HC Deb 02 June 1921 vol 142 cc1363-89

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the re-organisation and further regulation of railways, and the discharge of liabilities in connection with the possession of railways, and otherwise to amend the law relating to railways, and to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee, it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  1. (a) of a sum of sixty million pounds in satisfaction of claims which might have been made by railway companies in Great Britain for compensation under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of, or in respect of, the possession by the Crown of the undertakings, railroads, or plant of such railway companies, or in the exercise of the powers conferred by those Acts;
  2. (b) of the expenses (including the remuneration of members and staff) of any tribunals which may be established by the said Act;
  3. (c) of contributions by the Treasury to any pension or superannuation fund of which any officer or servant of a railway company transferred to the Minister of Transport may remain a member, and of allowances for the disturbance of officers and servants;
  4. (d) of the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as the Committee is continued in existence by the said Act."

Question again proposed.

Mr. WATERSON

On a point of Order. At 8.15 we were discussing an Amendment to leave out "sixty" and to insert "ten." I want to ask, seeing that the second Amendment is in the wrong place, and should be before the one that was under discussion, if it is your intention that the second Amendment should be thoroughly discussed after we have discussed the one now under consideration?

The CHAIRMAN

I understand the Amendment that comes first on the Paper was not actually put from the Chair. In these circumstances, we are not obliged to proceed with it. Therefore I will put the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name. At the same time, I do not think the Amendment is one of substance, and it does not appear to me, subject to either what the hon. Member or the Minister in charge may have to say, that it would make any difference whatever to the Resolution if it were carried.

Mr. WATERSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "of" ["a sum of sixty million pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal)

I hope I may be able to satisfy the hon. Member that it is not necessary to proceed with the Amendment. I will give the explanation as to how the figure of £60,000,000 comes to be in Clause 10. Everyone is familiar with the controversy proceeding with the railway companies and the Government as to the right of the railway companies to receive certain monetary payments under the agreements which were arrived at on the basis of the 1871 Act when the railways were taken possession of by the State. These matters were inquired into in detail by a Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn, and their Report has formed the subject of a discussion in the House. Lord Colwyn's Committee took a great deal of evidence and took infinite pains, and they did their best to tabulate the claims which were possible against the State under the agreement, and in their Report, with which I hope every hon. Member is familiar, they arrived at the conclusion that there were possible claims outstanding against the State at the end of the period of control which might reach £150,000,000 on certain specified items, with an indefinite sum beyond which could not be ascertained. That has been estimated in the previous discussion as possibly another £50,000,000. There was one thing that was quite plain in the discussion in this House, and so far as one could judge of public feeling outside, and that was that it was not wise and prudent that litigation of unprecedented length and complexity, and of great uncertainty, should be undertaken between the various railway companies, 114 in number, and the State, upon this question, if a reasonable and fair conclusion could be arrived at by friendly negotiation. I do not think any hon. Member can cavil that that was the complete opinion of the House of Commons in the previous discussion.

There seemed to be very great difficulties in the way of negotiation. There were 114 railways concerned, and there was no negotiating body. They had their varying claims, and it was very difficult to find out just what they would be; but in the course of discussion the Minister of Transport threw out a suggestion that he was quite prepared to discuss the matter if somebody could be found with the necessary authority to negotiate with him.

The course which the Government have taken is the one that was outlined in a speech that I had the honour of making in one of the previous Debates. We first took the advice of the law officers of the Crown as to their view of the legal position, and the prospect of litigation. The Minister had the assistance of an extremely strong Cabinet Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the present Lord Privy Seal. He had also the great assistance of his expert financial adviser at the Ministry (Sir George Beharrell) and of Sir Hardman Lever, the Treasury official. Fortunately, the railway companies put themselves in a position to enter into negotiation. Those negotiations were conducted by very close bargaining by my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government, and by the representatives of the railway companies on behalf of the general mass of railway companies. So close was the bargaining that at one time it seemed as if agreement was remote, but, fortunately, agreement was arrived at and that agreement was for a sum of £60,000,000.

Here I come to a position where I think I can appeal to my hon. Friends not to press any Amendment upon this matter. It is quite obvious that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. There is a bargain, subject to ratification by Parliament. You cannot reduce the sum which you have agreed upon except by a further agreement. If that is so, the whole settlement necessarily goes unless Parliament sees fit to confirm the agreement arrived at. That must be perfectly obvious to my hon. Friends opposite, who have been looking into this matter and have thought it right—I make no complaint—to put down an Amendment to ascertain exactly the position of the Government in the matter. Of course, Parliament is supreme, and it will be open to Parliament to refuse this money Resolution, and therefore to end the bargain which has provisionally been arrived at. The effect of that would be at once to open the doors to endless litigation, and to a state of uncertainty which would neither be good for the public nor for the railway companies. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate thing than that the railway companies should be put in the position of not being able to know their financial outlook at the end of the period of control, and that they should have to face interminable, extremely costly, and very difficult litigation. This recommendation is submitted to the Committee on the authority of the Government, and my hon. Friends will remember that it had the support on Second Reading of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, the legal adviser of the Government, who, speaking with the double authority of a Member of the Cabinet and of the law office, who is responsible for the litigation of the Crown, had no hesitation in recommending the House to ratify and confirm the bargain which had been arrived at by negotiation.

