§
No alien shall hold a pilotage certificate for any port in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. SHORTTI beg to move, to leave out the word "port," and to insert instead thereof the words "pilotage district."
The reason for this Amendment is that "port" is not the accurate expression. The certificate is granted for a pilotage area—the area of a pilotage authority.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SHORTTI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "except in the cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913."
The question of pilotage was considered very carefully from the year 1906 to the year 1913, and one of the matters which were very carefully considered was the question of aliens holding pilot certificates. The matter was thoroughly threshed out at a Convention held between ourselves and France. An agreement was come to between ourselves and France. That agreement is embodied in the Act of 1913. The terms were mutually satisfartory. Whether they were actually reciprocal or not I cannot say. Such as they were I need not weary the House by detailing them. They preserve the existing certificate holders and they preserve the right to give certificates to the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which in 1906 was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot or had habitually been piloted by a master or mate of the ship who held a pilotage certificate.
§ Mr. MURCHISONAre the same rights given to British pilots to go to French waters?
§ Mr. SHORTTI am not sure whether they are identically the same, but the arrangement was mutually satisfactory to both parties and the Admiralty had always the power to declare a pilotage district or any part of such district exempt from the provisions. Those, speaking generally, are the terms of the pilotage Act. They were agreed between ourselves and the French Government and we desire to safeguard them under this Bill.
§ Mr. INSKIPThe proposal which the Home Secretary has made is one which may mislead the House. The Bill as it appeared in Committee had no provision for pilots' certificates. The Clause which was introduced is in plain terms. It provides that aliens are not eligible for pilotage certificates. The object of that provision was to get rid of the Act of 1913 and to get back to the Act of 1906. The Home Secretary, with a view no doubt to recovering as easily as he could the words which were lost in Committee, proposes this Amendment. A much more direct method of securing the same result would be to move to omit the Clause which was added in Committee. In 1906 it was for the first time enacted by this House that aliens should not be eligible for pilotage certificates. I may remind the House of what was said by those who brought forward this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), said that it was a real national danger to allow masters and officers of foreign ships to bring foreign ships to British ports, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do what had been asked for many years and to make provision that every vessel coming into British ports shall be piloted by a British citizen, a man whom we can trust. The present Prime Minister, then the President of the Board of Trade, after consulting the Law Officers, introduced a Bill, which eventually became law, providing that British subjects only should be eligible for these certificatets. He put it entirely on the ground of national safety, and said,
If you look into the Report of the Select Committee on pilotage you will find that this view on the ground of national safety was supported with unanimity by Trinity House, London, and other witnesses, and that is the view which His Majesty's Government take with regard to the matter.213 From that time downward an alien was ineligible for the granting of a pilot's certificate on the ground of national safety. When the Bill of 1913 was before the House, this Clause, which provides that on certain conditions the Board of Trade shall have authority to grant pilotage certificates to aliens, was introduced. I think it was contrary to the position of the House, generally speaking, but the House was informed that there was some sort of convention with foreign Governments and the British nation were to sink their views upon this matter in order to meet the views of foreign Governments. In order to get rid of the Act of 1913 and revert to the Act of 1906, this Clause was introduced in Committee. Now it is said, as it was said in 1913, that this change must be made because of Conventions with the French Government. I do not know what these Conventions are. I do not know whether they have been laid on the Table of this House, but the position of the French Government is that there is no reciprocity about the matter at all, and a French ship can conic in with its master or mate holding this pilot's certificate, but no British ship is allowed to go into a French port without either having a French pilot or paying the pilotage dues. We have as a nation to contribute to the pilotage of the foreign Government, and they do not contribute to the pilotage of this country. Take a port where we maintain a pilotage service. These men go out to do their duty. They see ship after ship coining in which is not required to take a pilot on board because there is an alien holding a pilotage certificate, and the bread is taken out of their mouths, for they have to go out to do their duty and are not allowed to do it because these alien pilots come in with these ships. But that is comparatively a small point, and I do not base the matter on that ground. I base it on the old ground on which the Act of 1966 was based—the ground of national safety.The Home Secretary referred with satisfaction to the fact that the Admiralty have the power, so to speak, to repeal these pilotage certificates. That appears to me to show that in the interest of national safety we must view with disfavour and suspicion the practice of granting certificates to aliens. I think we may gather from the action which the Admiralty took that the Admiralty are against this proposal 214 of the Home Secretary. At the outbreak of war the Admiralty cancelled—I think I am right—practically the whole of these pilotage certificates. That action showed how they regarded it. Before the War, in 1913, they exercised their powers, in regard to a wide district, which, I think, included the Port of London. At the outbreak of war there were nine of these pilotage certificates held by Germans. Some of these very men who had had pilotage certificates issued to them in consequence of the "skill, experience and local knowledge'' which they had acquired in order to earn those certificates, were found navigating German submarines. It is undoubtedly the fact that some of these men entered for the examination and qualified themselves to become certificated pilots in order that they might be assets in the hands of their Government when the time came to use their knowledge of British waters. With that experience behind us how can the Home Secretary seriously ask this House to re-adapt the Act of 1913. I think that the arguments in favour of this view are so overwhelmingly in favour of the Clause as it stands that I do not propose to detain the House with further observations upon it, except to say that the recent experience of Trinity House ought to lead those concerned in the question to say that they will not lend themselves to a continuance of a provision by which aliens may receive pilotage certificates on the same terms as British subjects. That the Government will have to yield on this question sooner or later I believe to be certain. I suggest that the House on this occasion should indicate that the lessons of this War are not to be unlearned, and that the House will not be misled by the cloak and the disguise which has been thrown over the Government's intention in this matter by the insertion of these so-called saving words, "except as provided by the Act of 1913." I respectfully ask the House to join those who are resisting the Home Secretary's proposal and to see that this Clause is preserved in the form in which it was introduced into the Bill in Committee.
