HC Deb 02 July 1919 vol 117 cc1116-32

(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose:

Provided that—

  1. (i) if the establishment of any such service involve an original capital expenditure exceeding one million pounds, or the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads, the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a. draft whereof has been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and the Order may incorporate the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and the Order may also incorporate or apply any enactments relating to the construction and maintenance of the works in question; and
  2. (ii) where it appears to the Minister that the establishment of any such service could properly be undertaken by the owners of any existing undertaking, the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under Section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that Section to that effect, but shall not be deemed to have there by concurred in those directions

(2) The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this Section, shall be paid out of the revenues derived there from, and the Minister shall keep such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the undertakings and in such form, and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.


I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words For a period of two years after the passing of this Act. This is a very important Amendment, on which we had considerable discussion in Committee, which led to a very curious situation. My hon. Friend stated that the Government had committed themselves to some provision of this sort, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes), whom I do not wish to misrepresent, admitted that there was some foundation for that statement. When we went to a Division, the Government would not vote; they did not vote—with one exception. I am not sure whether he is in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He will be. The result of the vote of the hon. Baronet was that it was a tie. If the hon. Baronet had followed the lead of his future chief, he would not have voted, and the Amendment would have been carried. Then, when the Chairman had to give his casting vote, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge got up and asked the Chairman to give his vote for the Amendment. The Chairman, however, in the exercise of his discretion, gave his vote against the Amendment, so the result of all that was that by the casting vote of the Chairman the Amendment was defeated, against the wish of the Government. The object of the Amendment is very simple. The first part of the Bill is permanent; that is the part which sets up a Ministry of Ways and Communications. The second part deals with powers that this Minister may exercise for two years over certain undertakings. Unless these words are put in, the result will be that it will be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose, And then the Clause goes on, Provided that if the establishment of any such service involve an original capital expenditure exceeding one million pounds, or on acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads," etc. Though he had thrown the undertakings back on the hands of the companies he could carry on all these undertakings in opposition to the companies. It is really by a side wind carrying out nationalisation. I know it will be said that in regard to railway companies that is practically impossible, because he cannot acquire land compulsorily, and that therefore it will be extremely difficult for him "to establish and work transport services by land or water." It might be that the Minister may have acquired the land before the end of the two years; there is nothing to prevent him acquiring it during the two years. In that case after the two years he could use it in opposition to existing undertakings, using the money of the State for the purpose. But suppose I am wrong and that the words I have read "or the acquisition of land compulsorily" prevented his running rival services by land, it does not prevent him from running rival services by sea, because the words are It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water. The Amendment limits him from doing all these things for a period of two years. I think it is evident that it is absolutely necessary that these words should be inserted. I am quite certain my statement as to what happened in Committee will not be denied.


This is a matter upon which I personally have some responsibility. On the Second Beading of the Bill, as the right hon. Baronet has pointed out, I replied to a question, or in fact several questions, on that subject at the time when I was explaining that the Government had withdrawn the acquisition powers, as to what the position would be. At that time there were in the Clause which dealt with acquisition two paragraphs (e) and (f), which we were going to retain. The first dealt with the taking on hire or purchase of railway wagons belonging to private owners, and as to that there is no dispute at all, because I said we would take powers to acquire them. The second paragraph (f) referred to establishing, maintaining and working transport services by land or sea. What I said was: It is also proposed to transfer the powers under Clause 4, Sub-section (1, f), which were permanent powers, and make them temporary powers in Clause 3 and to provide that in addition during the two years the Minister shall have the right, subject to Treasury Control, to construct such works as may be necessary. There was a certain amount of not very clear question and answer; but I confess, in giving an answer then, I omitted to say —and I am sure the House will readily understand that it was not very easy to deal with it by question and answer—that, having constructed a service, the maintenance of that service was a matter which, at any rate, could not be so lightly set aside at the end of two years. While I confess I had forgotten that when we got to Committee, and while the facts are as stated by the right hon. Baronet, I wish to submit to the House this solution of the difficulty: that all the powers should be limited to the two years, with the exception of what is stated in an Amendment standing in my name. There I propose that the Minister shall not after two years from the passing of this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines, commence the construction of any new works, or provide equipment for any transport service not established before that date. This will allow the Ministry during the two years, subject to the control in large items of this House—because there is the control of this House beyond a certain sum of money, if roads are broken up, if land is to be compulsorily acquired—and subject to Treasury control in other matters, to start transport services and commence the construction of them. After the two years we cannot. But, obviously, if the House now decides that the maintenance and the working of transport services which are authorised during the two years must come to an end at the end of the two years, it is going to stultify that portion of the Bill altogether, and what I hope the House will do, and the Government proposes in the circumstances to leave it entirely to the House to decide whether this power, when we come to it, should not be given to enable the Minister to work and maintain transport services which it has started under proper authority during the two years and to complete any transport services, in accordance with the estimates submitted to and authorised by the Treasury, which are under construction, but not completed at the end of the two years. But, as I have said, in view of the replies I gave on the Second Reading, the Government propose to leave the matter entirely to the House to decide.