I am prepared to give any information I can to the House upon this matter. Hon. Members will realise that when you have been conducting negotiations with people outside, you have to get to a result by virtue of the use of that word which is so useful and yet so elastic. I mean the word "reasonable." There has been, I trust, a reasonable spirit shown by both sides in this matter, and I invite the Committee, without hesitation, to confirm the results arrived at.

Mr. WATERSON

I have listened very patiently to my hon. Friend who has spoken on behalf of the Government, but in his speech there has been very little that has convinced me of the necessity of withdrawing this Resolution. He gave to us, in his usual courteous and eloquent fashion, an exposition of the reason why the Government have come to a decision of this character. Many of us have gone closely into the Colwyn Report, and we are reminded of the fact that there are Members of that Committee who are not quite satisfied that the £60,000,000 is a satisfactory amount. I am aware that many Members think that a higher sum should have been inserted. But there are also many Members who think that a smaller sum should have been inserted. In moving this Amendment we are anxious to safeguard ourselves for the Committee stage of this Bill. Under the terms of the Resolution as they stand there must be a sum of £60,000,000. It cannot be a penny less or a penny more. If it has to be increased it would be necessary for the Minister in charge of the Bill to come to the House to get authority to

make the increase. We are anxious, when we come to the Committee stage, that we shall be able to have a full Debate on it with that view. We fail to see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. It has been said that we cannot reduce the £60,000,000 unless we are prepared to set up another agreement and break the present agreement. I cannot enter into that matter, because it would be out of order. But if these words are substituted it will not alter the question of the figure which is to come on on the next Amendment. I would ask the Committee to consider this, so that when the Committee stage may come it shall again have the opportunity of retaining the £60,000,000 or substituting some other sum which they feel justified according to the evidence that was given.

Question put, "That the word 'of' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 38.

Division No. 143.] AYES. [9.59 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Amery, Leopold C. M. S. Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Armitage, Robert Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Atkey, A. R. Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Parker, James
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Barnston, Major Harry Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Perkins, Walter Frank
Barrand, A. R. Higham, Charles Frederick Pratt, John William
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Hills, Major John Waller Prescott, Major W. H.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hinds, John Purchase, H. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Hood, Joseph Rae, H. Norman
Breese, Major Charles E. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ramsden, G. T.
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hurd, Percy A. Renwick, George
Butcher, Sir John George Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Casey, T. W. Jameson, John Gordon Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Jodrell, Neville Paul Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Clough, Robert Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Seager, Sir William
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole King, Captain Henry Douglas Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Lane-Fox, G. R. Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Larmor, Sir Joseph Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lorden, John William Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Dawes, James Arthur Lyle, C. E. Leonard Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Edge, Captain William McMicking, Major Gilbert Wallace, J.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Elveden, viscount Maddocks, Henry Waring, Major Walter
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Magnus, Sir Philip Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Mallalieu, Frederick William Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Forrest, Walter Manville, Edward Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Matthews, David Winterton, Earl
Gardiner, James Middlebrook, Sir William Wise, Frederick
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B. Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Molson, Major John Elsdale Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Goff, Sir R. Park Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Gould, James C. Morrison, Hugh TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Neal, Arthur Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
Dudley Ward.
NOES.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Bromfield, William Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Cairns, John Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Finney, Samuel Irving, Dan Spencer, George A.
Galbraith, Samuel John, William (Rhondda, West) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Gillis, William Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lunn, William Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morgan, Major D. Watts Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W. Newbould, Alfred Ernest Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) O'Grady, James
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Royce, William Stapleton TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Vernon Sexton, James Mr. Waterson and Mr. Wignall.
Hirst, G. H. Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "sixty," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

I do not think it respectful to the Committee for the Minister of Transport not to be in his place when this important Resolution is being taken. Of course I appreciate very much the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I noticed that the Minister of Transport was able to come and vote, for I saw him in the Lobby. If he is now in the House, why cannot he be here? He asks for £60,000,000 for the compensation of the railway companies and in the same Resolution he asks for further moneys to an indeterminate amount for the expenses of the tribunals and the Rates Advisory Committee. This Bill affects every single soul in the country; the commercial community, labour, private persons and everyone. I do not wish to be personal, but it is against Parliamentary custom for the Minister not to be in his place. This sort of treatment has been meted out to myself and my friends continuously from the time when this Bill was first mooted. We representatives of Hull have been treated with contumely. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply on the Second Reading, did not deal with the objections raised by us and we were told by him that they were matters to be considered in Committee. That was on a par with the treatment we have received throughout. We see the tyranny of the North Eastern Railway with its monopoly reflected in the tyranny of the Minister of Transport in regard to this House, in not being present to deal with this Resolution. When a sum of £60,000,000 is asked for the Minister might at least have the courtesy to be present. I think we have a right to demand the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, and without further ado I beg to ask leave to Move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

I cannot accept that Motion.