§ Mr. WIGNALLI want to express surprise and alarm at the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary. We have heard a good deal about aliens coming to stir up industrial strife, a lot of which has been absolute nonsense. If there is any trade or occupation that ought to be safe- 215 guarded in the sense in which the Clause is intended to safeguard it, it is the occupation of the pilots of our channels. I have been associated with pilots for many years; I have mixed with them, dealt with them in their trade union activities, and I know their wishes. I knew the position before the War. I know some of the men who held certificates before the War. I am here to say that in my firm conviction many a British ship and many a noble British seaman have gone to the bottom of the ocean because some of these aliens who held pilotage certificates knew the movements of British ships and knew exactly where to meet them. Do you want to go back to that state of things to-day? That is exactly what the Government proposal means if it means anything at all. I do not pretend to be an expert in the phraseology of lawyers, but sometimes one is able to grasp what is behind it or in it, or what is intended by it. Let me quote from the Pilotage Act of 1913:
If any master or mate who is not a British subject shows to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he is the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which on 1st June, 1906, was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot, or has habitually been piloted by a master or mate of a ship who held a pilotage certificate, the Board of Trade may authorise the master or mate to apply to the pilotage authorities for a pilotage certificate under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the granting of pilotage certificates shall, notwithstanding any- thing in this Act, be extended to a master or mate so applying for a certificate, although he is not a. British subject—That is exactly what the Amendment means. It would give to the aliens exactly the same privileges and the same liberties as they possessed before the War.
§ Mr. SHORTTThis is not dealing with a pilot's licence, but a certificate to an individual captain of an individual ship.
§ Mr. WIGNALLThat is exactly what I mean; that is exactly what I said; and that is exactly what I do not want you to do. It is not legal phraseology, but it is direct and emphatic, and it exactly explains the position we are taking up. On the question of reciprocity, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was an arrangement made to meet the convenience of both parties, France and England, in 1913 or before that. There happens to be in the House now a very important deputation of the pilots themselves. They are men 216 who ought at least to understand something of their calling, and how this arrangement applies to it. In conversation With them, I asked the question, "Did reciprocity exist as between other countries and this? "and for answer I had from all of them an emphatic "No!" and more especially as applying to France.
The whole thing summed up means this, that with all our talk about keeping the alien mischief-maker out of our country, with all our arguments about preventing such men from stirring up industrial strife, with all our talk about the danger to our nation, here we are deliberately saying, "All right, Mr. Alien; all right, Mr. German; ail right, Mr. Austrian; you get the skipper to apply, and we will revert to the old position that existed before the War." We cannot allow that to-day, at least not as regards pilotage. If in years to come the bitterness and soreness have passed away, then will be the time to reconsider the position. Let us do it then, but not now. On behalf of the pilots of the United Kingdom, I appeal to the Home Secretary not to press this Amendment. If the Government do press it to a Division I am looking to all those who are against the alien to vote against the Government on this issue. They are bound to do it unless they are not straight in their dealings; if they vote to keep aliens out of industry they must vote against the Amendment of this Clause.
§ Sir R. THOMASI should like to support those who have already spoken, simply because I happen to have some little experience of the piloting service in this country. For a great number of years I have had to do with pilots, more particularly in London and on the Mersey, and I know that they are strongly opposed to any alteration in this Clause. I think that in justice we should pay some attention to their wishes in this matter. It has been, I think, the practice in the House where there has been a different of opinion to consult and pay some deference to the views of the parties concerned, and the. pilots in this instance are unanimously opposed to any alteration in the Clause. During the War there has been no body in the country more loyal and patriotic than the pilots. They endured endless hardships and piloted shins without lights in all kinds of weather, and risked mines, and so forth. When those men say. "We do not want aliens in our service," I submit that it is the duty of 217 the House to pay some respect to that view. For that reason I strongly support the retention of the Clause as it stands. Another reason is that there is no reciprocity with other countries in this matter. If we admit aliens into this particular service we are undoubtedly reducing the employment open to seafaring men in this country. In France and in Germany and in other Continental countries they are not giving the same privilege to Britishers, and why should we give it to aliens? It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous that the thing should be suggested, and for the reasons which I have stated I most strongly support this Clause.
Captain STANLEY WILSONMay I add my humble appeal to those already made to the Home Secretary not to press this Amendment? If he does, I shall on this occasion most certainly vote in the same Lobby with the Labour party. The Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) made an excellent speech, with which I am in entire agreement. The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol put an entirely different complexion upon this Amendment, and I do not think the House realised the exact position of affairs after the speech of the Home Secretary. I understand that this Clause was inserted in Committee upstairs against the desire of the Home Secretary, who has now put down this Amendment in order to defeat what the Committee did. I think that in doing this he is not behaving quite fairly to the Committee upstairs, and I think it is the bounden duty of every member of that Committee who supported that Clause in the Committee to support it now again. I know from the constituency I have the honour to represent that this Clause is desired by the pilots of this country. It is the one object they have in view. I earnestly appeal to the Home Secretary not to press the Amendment. I have no desire at present to vote against the Coalition Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his attitude of no compromise I, and I should hope every Member who has heard this Debate, will upon this occasion vote in favour of British pilots and against alien pilots.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes)I think that the House is being misled in this matter and is being led off on a false scent. The position is this. There are at the present 218 moment twenty-four living individuals, who are not British subjects and who are entitled to act as pilots. They are masters of foreign or British ships and are entitled to pilot those foreign or British ships into one or other of two ports, namely, Grimsby and Newhaven. Everything else is ended. Those twenty-four individuals, cannot possibly be increased in number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Do let me explain. None of them are Germans; none of them are Austrians, and none of them belong to any of the nations with which, we have been at war. Certain of them hold certificates granted before the 1st of June, 1906. Those certificates may be kept alive in respect of the individuals who now hold them, but they cannot be renewed under the Act of 1913. The only new certificates which it is possible to grant are those to masters of ships who are doing what I may call a ferry service and entering some port frequently, say every day or every second day. Where a new ship is put on and where it is substantially of the same class and running into Newhaven or Grimsby, it is competent under the law for a certificate to be granted to the master of that ship. As a matter of fact, by the arrangement which exists with regard to these matters no certificates of authorisation are issued by the Board of Trade without first getting the Admiralty's sanction and approval. The Admiralty do not authorise any application without fully considering the facts of the case. So that what we are dealing with here is not what was being pictured as an attempt to extend the right of piloting into our harbours to foreigners. What we are dealing with is the question of how what we all recognise to be the evil effects of the old practice shall be got rid of. There are two policies recommended. One of them is to say that from the moment this Bill becomes law no foreigner, no alien master—for it is not a question of pilots, but of a master of a ship trading in and out of Newhaven or Grimsby—shall be allowed to continue to pilot that boat of his own, or which he commands, into Newhaven or Grimsby.