It seems to me that under this proposal the right hon. Gentle man could acquire a fleet of steamers in the two years, or build them even, and carry on the coasting services—


I would like to correct that, because it is so easy to get the wrong impression about shipping. We cannot carry on any services at all by sea unless a railway company has actually to-day the powers given to it by Parliament to run that service. You cannot run any coasting service.


I think it will be necessary for the Government to accept my Amendment, and then, when we come to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman later on, it will be left to the House to determine whether or not those words should be inserted. As far as I am concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the insertion of my words now, I will be willing to consent to the insertion of his words later on, but it is necessary that my words shall be inserted, because if the House later on does not accept the right hon. Gentleman's words, we shall be left in the same position as we are in now.


I do not think that would be the way to give effect to the proposal of the Government, because if the words which are proposed in this Amendment were inserted at the beginning of this Clause it would govern the working of transport services, and it is to work transport services that the Government wishes to seek the authority of the House.


We were assured earlier in the evening that the Government were not going to take any action under this Bill which would in any way prejudice a decision of the House of Commons or a national decision on the question of nationalisation. Apparently the Government now are proposing that they shall establish during the two years services which will be national services, and that they shall after the expiration of the two years, continue to carry on these services under powers granted in this Bill. That statement, I submit, is hardly consistent with the very explicit assurances given to the House earlier in the evening, and if the House or the country should determine at a later date that those services established for certain purposes during the two years should not be nationalised services, nothing should be in this Bill which should prejudice that decision. My right hon. Friend's Amendment ought to be inserted, and if further legislation to continue these services which have been established should be necessary, it is the business of the Government, when the question arises, to come to the House and take these powers, as the Government assured the House earlier in the evening they intended to do.


This is really a very serious point, having regard to what has been said in this House throughout the Debates on this Bill as to the necessity for doing something immediately to meet the needs of rural districts and housing. If we are to accept this Amendment it means that no transportation service can be established at all with a further vision than two years. Does any Member of this House believe that the Treasury would sanction expenditure for starting one of these transport services, which, generally speaking, the House in agreed are necessary, if there is only to be a two years' tenure, and then you have to come back, possibly to another House of Commons, to get your working confirmed? You would have the property, and if we are going to meet the obligation to improve transportation in those districts, and in some cases it may establish transportation, which certainly for the first two years will not pay, because there are very few transport services which can pay in the first year, we would never be able to feel we had security for more than a two years: tenure. If the House takes a decision to-day because we have this nationalisation bogey ahead of us—well, the fear of nationalisation ahead—if the House takes a decision that no new transportation service under this Bill is to be established with a longer tenure than two years, it is destroying what practically all sections of the House have agreed is absolutely an essential provision, namely, that we should be able to develop transportation for housing and for the agricultural districts. If it is decided that we cannot do that for a longer tenure than two years, I feel sure that not only the Treasury but any business man would say it is impossible to start, because, if you pass the Amendment, you are sterilising anything that would be done by the State to meet needs which we are all agreed require to be met.