Captain W. BENN

On a point of Order, as to whether you should take the Motion. Is it not the unbroken practice of the House that when a Minister asks—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Order, Order!

Captain BENN

Am I not entitled to urge you to take the Motion, in accordance with the usual practice that a Minister, if available, should be present in his place—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have given my decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am entirely in your hands, and if you do not accept my Motion, I cannot press it. With regard to the £60,000,000, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, whose courtesy I wish to acknowledge, that if a bargain has been made we cannot go back on it, but, at the same time, I am bound to say, after reading the Report of the Colwyn Committee, that that impartial and diligent Committee expressed grave doubts about the companies' original claim of £165,000,000. Now we see that the claim has been reduced to £60,000,000. When the agreement with the companies was made by Mr. Runciman in the stress of the War, he, perhaps, had not the opportunity of taking the best available opinion, and hon. Members will be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his very onerous and responsible position, and will make allowances in the case of this agreement. I do not wish to be unfair to the directors of our great railways, for I realise their service to the country, but I think that the railway companies, in the best interests of their shareholders, have taken full advantage of that agreement. The compromise now is for the sum of £60,000,000. The hon. Member (Mr. Spencer), who originally moved this Amendment, made out a good case for further consideration of the matter. I have no special know- ledge of railways, but it seems to me even now that £60,000,000 is a large sum under the circumstances. Everyone had to make sacrifices during the War. Why the railways and the railway shareholders should not "stand their corner "in the general sacrifices of the nation, I do not understand.

The companies have accepted the grouping system, and I would very much like to know how much of that acceptance was influenced by the knowledge that the House would be invited to vote this sum of £60,000,000. The railway directors may have been satisfied as to the system of grouping, but, speaking for people who have to use the railways, I can assure the Minister of Transport that such people are by no means satisfied. It may be easy with this sum of £60,000,000 to salve the consciences of the railway directors. I, of course, impute no improper motives to them, but the right hon. Gentleman will find it a difficult matter to satisfy the mercantile community, particularly in the great ports served by these railways. The directors of some of the subsidiary lines may be satisfied to amalgamate with the great systems such as the North Eastern, but that will not be sufficient for the commercial communities served by those subsidiary railways. On the Second Reading of the Bill this very important matter was raised by two hon. Members who assist me in representing the City of Hull.

Mr. GRITTEN

Assist you?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Yes, in this matter at any rate. I was not so fortunate as to have had an opportunity of taking part in that Debate. The right hon. Gentleman—relying no doubt on the result of the £60,000,000—in the long, interesting, eloquent, and able speech he made in reply on that occasion did not even refer to our objection. I appeal to hon. Members whose constituencies are served by the Port of Hull, the fourth seaport in the world, to consider this. The whole of the business community, apart from party or class, are united in opposition to the proposal of grouping in this Bill.

Mr. GRITTEN

As things are in the Ministry of Transport.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

That is true. We are bitterly opposed to the Ministry of Transport and all its ways. Although this £60,000,000 which the taxpayers have to find may reconcile the directors of these companies to grouping, I repeat—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is discussing the whole question of grouping. This is a finance Resolution. Discussion must follow the Resolution and the financial questions involved in the Resolution, and should not go beyond that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will not pursue the matter, but if this £60,000,000 is to be taken as being the sugar for the pill of grouping, I, as representing 300,000 taxpayers, who will have to find this money, am bound to resist the proposal. This is in no way a party question, and it is only by accident that I am in the position of moving this Amendment. My fellow Members for Hull would also do so. We object strenuously to voting money for the agreement embodied in the Bill and based on this Resolution as being contrary to the best interests of our constituents. If this had been 300 years ago the citizens of Hull would have been burnishing their armour and their culverins, pikes, and partisans. They did it 300 years ago when they closed their gates on the King.