§ Colonel YATEHas a British pilot the right to pilot any boat into foreign ports?
§ Sir A. GEDDESBritish masters are taking boats into Havre, Boulogne, and other French ports—that is the cross-Channel service—every night and morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Hamburg?"] There are no boats trading 219 in and out of Hamburg, and therefore they cannot get any certificates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why can they not get them?"] -Because they did not exist before 1906.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDThey did exist.
§ Sir A. GEDDESLet us look at the facts as they are. There is no possibility of creating new certificates under the powers which exist.
§ Mr. INSKIPIs it not the fact that the Act of 1913 provides for the grant of a new certificate to anybody piloting a ship of the same class as that which was running in 1906, so that it may go on for ever and ever?
§ Sir A. GEDDESAs long as there was continuity. If there is a break it cannot continue, and you cannot start a new certificate after the break. That is the Act.
§ Mr. INSKIPI do not want to enter into a contest with the right hon. Gentleman as to the interpretation of the Act, but in the Act there is nothing about a break, and the only question is as to whether a ship was trading regularly between the ports, and if the ship which the alien was sailing is substantially of the same class as in 1906 he may apply and get a certificate if the Board of Trade think fit to give it.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe Board of Trade in this country works with the Admiralty and issues no such right to apply for a certificate without the consent of the Admiralty. I do not attach any special virtue to the Amendment which is being suggested in its present form, but I do attach great virtue to standing by an agreement entered into by this nation with France and embodied by this House in an Act of Parliament.
§ Colonel YATEDo the French grant reciprocity in this matter?
§ Sir A. GEDDESOur masters of the, cross-Channel boats pilot their ships into the French ports and pay pilotage dues. I believe I am right in saying that one of the captains of our cross-Channel boats is a Frenchman. He pilots the ship into Newhaven himself and brings it out.
§ Colonel YATEDoes he pay pilotage?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe ship pays pilotage, not the man. I would be very unwilling that anyone should consider that the Government is not as keen upon seeing that the secrets of the entrances to our harbours are properly safeguarded. But we have to face the facts in this instance and to recognise the circumstances. We have, it so happens, a Convention entered into by this country with France in good faith before the War and embodied by this House in an Act of Parliament, and I invite the House to give effect to what was embodied in that Act of Parliament. Under those provisions the number of these men is continually diminishing. It is not a question of aliens acting as British pilots; it is a question of masters of ships, going in and out of our ports every day, or every second day, being allowed to bring them in and out of the port to which they are trading. There are only twenty-four of those foreign masters who hold those certificates and only two ports in and out of which they are now allowed to take their ships—Newhaven and Grimsby. There might be some form of Amendment which is more acceptable to tile House, and which will allow us to stand by our agreement with France, and allow this process of absorption of these privileges granted to foreigners being brought down to the bedrock minimum, because I think that in common sense there ought to be a few remain for the cross-Channel services. Dover is closed, but Newhaven is open, and that is a port about which there is no great mystery. Why should we say that every snip that is coming into Newhaven is to take on board a British pilot, just to bring it into harbour, when it is going in and out, in and out, every day, running in arid out alternately perhaps with British boats which are not compelled to take on French pilots on entering the b mirth ports? That is the question which is really before the House, and do not let us be led away by the very forcible speeches which have been made on this matter, because they are really raiding questions winch are altogether outside the bounds of what we are in fact considering. I would urge the House, if they think the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is too wide—I myself do not think it is, for there are 2,500 pilots round the coasts, and twenty-four masters who are not British have got certificates to enter the ports. What we are dealing with here is a process of elimination of all superfluous foreign persons who 221 have the right to pilot into British ports, but I hope in the case of the cross-Channel ferry boats the House will agree that it is only common sense that the men should be allowed to bring their boats into harbours to which they have been coming constantly.
§ Mr. BRACEI am really amazed at both the proposal of the Government and at the speech of my right lion. Friend who has just sat down. One would hardly have thought, listening to my right hon. Friend, that we have just come out of a war of the most terrible character, in which the liberties of the world might easily have been destroyed were it not for the superhuman heroism of the Navy which guarded these shores. Is not that going to be a lesson to us to be much more careful about these matters in the future than we have been in the past? After all, this is not a question for the Government but for the House of Commons and for the nation, and when my right hon. Friend says it is only a small point dealing with a few vessels engaged in cross-Channel services, that is not the proposal of the Government. What is the Amendment In the name of the Home Secretary? It is to insert the words "except in the cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913."To understand the proposal we must therefore get back to what that Act of 1913 says on that point. My right hon. Friend quoted it, but in face of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade it is indeed essential for the House to understand that the Government are asking the House of Commons to give them the largest possible powers, the same powers that they enjoyed before the War under the Act of 1913, and upon this point that is munch too great a power for the Government. to ask, and they ask certainly too great a power, in my judgment, for this house to give. We arc an island people, and we are in an entirely different position from any other nation in the world. Our great bulwark, after all, is the water which surrounds us. Does it strike the Members of this House as really commonsense that we should allow anybody other than a citizen of this country to have knowledge of the channels of this land so that vessels may be piloted in during a period of war, such as was done to some extent during the last war until it was stopped by the Navy? I hope the Douse will not hesitate to realise that this 222 is a national question rather more than a pilot question. The Pilotage Act of 1913 rays, in Clause 24:
If any master or mate who is not a British subject shows to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he is the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class, and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which, on the 1st day of June, 1906, was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot, or had habitually been piloted by a master or mate of the ship who held a pilotage certificate, the Board of Trade may authorise the master or mate to apply to the pilotage authority for a pilotage certificate under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the granting of a pilotage certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, extend to a master or mate so applying for a certificate, although he is not a British subject, as they extend to a master or mate who is a British subject.
§ Mr. SHORTTThe right hon. Gentleman should read the proviso.