The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, perhaps quite unwittingly, rather misled the House as to the powers of the Treasury in these matters. The Select Committee on National Expenditure, set up recently, has taken evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leading officials of the Treasury as to the Treasury powers. There were two points that were very clear in the evidence given before the Committee. One was—and I think hon. Members generally are not sufficiently aware of it—that in no sense is the Treasury a super-Department. It is a Department on exactly the same basis as all other Government Departments, and once this House has passed a Vote for the total sum to be expended by a Department, the Treasury has no power whatever to interfere with the spending of that money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no special authority over any other Minister. It is no good to say that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes) under the powers conferred on him by this House, started some undertaking, which he wished to set up in the course of the next two years, the Treasury would have the power to stop it. I tell him, on the evidence given before the Select Com- mittee, that the Treasury has no such power, and it is for that reason that an Amendment has been put down in my name with the object of giving the Treasury better control over this Department than it would have possessed in the ordinary course. I quite agree that the hands of the Minister will not, in the least bit, be tied by this provision, but while he asks the House to credit him with reasonable business, good sense, we, in our turn, must ask him to credit the House with those qualities. I am certain if, in the exercise of the duties which we all wish him to perform, quickly and efficiently, he starts transportation services of this kind in the interests of the community, the House will be the last body to say, at the end of the two years, that services which are a national benefit should be put an end to. I think it is right that the House should have a clear apprehension of what the position of the Treasury is in this matter.


I am very unwilling to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of transportation is probably in excess of any other hon. Member in the House. He spoke of the nationalisation bogey, but, I think, he is rather raising a bogey himself. I agree with the last speaker that any undertaking, which is reasonable and fair, and for the benefit of the country, will be supported by the House when it comes before them. I think that the right hon. Member the Minister-designate having—it is quite possible—commenced an undertaking, or several, may come to the House and say, having started these things they must go through. Those of us who are opposing nationalisation think it very necessary to maintain the control of this House over expenditure on transport, and everything else. With due respect, the suggestion of the right hon. Member the Minister-designate that he will not be able to start any undertaking unless it is clear that the House will not of necessity oppose it is a bogey. The Amendment should be adopted—for any undertaking that has been started will be ratified by the House if it is fair and reasonable, and if not it is only right that this House should have control as to whether these undertakings ought or ought not to go forward.


I hope the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. Really it makes the position impossible. Consider the question of starting some new service, only to find that at the end of the two years it will be stopped. The Government, I would remind the House, have accepted the Amendment further down on the Paper: (1) That no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it has been approved by the Treasury. So that no new service will be started without the House knowing. But if for items for any new service by land or water we have to come to the House and explain it, it will not give a scheme a chance. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is not a businesslike proposition. If you are going to restrict the working of every new service you will make it impossible. No powers then would engage in capital expenditure with the fear that at the end of two years the enterprise would be stopped just when it was beginning to go ahead. You must have the certainty that your scheme will have a chance. There is another point. It might very well be that some new transport service will be run in connection with a Ministry that has a housing scheme on foot for its men, or for the general benefit. Unless there is certainty that the scheme will go forward you may stop the housing scheme as well.

11 P.M.


I think the House has now been made aware of the difficulties of the Committee upstairs upon this matter and all matters of expenditure. The Minister-designate has been in a position for the last nine months to consider this and the other questions which are before the Ministry, but with the exception of railway wagons where, as will be seen in the next Clause he can commit the country to something between £50,000,000 and £70,000,000 if it is passed, we have not been able to get from him any idea as to any sort of service to which he refers and for which he requires money under this Clause. I am not putting it too strongly when I say that we are being treated like children. I challenge the Minister to tell us of any service he has in his mind which he can carry out during the next two years under this Clause that cannot be disposed of at the end of that period either to the railway companies, the tramway companies, or the local authorities, and that really is the point. We sat for eighteen days upstairs, and every time we suggested coastwise services it was said, "We cannot do that." What is it that the Minister has in his mind? What kind of transport service is it I Let him give one particular case where he can carry it out during the next two years which he cannot get rid of at the end of that period.