Mr. GRITTEN

Had they railways then?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

No, they had not, but when an attempt was made to override them by executive authority they shut their gates on the King and stood for the Parliamentary party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the subject under discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am sorry if I have proceeded to view the matter from the historical point of view. Until we get some satisfaction I, for one, shall strenuously resist the voting of this money, and I hope I shall be supported in that by many hon. Members.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes)

I regret I was not present when the Amendment was moved. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was saying when I came in that he claimed no special knowledge of rail- ways, but those of us who have listened to him can hardly believe that. He referred to the grouping of railways as being the sugar for the pill. With the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—and I always make that exception—the rest of the railways believe in grouping, and, in fact, my right hon. Friend believes in grouping on a voluntary basis. As regards the £60,000,000, it is unnecessary to use that to sugar the pill, because there is no pill. We arrived at that figure after very careful consideration. It is almost impossible, in any compromise on vast, vague claims, to say exactly how your compromise was arrived at; but if you take six men who are honestly trying to arrive at what is fair, who have the facts before them, and eventually you get to a figure like this, after, I think, two months of the most strenuous negotiations that I have ever taken part in, I have some confidence in submitting it to the Committee as a fair figure. We had the opinion of the Law Officers, we had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Prime Minister, and gradually, by a process of giving a little here and taking a little there, we have arrived at this figure.

It may be that some hon. Members think the figure is more than in equity should have been given, but after all, in this House, and in every section of this House, we have to consider what our obligations are. It is not this Government, it is not any particular Government, but we entered into certain obligations, and we cannot look at this entirely from the point of view of what we think is equity at the present time. We have got to look at it from the point of view of what is fair, having regard to the document we put our signature to, or our predecessors did, and looking at that, we came to the conclusion—though my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull is over-modest as to his knowledge of railways, perhaps in this particular thing we know more—we had all the facts before us, we had the benefit of months of consultation and negotiations, and we came to the conclusion that the figure we recommend to the Committee is a fair figure. It is £51,000,000, as nearly as one can get it. The State undertook to maintain the railways at a certain standard during the War. That might not have been wise or prudent, but they did undertake it, and that we had to take into account, and many other factors we had to take into account, and I had the benefit throughout of consultation, at certain stages daily, with the Attorney-General, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Lord Privy Seal, and with the Prime Minister, and we came to the conclusion that this was a fair sum. What is the alternative? The Committee is free to turn it down, to reject the settlement. You can have a vista of endless litigation, but nothing else. You can have no settlement in regard to the railways, if you reject this. It is almost impossible. It is true this Committee is free, but it has to take into account facts as they are. It is our duty to put this before this Committee as what we believe a fair and reasonable settlement. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to Hull. I knew Hull before he knew it. I knew Halifax before he did.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

You will know Hell before I do.

Sir E. GEDDES

It is not a question of Hull. Hull can come up in Committee. I know the whole question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two hon. Members who spoke for Hull on the Second Reading have been kept off the Committee, and will not have a chance of bringing it up in Committee?

Sir E. GEDDES

I am afraid I do not know who is on the Committee. I do not select the Committee, but we can deal with Hull in Committee. I know the whole case. I have great sympathy with some aspects of the whole case, but I shall have certain points against the Hull case in Committee. The details of grouping can be discussed there, but this question has nothing to do with this settlement. This is a settlement of outstanding matters under the agreement, which, wisely or unwisely, the State undertook, and I do beg that this Committee, after months of consideration by a Committee, which put in most devoted work, and after most careful consideration and negotiation by half-a-dozen Members of the Government, will not reject this, simply because Hull does not agree.

Mr. GRITTEN

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his explanation, may I ask him to justify to this Committee the extension of the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee. Surely it is open to us to discuss this whole question on this Amendment, which is to reduce the £60,000,000 to £10,000,000. Surely paragraph (d) comes under it, because I notice in the first paragraph that part of it is to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee. If part of the £60,000,000 is required for that purpose, so can £50,000,000 be allocated in proportion, and I should like to hear the justification from the right hon. Gentleman of that point, which is very germane to the whole discussion.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think it is, subject to anything the Minister may have to say on this matter. I understand the £60,000,000 (paragraph (a))—is the only question with which we are dealing for the moment—is in satisfaction of the claims of the companies, and the question of the Rates Advisory Committee will come under paragraph (d).

Mr. GRITTEN

I quite understand that would come under paragraph (d), but I should have thought this came within the general purview of discussion.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand that before I resumed the Chair an Amendment had been moved to reduce the £60,000,000 to £10,000,000.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Minister of Transport said that this £60,000,000 was not to gild the pill, because there was no pill. I should have thought there was a considerable pill. I have never been called upon to swallow such a pill all the years, now amounting to over 70, I have had the pleasure of spending in this world. I will not go into the question of grouping, because I think it would be out of order to do so, and it can be done when the Bill comes before the House. I will only deal with the question of the £60,000,000. The hon. Gentleman who has moved the reduction is apparently under the impression that the Government are giving too much. I am under the impression that the Government are giving too little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am only giving my impression. I may be wrong. But I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in nearly every case I have been right when I have made any statement of the kind in this House, and especially when I have made a statement which has been received with disapproval by hon. Members opposite. It has always turned out that I have been right and that they have been wrong.

Mr. SPENCER

Not always.