§ Mr. BRACEThe proviso is after all that we are giving power to some authority to grant. Someone is to have the right to grant under given circumstances, but I hold that under no circumstances should such power be given. I would not insult the patriotism of either my right lion. Friend the Home Secretary or any other member of the Government by declaring that they have less regard than other Members of this House for the welfare of the country, and it is not upon that ground that I am basing my opposition. 1 am basing my opposition on this broad ground, that this country of ours cannot afford any such liberty, and we dare not afford it, and consequently we must by Statute make it impossible for any certificate to be granted. I have only to say that 1 very much regret the action of the Government. I am more than surprised that the Government should come down now, just as we have concluded this great War, when the Navy have paid such a price because of a knowledge which alien people did enjoy of our water courses, and ask us to continue an old system which has cost this country so much in the blood of some of her bravest sons. As far as I am concerned, I am taking my stand not because of any special interest in the pilots, although it was my privilege to take part in the Debates when this Act was a Bill before this House in 1913, but I say that in making it a condition that under no circumstances shall other than a British subject hold the right to pilot British channels, we are adopting an elementary precaution against this country being endangered, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see 223 that the sense of this House is against him and withdraw this Amendment. When he asks the House to bring it up in another form, in some language which will meet the circumstances as outlined by the President of the Board of Trade, I want to say without any hesitation that I see no language which can meet it, because I take my stand on the broad principle that by Statute we ought to make it a preventative against any authority, whether it be the Board of Trade or any pilotage board, having the power to give a certificate to an alien to pilot vessels up our channels.
§ 6.0. P.M.
Mr. A. RICHARDSONI must confess that a weaker case for a proposal before this House has never been stated. The Home Secretary burked the question as to whether there was reciprocity with a foreign Government in this matter. The President of the Board of Trade made two speeches. The first was to indicate that safeguards were used in connection with the issue of pilotage certificates to foreign masters. If there were no danger, why have safeguards? He elaborated that question, and in doing so he showed that the proposal of his colleague was untenable. The second part of his speech was apologetic. He tried to make clear to the House that there was no reason to fear, notwithstanding the strong plea that there were sufficient safeguards against that which we did not need to fear. I want to bring the House back to the one dominant question. The Constituency I have the honour to represent (Gravesend) includes practically the whole of the pilots of the greatest port in the world. I am not going to base my argument on the tremendous loyalty of these men or on the sacrifices of these men during the War, and I am not going to say that they have put forward any arguments they may have used for s reasons, because I believe that those men are imbued with a fundamental principle of citizenship, and that is the safeguarding of this realm. Providence has given us the finest defence that a nation can possess, the defence of the water that surrounds us. You may say that a foreign master who desires a pilotage certificate undergoes an examination. Yes, he may know all about the charts and the navigation of the waters, but he has not that experience which enables a man to smell his way through the fogs and past the shoals and into the intricacies of our ports. Why should we 224 enable foreigners, let them be friendly foreigners or enemy aliens, to acquire that experience without which on all occasions a ship cannot be navigated into our ports? We are absolutely forfeiting that which Providence has given us, and I say this, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), that it is a first principle that we should not cede to any Government Department the conservation of our first-line defence in this country. We are here to govern, and we are not going to forfeit our rights to any Government Department, and I say this advisedly, that if we forfeit this right once more we do so on a flimsy pretence, because, as the President of the Board of Trade said, there is only one reason why we should do this very act of forfeiture, and that is some little Convention that has been made many years ago. We have changed many things by reason of the War, and we are going to change many more things. It is one governing principle of defence that we ought to prohibit aliens pilotage certificates, and I do hope this House. Will assert itself to-day on this principle of defence, because if we do not we are conceding to enemies of the past and potential enemies of the future the right to an experience which will enable them not only to send submarines, but any other future munitions of war, to defeat us in our own homes. I, therefore, hope this House will reject the Amendment by a very large majority.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has advanced two arguments in favour of this Amendment. The first argument was that, by an arrangement with the Admiralty, certain things were done. What I want to ask the Government is, What safeguard has this House and this country that those arrangements will be continued? We may have a different First Lord of the Admiralty and a different President of the Board of Trade, and therefore arrangements, which may be very excellent in their way, may be altered. We ought to legislate here, and not leave to any Government Department the power to make rules and regulations without coming to this House. Therefore, I do not think there is anything to be said for that argument. But the second argument advanced does seem to bear some weight. The right hon. Gentleman says there is a Convention which has been entered into under certain 225 circumstances. Now, I strongly object to breaking any bargain or agreement. I agree with almost everything the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, except his last argument, that now we have been to war we can break any Convention. I do not think that is a good thing. That is the "scrap of paper" argument which was denounced in this country when the Germans used it as an argument. I would suggest an Amendment, which, I think, might possibly meet all the objections which have been raised to the Government's Amendment, namely, to leave out in the Amendment of the Government the words, "cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913," and to insert the words, "case of France, in which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply," so that the Amendment would then read, "except in the case of France, in which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply" That would limit the powers of the Government to one particular country, France, and it would enable us to carry out the agreement made with what, after all, was our ally, for whom we went to war. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept that Amendment, but, if they would, I think it would be a way out of the difficulty. It would preserve our rights with regard to every other country in the world, and the only country which would be excepted would be our neighbour, France. Although I do not myself believe much in the League of Nations, nor do I think we are always going to be at peace with all the world, I think it will be a great many years before we have a quarrel with France, and 1 do attach importance to the keeping of a bargain which we have made.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHave you seen the Convention?
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913," and insert instead thereof the words, "case of France, to which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
§ Mr. SHORTTBoth in Committee upstairs and here this afternoon I entirely based my objection on the case of France. I based it entirely on the Anglo-French Convention, and nothing else. As regards 226 the danger, so long as we allow any alien constantly to come into our ports and stand on the bridge as a pilot, the mere fact of giving him a certificate will not increase the danger very much. But as France is the one basis of my opposition upstairs to the proposal, the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet, if it is acceptable to the House, is quite acceptable to the Government.