I do not want to put the House to the trouble of an unnecessary Division, and if I withdraw my Amendment will the Government move the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman? If so, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


I hope the Government will now consent to adjourn this Debate, because we have made very good progress. I understand that the Leader of the House said it was not intended to sit late.


I do hope the House will let us get this Clause.


I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or water" ["services by land or water"].

As the Government have declared it to be their policy that there shall be no shipping service, I presume there will be no opposition.

Amendment not seconded.


I beg to move, in Section 1, after the word "purpose" ["necessary for the purpose"], to insert the words but in establishing such services due consideration shall be shown to such existing undertakings as give a reasonable service with a view to avoiding undue competition. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that he would consider whether words should be introduced such as I suggested. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the question with the right hon. Gentleman, who has admitted the importance of the matter, and told us it is difficult to carry out the desire expressed to protect these undertakings without at the same time hampering the Government. But I think this is a safeguard which the House will expect to be inserted. We are giving the Ministry power to establish competing systems and there should be some limit to their power to spend the taxpayers money. Unless something of this sort is put in there will be no power to prevent the Ministry using public funds in this way. I am sorry the Home Secretary did not agree to my proposal to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill, because not only is this Amendment important, but the remainder of the Clause also involves important questions. We are dealing with enormous sums of money, and on this question of a limit the Government have already given pledges. This will therefore involve debate. I venture again to ask the right hon. Gentleman when this Amendment is disposed of to agree to an adjournment. There are, I think—


The right hon. Baronet must confine himself to the Amendment.


I am very sorry. I ought not to have said what I did, but I was speaking in the interests of the House and of the Bill. I will say no more.


This important Amendment requires a considerable amount of discussion by the House. This Clause gives enormous power to the Ministry to form transport services by land, water, and inland waterways. We want to know definitely how far the Ministry contemplates undertaking transport by water. The House, perhaps, does not realise that many of the difficulties under which the railways are suffering, at the present time are due to the curtailment of the carriage by coasting services run from port to port in the British Isles. Before the War nearly every port in the United Kingdom was served by coasting steamers. They carried an enormous amount of traffic. Very few people realise how much they did carry. I could give some information to the House upon that, but as I am intimately associated with the coasting service it would perhaps be rather advertising my particular line. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is largely owing to the curtailment of the coasting services that we have the present congestion on the railways. It stands to reason that if an enormous amount of traffic was carried "between ports in the United Kingdom before the War by sea, and that traffic now is forced upon the railway companies at a time when the railway companies are short of rolling stock, owing to that rolling stock having been sent to France, that accounts for the congestion upon the railways. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely what he is going to do in reference to transport by water. The right hon. Gentleman—I say it without disrespect to him—is a railway man and we want to know if he is going to starve the coasting service in order to feed the railways. We cannot have that. We want to have sympathy between the railways and the coasting service with a view to resuscitating the service we had before the War. It is without any hostility to the right hon. Gentleman that I ask him to state his intentions. Does he mean to use the present ships belonging to the railway companies at the present time?

Is he going to launch out with new fleets of steamers? Few hon. Members know that nearly all the great railways are large shipowners. They have large fleets of steamers. If we are going to leave those steamers in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman without any limit as to how he is to use them, how can we tell that he himself is not going to set up coasting lines, not for the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of the railways? We want a clear definition from the right hon. Gentleman. We did not get it upstairs. We want it here. If we do not get it we shall be bound during the future progress of this measure to press him by other means and Amendments until we get something definite. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean to do with the powers we are giving him to form these transport services, and to carry on transport by land and water?