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes, always. I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the taxpayer will suffer. In fact, I am not sure that the hon. Member who has moved to leave out this sum would not have done better to leave it out altogether, because I believe if the £60,000,000 were left out the railway companies by going to the courts of law would secure their just due. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman in his speech a few minutes ago said that the Government were bound to give the railway companies back their property in the condition it was before the War. That is always what we have contended

Sir E. GEDDES

No, no!

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes.

Sir E. GEDDES

If I said that, I withdraw it.

Sir F. BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman says first that he did not say it; then he says he wishes to withdraw it. When the words are brought home to him he wishes to withdraw them. I do not care whether he withdraws or not. We shall see what he has said by consulting the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is the real undertaking the Government agreed to in 1914. That being so, what is the result from the point of view of the taxpayer? If we were to leave the decision to the Courts of Law—and, after all, the decision of the Courts of Law even now are decisions on which everybody can depend as being given in the interests of right and justice—if, I say, we were to depend upon the Courts of Law what would the railway companies receive? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing!"] That is a matter of opinion. Take the Colwyn Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman has just cited—a hostile Committee. The Colwyn Committee said the railway companies might claim a sum of £150,000,000, and possibly another £50,000,000 in addition. [An HON. MEMBER: "But it did not say they would get it!"] They would get what the Court of Law decided. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? The claim the railway companies might put in might be £150,000,000 and, under certain circumstances, £200,000,000. If the Motion that the whole of the £60,000,000 were left out were carried the result would be that the railway companies would have the opportunity of going to the Courts of Law, putting in a claim for £200,000,000. In all probability what would they get? I think they would get a very great deal more than £60,000,000.

I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for this, that the picture in "Punch" which represents him as a bloodhound and the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) who sits besides him as a terrier, after the picture by Landseer entitled "Dignity and Impudence," and states that they are the watchdogs of the Treasury, would come true. Because undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman is making a bargain for the taxpayer which is very advantageous from the taxpayers' point of view. The only point on which I disagree is in the White Paper where the right hon. Gentleman says that the sum of £60,000,000 under Clause 10 of the Bill is an agreed sum. It is not. It has been agreed to by some companies—the sum has really been agreed to by two or three general managers and one chairman. It was not agreed to by anybody else. My statements on this point are correct. Whether hon. Members agree with me or not, when I give a statement of fact I do not give it unless I know it. Under the circumstances I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they act in the interests of the taxpayers, will be wise not to question this sum.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG

We have been told that this £60,000,000 is required for the purpose of safeguarding us against litigation. We have had no information as to any conditions in connection with that arrangement, and from that point of view I think we have a right to ask, seeing that under the Colwyn Report it is stated that £150,000,000, and possibly £200,000,000, would have been claimed, why £60,000,000 is proposed. The railway companies during the War were under very favourable conditions. They had their receipts for 1913 guaranteed. They were in a position which many other industries could not claim, and as a result they are to-day in a more favourable position than other people who were en- gaged in industries which are essential to the interests of the community. The suspicion is aroused that this sum is in excess of what should be paid arising out of the conditions of Government control. We are rather afraid that the railway companies are being compensated for War risks and War conditions which everybody in the country had to bear on their own responsibility.

I agree, seeing that the country is poorer and nearly all of us are poorer, that there is no reason why anything should be done to safeguard the condition of the railways and the shareholders as such. The continued control of the railways after the War, and the control that is still going on, is, in my estimation, and always has been, favourable to the railway companies. Other industries have been under control and not under the same favourable conditions. Many of them, far more than the railway companies, could complain of bureaucratic interference. When all is said and done, control in connection with the railways was mainly exercised through the managers of the Executive Committee, and interference by the Government was minimised as a result. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said the Government did interfere in so far as in this connection the railway companies were prevented from dealing with the question of wages and hours, and that the arrangement arrived at in this respect was come to without their consent and against their wishes. I am perfectly certain that had the Government not been in the position of dealing with rates and hours in connection with the railway companies, there would have been a great deal more trouble over these questions had they been left under the control of the railway companies as such. I do object to this £60,000,000. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport that the actual sum will be £51,000,000. We object to that. We think the sum is excessive. We think that the railway companies should only be paid the amount laid down in the 1914 agreement covering the net receipts for 1913. We are perfectly entitled at this stage of the proceedings to protest against this money arrangement being introduced into the Bill at all. We would much prefer to have had the thing settled outside the scope of the Bill and debated from other points of view. I understand, through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that if this Resolution of £60,000,000 is voted, it would debar us from discussing this in Committee.

Sir F. BANBURY

No. I never said it would debar any Member from discussing the subject in Committee. It is open to any Member in Committee to move to reduce the sum or leave it out altogether.