§ Commander Sir E. NICHOLLI would like to endorse everything that was said by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall). It is the wish, I think, of the great British public, and certainly of the pilots in the United Kingdom, that the law should stand as it is here, and nothing else will satisfy them. Although the President of the Board of Trade has tried to camouflage his remarks round this Clause, I still think the Clause should stand. Without any undue bravado, I might mention that perhaps more than any other man in this House during the War I have come into contact with the pilots. I have been personally responsible for the passing of 55,000 vessels in the Bristol Channel, and therefore I have come into contact with pilots to a very great extent, and everyone of them considers that we should support the exclusion of foreign pilots. Much of the losses during the War can be attributed to the knowledge of foreign pilots of our ports. I support in every way the Clause as it stands.
§ Mr. STEWARTAs one of those who served on the Grand Committee which had this Bill before it, the Government, I think, have treated us a little unfairly. They were beaten in Committee on this point, and they bring up the question now, knowing full well that, in the ordinary way, when the Division bell goes, Members who have not listened to the discussion will come in and support the Government and perhaps undo all the work that has been done upstairs. I am in agreement with the right hon. Baronet's Amendment, but before we accept it may we ask where we are? We do not quit know where the Convention begins and where it ends. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is very keen about keeping his bargain. Well, we all are. But if we are to have a Convention with Belgium and other countries—
§ Sir A. GEDDESFrance only.
§ Mr. STEWARTSo long as it relates to France only, of course it modifies the position a good deal. But I find on the 28th July last, when the President of the Board of Trade was asked questions about pilots, he produced the figures which he again mentioned to-day. Although he says there are only twenty-four people with certificates, there is nothing to prevent the Board of Trade from multiplying that number to any number they think fit. After all, we know that Antwerp became practically a German port, and that Rotterdam and other places are saturated with Germans, and we may have Dutchmen Who are really Germans getting pilots' certificates. The Dutch have not been friendly to this country during the War by any means, and when in Belgium the other day I heard with amazement that they allowed a German Army to march across their territory carrying Belgian spoil with them, whereas they kept our men from Antwerp in gaol for four years. Therefore, I do not think we need extend very much consideration to them in a matter of this sort. Supposing we pass this thing as it stands in the Bill, the ground is quite clear and we know where we are. I think it would be a wise thing to do. I should be very sorry to vote against the Government, but, having twice voted against them yesterday, if this goes to a Division I am afraid I will do it a third time to-day. This is something beyond party government. It is a question of national safety, and I think the Bill as it stands is probably the best way out of the difficulty.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI only want to, ask two questions of the Government, and I think their answers would help some of us how to vote. The first is, What really is in. this Convention with France? I understand efforts have been made in this House prior to to-day to get at this Convention. We have not seen it, and we are asked now to put in an. Act of Parliament really a declaration to the House that we are to approve that Convention. We ought to know what it is first.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThat was done by this House in 1913. The Convention has been approved by the House, and special arrangements were embodied by this House in the Act.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI was in the House in 1913, but I confess I do not quite remember this Act being passed. I am 228 told the Convention was not produced to the House, and Clause 24 of the Act does not say it was in consequence of that Convention with France. Therefore I do not think that Convention was produced to the House at all. What I want to know is whether the Convention with France applies to the twenty-four pilots, who were in existence then, or applies to the second portion of the Clause to enable the Admiralty to licence practically an unlimited number of new pilots and new masters, provided they are masters of a similar type of ship. The second question I want to ask is this: If we put into an Act of Parliament a reference to a Convention with France giving them a certain favoured-nation Clause, as one may say, with regard to their pilots, is there anything in the treaties with other countries to compel us to extend it to them? In other words, is there any kind of favoured-nation treatment in the Convention with regard to pilots as there was in treaties as to Excise customs and such like? The answer to these two questions, I think, would enable many of us to decide whether to accept the proposal of the right hon. Baronet or to ask the House to vote clearly and simply on the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDOne can quite understand the attitude of the Government in this matter, and one can sympathise with it, because it is perfectly clear that they have been trying—I should think very much against their will, and possibly against their better judgment—to carry out what they conceive to be a Convention made, in 1913, with France, who have been our good Allies in the War. What does the Act of 1913 stipulate? It stipulates that in respect of certain vessels coining into our ports that the authorities here should have the power to licence the masters of these vessels, being foreign subjects, to hold pilotage certificates into our ports.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDWe understand from the Government that there was a number of conventions in existence, not merely with France. There was one with Holland, and one with Germany; and there were conventions with other countries. These other conventions were, I understand, denounced by our Government at the outbreak of the War. The Convention 229 with France was not denounced, and has been allowed to continue, and the Government tell us that their idea is that to introduce this Amendment into the Bill is simply to safeguard the Convention of France. Of course, if that is so they would readily accept, and I understand, are willing to accept, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. Our view, however, would be, 1 think, to make a clean cut in this matter. We have had enough of conventions with foreign countries which give aliens power to get pilots' certificates to come into our ports, whether it be Grimsby, or New- haven, or the port of Liverpool, of which I have the honour to be one of the members. We had enemy submarines within five miles of the port of Liverpool. We had vessels sunk between Liverpool and Holyhead. There was a vessel sunk and valuable lives lost on a voyage from Holyhead to Kingstown.