I hope the answer the right hon. Gentleman is to give will be that as far as it is within his power he will do his duty by the people who are dependent upon transport by sea just as he intends to do for the people who are dependent upon transport by land. A very large proportion of the population of these Islands are dependent upon transport by sea, and I did not quite realise until this moment that it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman and his new Department to develop transport by sea in a way which will help many thousands of deserving people. The whole of the Western freeboard of Scotland, not to talk about other parts of Britain, is dependent on transport by sea; therefore, if the Government is going on to develop the transport services, these populations are deserving of as much' consideration as those who are served by railway, tramways, motor cars, or airships. So that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not entirely devote his attention to transport by railway. In my Constituency we are a modest people, but one of the first platforms in the policy of reconstruction for the people of the Western Islands of Scotland should be the transport services, not only in the interests of hon. Members who go there for the benefit of their health and as tourists, but of the comfort and welfare and of developing the fishing and other industries. So I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not, perhaps, give those critics quite the answer they would like, but will show that, in connection with the transport services which he is developing, and which I hope the House will support him in developing, he will see that this portion of the Kingdom will not lose his attention, and that he will do for them just as much as he intends to do for those who are served by the railways. At present even the ordinary comforts of the people of the outer islands of Scotland are very much curtailed owing to the lessened services during the War.


I hope, in the interests of bedtime, the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal which has been made to him. I do not desire to oppose the Government proposal, but I think I am in the position, shared by many hon. Members, of being in a state of mystification as to the precise intentions of the Government. We merely want to know what they mean. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the words which he himself used upstairs. He admitted that the whole question was very difficult, and said: If at a later stage in the Bill my right hon. Friend and I can think of any way of meeting this point we will endeavour to do so. All I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether in the interval since he uttered these words he has thought of a way of meeting this difficult point. If he has, will he communicate it to the House? The Amendment in Committee was almost identical in terms to this. I was not a member of the Committee. I have only read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings. We who were not members of the Committee feel ourselves at a very great disadvantage in discussing this Bill on the Report stage and I think we are entitled to consideration from the Government.


There are two points which have been raised, and my hon. Friend asks me to reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle. His fear is that this Transport Service Commission may be used to extend enormously services up and down the coast. I can only repeat what I have said several times already in Committee, and which will be found in Clause 22 of the Bill, the expression 'transport services by water' shall not include any transport service by sea other than such as is, or could under their existing statutory powers, or any extension thereof, be established by the owners of any undertaking of which the Minister is for the time being in possession under this Act. That absolutely and clearly sets out that you cannot start indiscriminate sea services all over the sea. You cannot start them unless the undertaking of which you take possession under this Act has statutory authority to run them. There is no general power to run sea services. The second point, which is the Amendment now before the House is that we should insert this provision to protect existing services from undue competition. It is true that I undertook to discuss the matter with the hon. Member. I think he suggested that we should discuss it. This is not the only thing by any means that drops out after Committee. A Member is anxious to discuss things, but upon further thought he decides not to do it. I have thought the matter over when this Amendment was put down. If the House will turn to Clause 8 (1, ii.) they will see this provision: the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under Section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that Section to that effect. That means that if it is in any way proper for the existing undertaking to run the service which the Minister desires to run, say for the development of a

housing scheme, he is bound, if it is proper for them to do it, to give them the opportunity of running it. Their consent to run it does not mean that they become financially responsible for it, and that they are bound to stand any loss on it on account of their consent having been given. I must explain that this is an exception to the general provision of the Bill that if an undertaking consents to carry out an Order of the Minister then it cannot claim for depreciation or loss on account of what is done under the Order. This provision exempts them from this liability, and on consideration I thought that it really gave ample protection. I hope, therefore, that the House will not pass the Amendment.


This Amendment is very nearly identical with the Amendment which I moved upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman used the same argument upstairs which he has used now, and on page 505 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th May, 1919, you will find his words: If before we come to the Clause or at a later stage if the Bill my right hon. Friend and I can think of any way of dealing with this point we will endeavour to do so, but it is very difficult. It is not quite correct to insinuate- I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so intentionally—that I did not say anything to him because I had forgotten the point. I did remind him in the Lobby of his undertaking and I asked him to discuss the matter with me. He said he would. It is equally true that he did not come to me after that and I did not press him on the point, because I could not find him. I am not at all sure that these words are a sufficient protection. I do not want at this late hour to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but the matter is one involving an enormous amount of money, and we may have the abuse of the use of the taxpayers' money in competition with private enterprise, which is a very dangerous thing to do.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 179.