Mr. YOUNG

We thought in putting down these Amendments we were putting them down to safeguard our position in Committee. We understood that if this were carried we would not be able to raise them in Committee. In the circumstances we simply enter our protest to-night against this 51,000,000 being paid on the ground laid down by my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. MARRIOTT

There is one point on which I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, namely, this: I have never been able to understand why this particular sum finds any place in this particular Bill. It is a matter which I think ought to have been left entirely out of the scope of the Bill itself. When I have said that, my agreement with the hon. Gentleman comes to an end. What has been the general effect of the speech of my hon. Friend? It is that, on the whole, the Government have not made a good bargain for the nation, and that, on the contrary, the railway companies have been treated with extraordinary leniency and benevolence by the Government. That is not at all the view of those who know most about this matter. May I recall to the recollection of the House what was the position in August, 1914? In that month the Government entered, under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, into possession of the railways, and two things happened. In the first place, during the next four years, the Government were entitled to put on the railways, without being charged one farthing for it, any traffic that they chose. I challenge anyone who is acquainted with the facts to say that on the whole, in that respect alone, the Government did not make an admirable bargain with the railway companies.

Sir E. GEDDES

As my hon. Friend challenges anyone to say that, I entirely dissent.

Mr. MARRIOTT

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the only person in the Committee with any knowledge of the subject—and, of course, I credit him with great knowledge—who would challenge that statement. I say that during those years—I am sorry to have to repeat it in face of what my right hon. Friend has just said—the Government were doing exceedingly well out of the bargain which they made with the railway companies

Sir E. GEDDES

Which years?

Mr. MARRIOTT

During the years of the War. I am speaking of the four years during the War, up to the Armistice in November, 1918, during which, under the Act of 1871, the Government exercised an option—

Sir E. GEDDES

My hon. Friend is taking a period which is by no means conclusive in itself. During those years up to the Armistice, it may well be that the traffic of the Government on the railways showed a credit balance, but if my hon. Friend will take the liabilities of the Government incurred during that time for expenditure which was not actually expended, but for which a liability was incurred, and will allow for that expenditure on arrears of maintenance being made in the two years succeeding the Armistice, during the period of control, then he will find that my protest is thoroughly justified.

Mr. MARRIOTT

Of course, I entirely appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made, but the fact is, as he knows as well as or better than any man in this House, that during those four years of war the railway companies were unable to undertake the ordinary repairs and maintenance of their systems, and the consequence was that when, after that period, they had to undertake those repairs at a time of very high wages and very high prices, they were put to exceptional charges." Everyone knows that.

Sir E. GEDDES

The State was.

Mr. MARRIOTT

Precisely; but the railways were put to it in the first instance, and now the State is asking that the whole thing shall be wiped out with this sum of £60,000,000.

Sir E. GEDDES

indicated dissent.

Mr. MARRIOTT

That does not at all exhaust the case. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, just as much as we do, want to arrive at an equitable settlement of this question. My hon. Friend (Mr. Young) never speaks without carrying a great deal of conviction, but one item which I think he neglected in his speech was this. Not only were the railway companies carrying free all the traffic of the Government during the War, they were also placing at the disposal of the Government all their workshops without drawing a farthing of profit from those workshops. They were not profiteers; they were producing all that they did produce in the railway workshops at literally cost price. That is an item which ought to be reckoned to their credit when the final account has to be made up.

On those two grounds I suggest that this sum of £60,000,000, if it is a sum of £60,000,000, is in itself by no means excessive. Is it a sum of £60,000,000, however? In the first place, by general consent, it is a sum of £51,000,000. There is to be deducted from it, by an exceedingly intricate process of calculation, the sum of £9,000,000. Quite apart from that, is there a sum of £51,000,000, even, placed at a disposal of the railway companies? Not at all. There is an offer of £51,000,000, on this condition, that while the railway companies, by accepting that sum, are debarred from all recourse to any legal remedies which they may have under the Statutes of the Realm, the Government, on the other hand, are not. The Government, even after the sum of £51,000,000 has been assigned to the railway companies, still specifically retain the right to prosecute their claims in the Law Courts. I do not believe there ever has been in the history of the world such a case of "heads I win and tails you lose" as this proposal made by the Government. When I hear the hon. Gentleman, for whose opinion I have great respect, suggesting that this is an extremely favourable arrangement, from the point of view of the railway companies, I can only put on record my own opinion that it is an extraordinarily favourable arrangement for the State.

Major ENTWISTLE

I rise to ask a question. I know that the subject which has been raised of the amalgamation of the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company with the North Eastern Railway is not in order in this Resolution. It is, however, only an Amendment like this that we can vote, as a protest, on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman, when he had an opportunity on the Second Reading of giving us, at any rate, an indication of the attitude he was going to take on this question, did not do so. Without endeavouring in any way to infringe the rules of order, I would ask him now simply to let us know whether his mind is open on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid if the Minister did that I should have to stop him.

Major ENTWISTLE

What I want to know is whether he still has an open mind on the question. That would influence us a great deal in exercising our Vote on this particular matter.