Knowing as we do that under these very Conventions—not in the case of the Convention with France, but in the case of other Conventions, no less than nine Germans held pilotage certificates into some of our ports at the outbreak of the War; knowing as we do that some of these very men were able to guide the submarines into those places where they were able to destroy our shipping and valuable lives, I think, after the War, we have all come to the conclusion that whether or not we approve—as we should like to do, if we can see our way to do it—of the arrangement made with France, there is even something stronger, and that is the safety of our country. We ought to make a clean cut of this—and not altogether in the interests of the pilots. And let me say one word about that. I have been associated with pilots during the whole time I have been a Member of this House. They had to fight very hard to get what is the effect of this Clause. They have never got it. They said that no British subject was allowed to be a German pilot, and why, therefore, should German pilots navigate ships into our ports. No Dutch port was allowed to have a British pilot. Nothing of the sort They know better. But we, in our confidence, did not think of what might or might not happen, and allowed these foreigners to get these certificates. My own feeling on the matter is that, Convention or no Convention with France, or any other nation, it is now time that we made up our minds that no certificates are granted in future unless to British-born 230 subjects—not only British subjects, but British born. [...]. I think the view of the House of Commons will be reflected in the country to-morrow when this Debate is published in the Press.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI hope the House will carefully consider the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. [...]et the Member for the City of London. I appears on the face of it innocuous. [...] know the intention is to avoid anything that would wound the susceptibilities o[...] our French Allies. Nevertheless, I hope every briefly to give one or two reasons [...] the House should not accept the Amendment and should insist on the Clause as it [...] nocuous to grant the right to [...] to pilot their ships into Newhaven or other Channel ports, but I think it would be extremely difficult for the Government to resist the demand by other nations for equal treatment, and an extension of the ports —to Southampton, then from Harwich to the Continent, then from the Humber to Hamburg, and so on, till eventually you have exactly the same pre-war conditions —conditions which have been condemned by everybody in the House, including even the Government apologist for this Amendment. The position is a dangerous one in N, which the country has been and may be placed, by allowing foreign seamen to enter into our ports and to grant certificates to them for the purpose. I do not see how the Government could really resist a demand for reciprocal treatment by other nations. The Frenchman has been singled out, but if we did go the whole way, as passed in the Committee, and refuse to grant any certificates, I do not see how the Frenchman can possibly object. This is a sovereign House of Commons, a House which placed the original Act on the Statute Book in 1913, and now proposes to put this Bill on the Statute Book. I do not see how the matter can be questioned. We cannot be too much on the safe side, as has been pointed out tune and again by speakers. I do hope the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and will go for the Act plump and plain as it stands, to the effect that only British subjects shall have certificates. This is a serious matter. It is a national matter. I am quite sure, after what has happened 231 in the last five years, [...]y will totally misunderstand i[...] we do not insist upon this.
§ Mr. MURCHISONI hope the Government will not press this Amendment of theirs, because it is against the interests of the country as a wh[...]. If we pass this Amendment it must create a good deal of difficulty in other countries in the future, for they will ask [...]ve similar conditions to the French[...] I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that, in addition [...] the twenty-four certificates he mentioned in existence at the present time, the[...] are not a large number of certificates [...] were given [...] and other aliens [...] the war, which have been kept alive, as it were, by payments during the War? I shall be very glad if the Home Secretary will explain the matter to the House.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI should like to give an indication of the nature of the agreement with France. There was a long discussion carried on through many meetings during the year, and at the end an agreement was reached by which this country pledged its good name to make provision by which the masters of ships trading on the three specified routes between this country and France should be allowed to pilot their own ships into our ports. Then according to the reports there followed the discussion of the means and manner of giving effect to this arrangement; and finally the procedure which was adopted was rather extraordinary. The French were asked to agree not to sign a definite arrangement but to accept the Clause which appeared in the Act of 1913, to which we are bound as far as France is concerned. It would appear to me that the point which we have really to meet as a nation is that we have entered into an agreement, and that agreement has been ratified by this House—it is true five years ago, and before the War—I will admit all that—but we have this agreement with France—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about others? "]—and we have national rights, the same rights as France, for taking our ships into French ports.
§ Sir EDGAR JONESWill the right hon. Gentleman say how that is guaranteed on the side of the French?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThat is one of the extraordinary parts of the whole thing. It 232 is not guaranteed. It is an extraordinarily complicated business. It is mixed up with conventions with Bulgaria, under which a national right was given and the most-favoured-nation Clause was to apply.
§ Mr. STURROCKOther nations had the right ‡
§ Sir A. GEDDESWe have here to deal with this Convention. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London meets the situation in part. I will be quite prepared on behalf of the Government to accept the limitation in regard to the ports of Grimsby and Newhaven, and that the number of certificates granted should be twenty-four. Will that meet the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No‡"] I do not want to have any expansion of this business, but we are pledged in this matter to give these rights to the French—in exchange for the rights which they have given us of national treatment, and of taking our cross-Channel boats into their ports.
§ Sir A. GEDDESIf we lose the right of taking our ships into the French ports we lose something very considerable and appreciable, and a matter of great importance to the trade of this country, because the majority of the boats of the trans-Channel service are British boats. It is in the interests of this country that there should be the freest possible communication across Channel for the purposes of trade.
§ Sir E. CARSONIf this Amendment is passed as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, what would be the effect on nations who have the most-favoured-nation Clause?
§ Sir A. GEDDESI am advised that it would not involve us in any difficulties with any other nation. It is an unusual thing to put in these conditions, but that is the difficulty with which the Government have been faced throughout. I do not see how the Government can say that we can depart from this agreement under which we are receiving very substantial benefit. I hope the House will agree to some such words as those which have been proposed to enable this Convention to continue.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSAre we to take it as a definite statement by the Law Officers of the Crown on behalf of the Government that no complications could possibly arise with any other nation under any most-favoured nation Clause at all? Unless we can have that assurance I do not think this Amendment should be accepted.
§ Sir A. GEDDESObviously no other possible difficulties can arise. I am in a position to say that the advice I have received after a rather rapid search is that no difficulties can arise. This is the Report stage. There will be further stages, and if what I have said turns out to be wrong, the matter can be dealt with in another place, and I will undertake to see that it is not allowed to go by default and that some other arrangement will be made. This difficulty in regard to the Convention is a very real one.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSAs the Government is going to recommit this Bill in regard to certain other Clauses, would it not be possible to recommit it in regard to this Clause also in order that we may have the Law Officers of the Crown present?
§ Mr. SHORTTIn a matter of this kind I must be entirely guided by the House. We all wish to get this Bill through, and if hon. Members would rather vote now upon the Amendment we can do so.
Colonel L. WARDI must apologise for intervening at so late a stage in this Debate, but I do so because I represent one of the largest shipping ports in the United Kingdom, and I appeal to the Government not to insist upon this Amendment, and not to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London. We were told that an arrangement had been come to after a long discussion satisfactory to all parties. I can only say that those who make that statement must be singularly out of touch with the feeling amongst the seafaring community, because the seafaring population of my Constituency are not satisfied with the Amendment, and they insist upon nothing else but the Bill as it stands. I have had representations from pilots, and so have other hon. Members, asking us to see that this measure is passed as it stands unamended. The two speeches which have been delivered by the President of the Board of Trade were difficult to under 234 stand, but I take him as saying that reciprocal arrangements have been made between France and the United Kingdom by which English captains could take cross-Channel boats into French ports and French captains could bring French cross-Channel steamers into English ports.
