so put it to them. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I have put it before them. I suggest that Progress should be reported and that we should go on with the next business, and during the next twenty-four hours—
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERWill you take this Bill to-morrow?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think it will be easy to take it to-morrow. For the moment we will put it down for tomorrow in the hope that during the next twenty-four hours reason will prevail on both sides, and that we may be able to arrive at some decision. I do not want to tie the hon. and gallant Gentleman at this point. I am sure he is quite prepared—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman made that agreement himself.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, no. The right hon. Gentleman is a little too sharp there, if I may say so. I do not think he has been reasonable in regard to Clause 11, but I do not want to discuss that. I am in the hands of the Opposition. They were in a position to dictate terms so far as the Bill was concerned, and I accepted them. I do not think I can say that the attitude of the Opposition is a reasonable one. I cannot discuss that now, because it is not relevant to the Motion. For the moment; I can do nothing except to assent to the Motion, because it is unreasonable to go on ploughing through the Amendments. I suppose most of them are in order, and it would be possible to move an interminable series of Amendments which would be in order. We should only be wasting time to proceed at this stage. Therefore I assent, on behalf of the Government, to the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly put his finger on the Government's weak place when he remarked that these difficulties were largely due to the time of the Session at which the Revenue Bill has now been introduced. This is what we always contended would occur. The real difficulty with which we are faced is not the difficulty raised by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, nor the difficulty raised from this side of the House; it is the difficulty of time. For that the Government are wholly responsible, and they cannot divest themselves of their responsibility. I want to make that point perfectly clear. As to the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him, the right hon. Gentleman, most unjustly, as he knows perfectly well, has not put the case fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not wish to put it higher than that he has not put the case fairly when he indicates to the House, as I think he did indicate, that the whole of the opposition to Clause 11 proceeds from this side of the House. He is perfectly well aware that there is a large section of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to Clause 11 just as strongly as we do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Can the 2081 Chancellor of the Exchequer deny that? He does not deny it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf I did not say so, I meant to say so. I was under the impression that I had said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did say so."]
§ Mr. PRETYMANI listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer most carefully, and if he did say so I do not think the House understood it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer threw the whole onus as to the opposition to Clause 11 upon me personally, and upon the Opposition.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am perfectly certain that I said it was a Clause which did not seem to be acceptable in any quarter of the House.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYou laid all the blame upon us.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. On the contrary, I said that my hon. Friends below the Gangway objected to it, and I quoted a letter about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something, and I said it did not appear to me that it was acceptable in any quarter of the House.
§ Mr. PRETYMANUp to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I have no quarrel with him, but in the last phrase he used he repeated two or three times words which were intended to throw the whole onus of the opposition to Clause 11 upon this side of the House. I will therefore bring him back to what be said in the earlier part of his speech, in which he stated that on both sides of the House there was serious objection to Clause 11. Let us put it on that ground, which is fairer to everyone in the House. So far as the rest of the Revenue Bill is concerned, it deals with particular hardships, which are recognised as hardships on both sides of the House, arising out of particular cases under the Land Taxes of the Finance Act, 1909–10. Amendments have been agreed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Gentlemen which meet with almost universal approval on both sides of the House. These Amendments are uncontroversial in this sense, that we have undertaken on this side of the House that where an Amendment is not accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however desirable we may think it, we will confine ourselves to shortly stating our case; we shall not press them, and we shall do nothing, in regard 2082 to our desire for further concessions, to restrict or in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill in its present form as agreed to between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ourselves. The only point, therefore, which arises is Clause 11. Clause 11 raised the whole vexed question of valuation. I think it extremely doubtful whether it is in order at all. Our objection to Clause 11 is not an objection to the objects which Clause 11 purports to be framed to carry out, but is an objection to the Clause as it stands, an objection to passing a sixth value upon five values, already difficult to ascertain, on agricultural land. It must open up the whole question, and it is quite obvious that, taking the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as they have been stated here, taking our views and the views of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway representing agriculture on the other side, it is perfectly clear that two or three days of acute discussion would be required to frame a satisfactory Clause.
When I suggest that Clause 11 should be dropped, my attitude is simply this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely undertaken to introduce a Revenue Bill and to carry it through its further stages fairly early next Session. I have also in mind the Prime Minister's statement that this Bill could not possibly pass if controversial matter were introduced into it. Clause 11 is, and must be, highly controversial, and therefore, in the interests of the rest of the Bill, my suggestion is that both sides—we taking one view of Clause 11 and hon. Gentlemen opposite taking the opposite view—should be content to postpone our differences upon that question till next Session and not to drop the Clause in the sense that it is dropped entirely, but postpone it till next Session, when the Government will be bound to give us the necessary time to discuss this very difficult question of valuation. Surely we can agree to drop tins controversial Clause, which it is hopeless to come to an agreement upon in the time at our disposal, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite persist in the course they have adopted, litigation will continue to fall upon thou sands of innocent people. We, on this side of the House, are bound to the country to look to this question of valuation carefully, and we cannot allow a slipshod Clause to go through the House without proper discussion on that question of agricultural valuation, which is of 2083 enormous importance, without discussion, and we ask that the Clause should be postponed and that the Bill should be allowed now to go through in its uncontroversial form, and relief should be afforded to these small owners and builders from one end of the country to the other. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on behalf of these people—there is no concession in the Bill to big owners particularly; it is a concession to small people under £160—whether they cannot postpone their desire to discuss valuation until next year, and allow the uncontroversial Bill to go through. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway refuse to modify the attitude which they have taken up we can do nothing but assent to the proposal that Progress should be reported for one more day, but the matter should certainly be settled. It is a very great inconvenience for hon. Gentlemen on both sides to be kept here, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make up his mind before this time to-morrow what attitude he proposes to take, but our attitude cannot be modified.