On the subject of the £60,000,000, I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) say that all he wanted was to rely on his legal rights. I would like to ask him a question. Supposing that under the stress of war and the extraordinary conditions which often prevail, by means of an oversight or of hastiness, any agreement were entered into, the strict legal interpretation of which would conflict with the general opinion of the country, would he still argue that the railway companies ought to insist upon the absolute strict letter of their rights? If he took that attitude we should know exactly where he stood. It is not purely a question of what the legal rights are, but of what, in the general opinion of the country, is fair and equitable. I am not saying that the £60,000,000 is right, but we ought to have every satisfaction on that matter before we come to a decision on the point.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me whether I take my stand upon the strict legal rights. I would put this question to him. If he entered into a bargain with me and it turned out to his advantage and not to mine, what would he say to me if I said, "Because the bargain has resulted in your favour and not in mine is the hon. Gentleman going to abide by his strict legal rights? "In all probability he would say, "A bargain is a bargain, and if you have entered into a bargain you must abide by it." As a matter of fact, what happened was that the State made an extraordinarily good bargain. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that railway shareholders during the 7 years of War had to bear their proportion of the increased cost of living while at the same time they have advocated that everyone who was receiving a small income should have an increase on account of the increased cost of living. The average holding of railway stock is about £1,000, and probably the average shareholder gets £30 or £40 a year. They not only received no increase, but they did not in many cases receive the income they had before the War. What did they give in return? The right hon. Gentleman says it is quite true that up to 1918 there was a profit on the carriage of goods to the Government, but he says they committed themselves to certain arrears of maintenance. How did that arise? The Government said to the railway companies, "Instead of carrying on your workshops for repairing your engines and wagons, put them at the disposal of the Government to make munitions of war," and we did it and charged nothing for it. We repaired 18-pounder shells on the Great Northern Railway at a cost of 3d. and charged the Government 3d., and Woolwich was paying 7d. How could we go on with our arrears of maintenance if we did that?

Sir E. GEDDES

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. May I ask whether after a short discussion, interrupted by private business, it is in order—

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

(seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask by which Eule you gave the Closure at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport? May I point out this very important Motion, involving a sum of at least £60,000,000—it must be more—was interrupted at quarter past eight by Private Business, which resulted in a long Debate on a London County Council Bill. Under these circumstances, may I ask on what rule you gave the Closure?

The CHAIRMAN

The Chair uses discretion in regard to the subjects of debate, and by virtue of that discretion I accepted the Motion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

(seated and covered): May I refer you to Standing Order 23, and ask you whether it does not apply: If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House"—

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The Question is, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

(seated and covered): May I continue my reference to the Standing Order? Is not the Motion an abuse of the rules of the House?

The CHAIRMAN

I am not prepared to argue that.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 45.

Division No. 144.] AYES. [11.0 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Amery, Leopold C. M. S. Breese, Major Charles E. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Broad, Thomas Tucker Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Armitage, Robert Bruton, Sir James Dawes, James Arthur
Atkey, A. R. Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Elveden, Viscount
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Casey, T. W. Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Barlow, Sir Montague Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Farquharson, Major A. C.
Barnston, Major Harry Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Forrest, Walter
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Clough, Robert Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Coats, Sir Stuart Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Gee, Captain Robert
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Conway, Sir W. Martin Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Goff, Sir R. Park
Grant, James Augustus Lyle, C. E. Leonard Renwick, George
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Greig, Colonel James William McMicking, Major Gilbert Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Gritten, W. G. Howard McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. Magnus, Sir Philip Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mallalieu, Frederick William Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) Manville, Edward Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Matthews, David Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B. Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Molson, Major John Elsdale Seager, Sir William
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Higham, Charles Frederick Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Hills, Major John Waller Morris, Richard Steel, Major S. Strang
Hinds, John Morrison, Hugh Sutherland, Sir William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Murray, John (Leeds, West) Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Hood, Joseph Neal, Arthur Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Tryon, Major George Clement
Hurd, Percy A. Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Jameson, John Gordon Oman, Sir Charles William C. Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Jodrell, Neville Paul Parker, James Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Perkins, Walter Frank Winterton, Earl
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) Wise, Frederick
King, Captain Henry Douglas Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Lane-Fox, G. R. Pratt, John William Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Larmor, Sir Joseph Purchase, H. G. Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Lindsay, William Arthur Rae, H. Norman Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. Ramsden, G. T.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Rankin, Captain James Stuart TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lorden, John William Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) Reid, D. D. Dudley Ward.
NOES.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Sexton, James
Barker, Major Robert H. Grundy, T. W. Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hartshorn, Vernon Spencer, George A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Bromfield, William Hirst, G. H. Wignall, James
Cairns, John Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) John, William (Rhondda, West) Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lunn, William Wintringham, Thomas
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Morgan, Major D. Watts Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Finney, Samuel O'Grady, James
Galbraith, Samuel Raffan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gillis, William Royce, William Stapleton Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Waterson.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 40.