May I point out that although an English captain is entitled to take a cross-Channel boat into a French port he has to pay pilotage dues all the same? That is, he has to pay for a pilot whether he uses one or not. What advantage is there in that, because, after all, you have to take the boat in at your own risk? This proposal will give to the French captain a definite pilotage certificate which will enable him to bring him to bring his ship here without paying any pilotage dues at all. Is that reciprocity? It seems to me that people who call that reciprocity do not know how to spell the word. If we have a definite understanding that if French captains are granted English pilotage certificates, let English captains be granted French pilotage certificates on the same terms. That is only fair play, and under those circumstances I should be prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and otherwise I would not accept it on any account. Personally, I should prefer to have this measure as it stands at present, for it is much safer and better. I am not going through the arguments which have been advanced by many hon. Members with regard to the danger of allowing foreigners to hold pilotage certificates, because I do not think there is much in that. When a man is allowed to stand on the bridge beside the pilot it does not make much difference whether he receives a certificate or not. This Amendment is not fair play. It does not treat the English captain or the owner in the same way as the French captain or owner are treated.
§ Sir E. CARSONI feel some difficulty about this matter after the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman he said, as regards this French Convention, that we had similar rights in regard to France. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken says that is not so. I am not acquainted with the facts, and I would like to know do the French allow our captains to have pilotage certificates for the ports in France?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe system is different, but our captains have the right to pilot into French ports. [An HON. MEMBER: "They pay dues."] Yes, it is something like that.
§ Sir E. CARSONI want to know what "something like that" means. I understand they pay French Compulsory pilotage dues. If our French pilots get the pilotage certificates under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London will they pay pilotage dues here, or "something like that"? We want to have this point cleared up, and we really want to know where we stand. There has been no answer given to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert). We need not think so much about the Convention because we have often denounced conventions in the past. The House wants to know whether there is reciprocal treatment or not. All conventions of this kind entered into are of course subject to such municipal laws for our own defence as we wish to pass. There is no particular sanctity about. them, and certainly if we have not learned any lessons on these matters after five years of war, and what happened upon the sea and in relation to certificates given to foreign pilots, we shall have learned nothing whatever from the War. I remember when I was at the Admiralty the suspicion there was throughout the whole of the land, and the uneasiness there was when it was found out that there were eight or nine German pilots who had learned how to come into our ports by reason of the certificates we gave them, and they were afterwards found to be using that knowledge for naval purposes to blow up our ships. Surely that has taught us a real lesson in relation to the War. I do not think the House is sufficiently possessed of the necessary facts which ought to lead it to change this Bill which has been passed in its present form after full consideration in Committee upstairs. Unless I have better information that we have reciprocal obligations and treatment in all respects I am not prepared to say that pilotage certificates should be given to any but those of British birth. I am not satisfied upon the other point which has been raised. Certificates have been given in the past, I suppose, under a number of treaties and conventions to the subjects of other foreign nations. I do not 236 know how those stand now, and I would like to know whether they have been denounced?
§ Sir E. GEDDESThe position is that during the War those certificates which in 1913 numbered 61 were suspended, as 1.0 one knows better than the right non. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) who, when he was at the Admiralty, took over the full charge of pilotage. There were, as the result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy while at the Admiralty, orders issued cutting down the number of those. certificates and they only exist now in relation to the two ports I have mentioned of Grimsby and Newhaven. For the other ports in regard to which certificates existed, although they may nominally still exist they cannot be made any use of. An lion. Member spoke of the condition in the Bristol port. Those certificates cannot be made use of. The same applies to Liverpool. There are just those two ports, Grimsby and Newhaven, and, although there are twenty-four certificates in existence, the number that will be made use of will be probably something less than twenty-four.
§ Sir E. CARSONI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has reminded me of the service that I did during the War. I am: not in the least complaining. I think it ought to be continued. I do not remember under what particular law it was done, although in war-time it was an easy matter to carry out and a necessary matter. I am inclined to think that the arrangements must have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, although I do not know.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYYes, they were.
§ Sir E. CARSONBut I know also that the Defence of the Realm Act will come to an end.
§ Sir A. GEDDESIt was not under the Defence of the Realm Act.
§ Sir E. CARSONThen under what Act?
§ Sir A. GEDDESUnder the Pilotage Act.
§ Sir E. CARSONIt was the Pilotage Act which enabled the Admiralty for the time being to make Orders and at the same time to get rid of Orders. They can issue a new Order. It is therefore merely a question of reviving these certificates by 237 the Admiralty passing another Order. The Admiralty have that right. What answer will my right hon. Friend give to and country, Holland or whatever country you like, if they come and say, "We have got a most-favoured-nation Clause. You have given special facilities as regards navigation in your ports to France. Under out most-favoured-nation Clause [...] claim that we should have the same privileges as France." What is the answer [...] Of course, there may be answer. We were promised nearly two years ago that all the most favoured-nation Clauses would be denounced. I wish that they were. They are the root of half our difficulties in the administration of international law. I have protested against them ever since I was a Law Officer. We were never done with them. You could never make a concession of any kind, even with the greatest reciprocity and to the greatest advantage, without you were met by someone else coming down under the most-favoured-nation Clause and claiming exactly the same. I wish that they were denounced. I know that they have not been, although we were promised that they would be. I am not laying it down as a legal opinion, but on the best view that I can form on the statements given I can see no reason why, if we grant these rights to France, any nation which has the most-favoured-nation Clause should not demand the same rights for themselves. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, not being satisfied that there is really any reason at all why we should riot get rid of this Convention with France, and at the same time, believing that we are incurring a great danger in leaving open the possibility of other nations coming in and making these same claims, and believing, as I do, that before another year is out we shall be having treaties with Germany, giving them the
§ most favour of food [...] Clause—you will get back in[...] old circle which left us in the grip [...] enemy at every turn when the War [...] out—I hope that the House will take this opportunity of making a clean-cut, and keeping our pilotage for British seament, which is what we ought to do.