Mr. PRICEThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has very truly declared that this Bill, when it was first introduced, was looked upon as a non-controversial measure. We assented to it, and we still assent. The first six or seven Clauses contain matters which many of us did not like; we thought we were giving away a great deal more than we need, but we were quite content to let that pass, because we had Clause 11 which we were assured would pass. If, abstaining from doing anything to interfere with the Government or to interfere with what the hon. Gentleman and his friends and some of those on this side of the House wanted, we allowed this Clause to pass, we should have practically a non - contentious measure. It has now been intimated that Clause 11 is to be dropped. If Clause 11 is dropped it will be a contentious measure. The reason it was non-contentious was because it contained that very valuable Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that when we first saw that Clause, we declared our dissatisfaction with it. That is perfectly true. I understand some of my Friends wrote to the Chancellor of Exchequer, stating that they did not agree with that Clause at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI said a letter appeared in the papers.
Mr. PRICEThey said the Clause was not quite what they wanted. I myself said it was not a satisfactory Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that the Clause was substantially what we wanted. After reflection and consultation we came to the conclusion that it was better to accept the Clause as it was, even though it was not quite all that we wanted. I think that is a fair statement of the case.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not want my hon. Friend to give an impression that he does not want to give. He never intimated this decision to me.
§ 4.0 P.M.
Mr. PRICEI made use of the ordinary channels. I saw the Chief Whip. If Clause 11 is dropped the Clause would be very strongly opposed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford intimated that things had gone very smoothly until we came to this Clause. That is perfectly true. The hon. Member was getting all he wanted, and he had nothing to complain of, but he will have much to complain of if we do not get our part of the Bill. The measure was treated from the beginning as non-controversial, because we had Clause 11 it. Now the hon. Member wants to proceed with the Bill without that Clause. The Bill was well balanced between contending parties, but if in the middle of carrying out the contract you alter the Bill, I say it is unfair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says. "We have got all we want, and you will get what you want next year." What guarantee have we that we will? It is not quite fair after six or seven Clauses have been passed to intimate that the bargain that was entered into is to be departed from. On behalf of my Friends and myself I say that unless we get Clause 11, we shall not look upon the Bill as non-contentious.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member (Mr. Price) has thrown some light on the various Clauses of the Bill which is valuable. Clause 11 was submitted at an earlier stage by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a concession to the Opposition. It appears that it was not a concession to the Opposition, but a bribe to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Bill as it stands as a well-balanced measure. I am not quite certain, but I think I understand what he means. There is a great deal he objects to in the earlier Clauses on the ground that it is unjust. He says that more is given away than ought to be given 2085 Away—I presume, therefore, more than justice demands. Does the hon. Gentleman object to my inference?
Mr. PRICEMy point was this: When you have a measure which gives something to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and something to hon. Members on this side, and when it is asked that the measure should be treated as non-contentious, it is not for an hon. Member on the other side to get up and say that it is a non-contentious measure while asking that Clause 11 should be dropped.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman speaks as if the only people affected by the Bill were the hon. Member himself and my hon. Friends. That is not a useful basis on which to proceed, nor does it tend to the best interests of the country. Hon. Members' view is that they may give up a great deal of what is just and fair, if only my hon. and gallant Friend will in the name of other people submit to what he considers a grave injustice. Some barrister, I forget who it was, defended trial by jury by stating that although he had lost a great, many cases which he ought to have won, still he had won a great many cases which he ought to have lost, and therefore on the whole justice had been done. I have never heard any principle of reasoning quite comparable to that of the hon. Gentleman. I will leave to hon. Members that special point, and turn to the position, not of this or that Member, but of the House at large in regard to this matter. I think the House is in a position of some difficulty, and in danger of no little discredit. If hon. Members will permit me, speaking not merely for the Opposition, but for the House at large, I will say that hon. Members accepted with goodwill, and, I think, with eagerness, wherever they were sitting. seven Clauses of the amended provisions intended to remove hardships from which various classes of the community are suffering, or to remove obstacles which impede the provision of small houses, and the whole of this work is now in jeopardy because a small group in this House refuse to assent to the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made with my; hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman), because the Bill is only proceeded with at a time of the Session when any small minority can wreck it, if they are not satisfied.