Division No. 145.] AYES. [11.9 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Casey, T. W. Goff, Sir R. Park
Amery, Leopold C. M. S. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Grant, James Augustus
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.) Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Armitage, Robert Clough, Robert Greig, Colonel James William
Atkey, A. R. Coats, Sir Stuart Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Conway, Sir W. Martin Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Barlow, Sir Montague Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Barnston, Major Harry Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Higham, Charles Frederick
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Dawes, James Arthur Hills, Major John Waller
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Hinds, John
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Elveden, Viscount Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Hood, Joseph
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Farquharson, Major A. C. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Breese, Major Charles E. Forrest, Walter Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Hurd, Percy A.
Bruton, Sir James Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Gee, Captain Robert James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Jameson, John Gordon
Butcher, Sir John George Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Jodrell, Neville Paul
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morrison, Hugh Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Seager, Sir William
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Neal, Arthur Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
King, Captain Henry Douglas Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Lane-Fox, G. R. Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Steel, Major S. Strang
Larmor, Sir Joseph Oman, Sir Charles William C. Sugden, W. H.
Lindsay, William Arthur Parker, James Sutherland, Sir William
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Lorden, John William Perkins, Walter Frank Tryon, Major George Clement
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Lyle, C. E. Leonard Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) Pratt, John William Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
McMicking, Major Gilbert Purchase, H. G. Watson, Captain John Bertrand
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Rae, H. Norman Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Ramsden, G. T. Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Magnus, Sir Philip Rankin, Captain James Stuart Winterton, Earl
Mallalieu, Frederick William Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. Wise, Frederick
Manville, Edward Reid, D. D. Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome Renwick, George Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Matthews, David Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Molson, Major John Elsdale Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Roundell, Colonel R. F. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur Dudley Ward.
Morris, Richard Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
NOES.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Grundy, T. W. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hartshorn, Vernon Spencer, George A.
Bromfield, William Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cairns, John Hirst, G. H. Waterson, A. E.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Wignall, James
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) John, William (Rhondda, West) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) Lunn, William Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Morgan, Major D. Watts Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Finney, Samuel O'Grady, James
Galbraith, Samuel Raffan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gillis, William Royce, William Stapleton Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Sexton, James Griffiths.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Sir E. GEDDES

rose in his place and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Main Question put accordingly.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. GRITTEN

(seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask whether, under your ruling, we cannot discuss any one of these items? I got up to ask

about the paragraph (d), and I had to resume my seat on the ruling you then gave. I resumed my seat in the anticipation that we should be able to discuss the matter later.

The CHAIRMAN

No discussion is now possible. I think it will be in order on the Report stage.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 39.

Division No. 146.] AYES. [11.18 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Forrest, Walter
Amery, Leopold C. M. S. Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Butcher, Sir John George Gee, Captain Robert
Armitage, Robert Casey, T. W. Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Atkey, A. R. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Goff, Sir R. Park
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Clough, Robert Grant, James Augustus
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Coats, Sir Stuart Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Barlow, Sir Montague Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Greig, Colonel James William
Barnston, Major Harry Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Dawes, James Arthur Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Edge, Captain William Higham, Charles Frederick
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Hills, Major John Waller
Breese, Major Charles E. Elveden, Viscount Hinds, John
Broad, Thomas Tucker Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Bruton, Sir James Farquharson, Major A. C. Hood, Joseph
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hurd, Percy A. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Seager, Sir William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Morrison, Hugh Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Jameson, John Gordon Murray, John (Leeds, West) Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Jodrell, Neville Paul Neal, Arthur Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Steel, Major S. Strang
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Sugden, W. H.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Sutherland, Sir William
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Parker, James Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
King, Captain Henry Douglas Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Lane-Fox, G. R. Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) Tryon, Major George Clement
Larmor, Sir Joseph Perkins, Walter Frank Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Lindsay, William Arthur Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Pratt, John William Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Lorden, John William Purchase, H. G. Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) Rae, H. Norman Winterton, Earl
Lyle, C. E. Leonard Ramsden, G. T. Wise, Frederick
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
McMicking, Major Gilbert Reid, D. D. Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Renwick, George Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Magnus, Sir Philip Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Mallalieu, Frederick William Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Manville, Edward Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Matthews, David Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B. Roundel), Colonel R. F. Dudley Ward.
Molson, Major John Elsdale Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
NOES.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Grundy, T. W. Sexton, James
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Bromfield, William Hartshorn, Vernon Spencer, George A.
Cairns, John Hirst, G. H. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Waterson, A. E.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) John, William (Rhondda, West) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Lunn, William Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Finney, Samuel Morgan, Major D. Watts Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Gillis, William Murray, William (Dumfries) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) O'Grady, James
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Raffan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gritten, W. G. Howard Royce, William Stapleton Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.
Shaw.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.