Division No. 56.] Division No. 56.] [11.29 p.m.
Ainsworth, Captain C. Cayzer, Major H. R. Gretton, Colonel John
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin Chadwick, R. Burton Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Ballour, George (Hampstead) Coats, Sir Stuart Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood- Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Barker, Major R. Davies, T. (Cirencester) Johnstone, J.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kénsington) Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Bonn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich) Doyle, N. Grattan M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Bird, Alfred Du Pre, Colonel W. B. Manville, Edward
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) Foxcroft, Captain C. Mason, Robert
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C. Remer, J. B. Wilson-Fox, Henry
Molson, Major John Elsdale Renwick, G Wood, Major S Hill (High Peak)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox) Royden, Sir Thomas Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Nall, Major Joseph Steel, Major S. Strang
Oman, C. W. C. Stevens, Marshall TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque White, Col. G. D. (Southport) Banbury and Mr. Marriott
Raeburn, Sir William Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson
Adamson, Rt. Hen, William Green, J. F. (Leicester) Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Grundy, T. W, Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge),
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S. Hacking, Captain D. H. Perkins, Walter Frank
Armitage, Robert Hailwood, A. Perring, William George
Arnold, Sydney Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles
Baird, John Lawrence Hambro, Angus Vaidemar Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Stanley Hartshorn, V Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E-) Hayday, A. Pratt, John William
Barnston, Major Harry Hayward, Major Evan Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Henderson, Major V. L. Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hennessy, Major G. Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith) Herbert, Denniss (Hertford) Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Blades, Sir George R. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F. Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Borwick, Major G. O. Hills, Major J. W. (Durham) Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- Hinds, John Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Hirst, G. H. Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Brackenbury, Captain H. L. Holmes, J. S. Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Breese, Major C. E. Hood, Joseph Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Briant, F. Hope, Harry (Stirling) Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Seager, Sir William'
Brittain, Sir Harry E. Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) Sexton, James
Britton, G. B. Hope, John Deans (Berwick) Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Bromfield, W. Howard, Major S. G. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A Hughes, Spencer Leigh Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. Simm, Col. M. T.
Bruton, Sir J. Hurd, P. A. Sitch, C. H.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H. Jesson, C. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Cape, Tom Jodrell, N. P. Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) Johnson, L. S. Stewart, Gershom
Carr, W. T. Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Strauss, Edward Anthony
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sturrock, J. Leng-
Casey, T. W. Jones, J. (Silvertown) Sugden, W. H.
Coates, Major Sir.- Edward F. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) Sutherland, Sir William
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander Swan, J. E. C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin King, Com. Douglas Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely) Larmor, Sir J. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) Lister, Sir R. Ashton Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Courthope, Major George Loyd Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Townley, Maximilan G.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H. Lort-Williams, J. Tryon, Major George Clement
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe) Lunn, William Vickers, D.
Davies, J. A. Mackinder, Halford J. Waddington, R.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Walker, Col. William Hall
Edgar, Clifford Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty) Macquisten, F. A. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Marks, Sir George Croydon Waterson, A. E.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark) Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. Weston, Col. John W.
Entwistle, Major C. F. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander Morgan, Major D. Watts Whitla, Sir William
Falcon, Captain M. Mosley, Oswald Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murchison, C. K. Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.) Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Forestier-Walker. L. Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Gange, E. S. Murray, William (Dumfries) Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Ganzoni, Captain F. C. Neal, Arthur Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) Woolcock, W. J. U.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge) Nicholson, R. (Doncaster) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord-
Glyn, Major R. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.
Grant, James Augustus Parry, Major Thomas Henry

Ordered, That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Twelve o'clock