Under what circumstances did this Revenue Bill take its rise? The Chan- 2086 cellor of the Exchequer explained that they had to proceed rapidly with the taxing provisions of the Finance Bill, under the provisions of the Collection of Taxes Act, and that he could not give time earlier for this Bill. It is a curious commentary on that, that here we are now in the last week of the Session, I presume, and we have not yet got through Committee the Taxing Bill. The whole object of the Collection of Taxes Act was to have the Taxing Bill earlier, but we have not discussed it yet. The Revenue Bill was to give us the opportunity for full and free discussion of those points which the urgency in passing the Finance Bill prevented our having in connection with it. Now what is the position? Here is this Bill, in the main an agreed Bill, giving relief to large numbers of people in this country, and the whole is to be dropped, not because the sense of the majority of Members, on whichever side they sit, is not perfectly clear, but only because the Government have held off the discussion until a time, when they cannot afford to give it free discussion. It is to be dropped because it cannot be discussed, unless the House at large pays blackmail to a small number on the opposite side.
The CHAIRMANThe phrase, I am afraid, has more than once before been used metaphorically, and applied to a number of hon. Members; if applied to an individual it would be out of order.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think I was right in saying that the House is in a position of great difficulty, and in danger of not a little discredit. The opinion of an overwhelming majority is to be overruled by a small group. The only way in which that can be avoided is by the Government giving time. I do not say that any of us are fit, Government or Opposition, to prolong the Session now, and, Heaven knows, it is the last thing I desire, but I do say that we were entitled to expect that this Bill would have been introduced earlier, and that more time, before the last week of the Session, would have been allowed for its consideration. I do say that it is not only essential, but that there is an obligation on the Government to reintroduce the Bill early next Session.
§ Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay 2087 too much attention to the small, aggressive, and very articulate group of the party who sit below the Gangway. If the Bill had been brought in earlier in the Session, I am sure that a very large number of Liberal Members would have been very glad if Clause 11 had been dropped. I will not use the word blackmail, but I do say it is a grossly selfish thing for a small body of. Members to try to prevent the alleviation of an injustice from which thousands of people are suffering in order that they may get in a small minor principle by a side wind on Clause 11. I have been in this House a good many years, and I have never myself seen anything so grossly selfish as the way in which a small party are behaving in this matter. They think only of themselves, and they think at the same time that they may get some advantage by the inconvenience which so many people are suffering from. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will press forward this Bill, and drop Clause 11.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMay I suggest to my hon. Friend (Sir F. Cawley) that one way of preventing people from coming to an arrangement of any sort is to have speeches like that which he has delivered. Therefore, I really ask my hon. Friends to assent to the Motion to report. Progress and see what can be done within the next twenty-four hours. I make the appeal, whatever may be their opinions in the matter, that they should endeavour to restrain themselves for twenty-four hours so that something might be attempted in the meantime. It will be utterly impossible to come to an arrangement if mutual recriminations are to take place during this discussion. I have only to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I think when his attention was called to the facts he might have withdrawn the statement he made that I was deliberately unfair in what I said.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI withdraw that.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWith regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), I have to say that he knows perfectly well what the conditions are. He raises an issue which, is a very large order. It is no fault of ours that two or three Bills had to be reintroduced this year. It was not the House of Commons that threw them out, and we were obliged to occupy a considerable amount of time.
The CHAIRMANThe Chancellor of Exchequer quite rightly began his speech by deprecating the time being occupied in mutual recriminations. It is the custom of the Chair always to allow latitude on a Motion to report Progress, because it will facilitate business later on. But this is not an occasion for recriminations or anything of that sort.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am very much obliged to you for pulling me up, for I do not think it would conduce to the harmonious conclusion of the Debate to pursue that line. May I appeal now to hon. Members who have an interest in Clause 11, or any other part of the Bill, to assent to report Progress and see what can be done later on.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERI wish to say that we on this side regret the necessity of proposing that this Bill should be postponed until to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading Debate, placed upon myself the responsibility of doing something to remedy the injustice which was done last year. I have come here at great inconvenience to-day to deal with the matter, and it might not be possible to come later on.
The CHAIRMANIt is not desirable to continue this discussion. It is out of order on a Motion to report Progress to go into matters that have been referred to. It is merely a business discussion of what the proposals of the Government are.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI would appeal to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Price) and other hon. Members in that portion of the House to have regard to the nature of the Bill which is in jeopardy at this moment. I desire to repudiate the suggestion that the Bill is offered in any way as a sop to His Majesty's Opposition. There were quite as many representations made to my right hon. Friend front this side of the House as from the other side. It is a great pity that the small and dwindling group—
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYWhat is in jeopardy is not a concession to the Opposition, but a concession to justice, and not only one concession to justice, but several, and concessions which affect not only 2089 hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of thousands.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHave I a right to reply to this?
The CHAIRMANThat is just the point. It involves, as the hon. Member will now see, a discussion not only of further Clauses of the Bill, but also of the Clauses which have been dealt with That I cannot permit. I think that hon. Members ought to consent to allow the Question to be put now.
§ Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday.)