§ Colonel GREIGI just want to make one suggestion which I think will meet with the approval of those who have been very much impressed by what has been said about the Anglo-French Convention. If we were to go back upon any agreement of that sort it would not redound to our credit. Apparently, under it there is a power in one [...] of our Departments, probably the Admiralty, of renewing or reviving these particular certificates. At the present time that is apparently confined to France. There are in existence twenty-four of these certificates. There can be no harm in our putting an end to the power and discretion of the Admiralty to renew, and scheduling in this Bill the existing twenty-four certificates, and saying that after those certificates have expired, either by the death of the holder or his ceasing to be a commander, there can be no renewal or revival. That will be preserving existing vested rights, and also our honour as regards the Convention with France, and it would prevent any fresh Convention or any fresh revival those certificates.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the words 'except in the case of France, to which country the special provisions of the Pilotage Act of 1913 shall apply,'" be there inserted in the Bill.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 185.
241| Division No. 113.] | AYES. | [6.55 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton) | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S. | Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh) | Gilbert, James Daniel |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Dawes, J. A. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Doyle, N. Grattan | Gregory, Holman |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Edge, Captain William | Greig, Col. James William |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark) | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Barnston, Major H. | Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G.(Isingtn., W.) | Hacking, Captain D. H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Eyres-Mansell, Commander | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.) |
| Blades, Sir George R. | Falcon Captain M. | Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Hewart, Rt. Hell. Sir Gordon |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Fell, Sir Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Carr, W. T. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) |
| Casey. T. W. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Hume-Wiliams, Sir Wm. Ellis |
| Cecil, Rt. hen. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Forrest, W. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hen. F. S. (York) |
| Cohen, Major J. B. B. | Galbraith, Samuel | Johnson, L. S. |
| Conte, Colin R. (Isle of Ely) | Gauge, E. S. | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) |
| Craig. Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.) | Ganzoni, Captain F. C. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pownall, Lieut-colon | Storreck, J. Long |
| Knight, Capt. E. A. | Purchase H.G Asshaton[...] | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Raffan, Peter William | Talbot, Rt, Hon. Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow) | [...] | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Lewis, Rt. Han. J. H. (Univ. Wales) | [...] | Thorpe, J. H. |
| Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | Wallace, J. |
| Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N. | Wardle, George J. |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C, |
| M`Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg) | Reid, D. D. | Whitla, Sir William |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall) | Williams, A. (Consett, Durham) |
| Mallalieu, Frederick William | Rodger, A. K. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading) |
| Mason, Robert | Rothschild, Lionel de | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Morison, T. B. (Inverness) | Hoyden, Sir Thomas | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.) |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen) | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Neal, Arthur | Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Nicholson, R. (Doncaster) | Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Northwood) | Yea, Sir Alfred William |
| Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Sanders. Colonel Robert Arthur | Young. Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Pearce, Sir William | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John | Younger, Sir George |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Olin Shaw. Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) | |
| Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mdd[...]) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on. T., W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lt.-Col. |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. | Stanley and Mr. Parker. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Gould, J. C. | Nicholson, W. (Petersfield) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H. | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Archdale, Edward M. | Greame, Major P. Lloyd | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Green J. F. (Leicester) | Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J. |
| Bagley, Captain E. A. | Greene, Lt -Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | O'Grady, James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H. |
| Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood | Griggs, Sir Peter | Oman, C. W. C. |
| Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. Ii. (Devizes) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Betterton, H. B. | Grundy, T. W. | Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York,) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Billing, Noel Pemberton | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Pennefather, Da Fonblangua |
| Bireliall, Major J. D. | Hanna. G. B. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Bird, Alfred | Hanson, Sir Charles | Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles |
| Berwick, Major G. O. | Hartshorn, V. | Preston, W. R. |
| Bottomley, Heratle | Henderson, Arthur | Raeburn, Sir William |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Herbert, Denniss (Hertford) | Romer. J. B. |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Milder, Lieut.-Colonel F. | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Breese, Major C. E. | RANK, John | Richardson, R. (Houghton) |
| Briggs, Harold | Hirst, G. H. | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Robertson, J. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, N.) | Mohier, Gerald Fitzroy | Rogers, Sir Hallewell |
| Bruton, Sir J. | Hood, Joseph | Rose, Frank H. |
| Colonel Rowland | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. |
| Burn, Coloiici C. R. (Torquay) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Butcher, Sir J. G. | Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Cairns, John | Hurd, P. A. | Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Campion. Colonel W. R. | Irving. Dan | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Cape, Tom | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Seeger, Sir William |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jones, J. (Silvertown) | Seddon, James |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester) | Jones. William Kennedy (Hulsey) | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Simm, Colonel M. T. |
| Cayzer, Major H. R. | Kenyon, Barnet | Sitch, C. H. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Kidd, James | Smith, W. (Wellingborough) |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Spencer, George A. |
| Clough, R. | Lloyd, George Butler | Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Locker-Lampson, G. (Weed Green) | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K. | Lorden, John William | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William | Stewart, Gorshom |
| Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff) | Lynn, R. J. | Surtees, Brig.-General H. C. |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page | Macmaster, Donald | Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield) |
| Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H. | McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury) | Terrell, G. (Chippenham. Wilts.) |
| Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.) |
| Davies, T. (Cirencester) | Maddocks, Henry | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smathwick) | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington) | Martin, A. E. | Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow) |
| Dockrell, Sir M. | Matthews, David | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Moles, Thomas | Vickers, D. |
| Du Pre, Colonel W. B. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Waddington, R. |
| Edwards, C. (Bedwelty) | Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J. | Walsh, S. (Ince Lance.) |
| Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark) | Mercies, Col. H. Grant | Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Morrison, H. (Salisbury) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Finney, Samuel | Murchison, C. K. | Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson |
| Foxcroft. Captain C. | Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Frazer, Major Sir Keith | Murray, William (Dumtries) | Williams, Lt. Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Glyn. Major R. | Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward | Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.) |
| Williams, Col. P (Middlesbrough) | Wilson, Col, M. (Richmond, Yorks.) | Young, William (Perth and Kinross) |
| Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud | Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. | Worsfold, t. Cato | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. |
| Wilson, Capt A. Stanley (hold'ness) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward | Wignall and Mr. Inskip. |
| Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ 7.0. P.M.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)In view of the decision which you, Sir, have just announced, I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.