Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)
I beg to move:That, except on Fridays, Government Business, until the Summer Adjournment, be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any order, rule, or regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.I wish to call attention to the fact that the Motion is confined to this portion of the Session, and does not extend—I am certain that the House would be unwilling that it should extend—to our autumn meeting. I do not think that the House will consider it an unreasonable Motion for me to make at this period of the Session, or that I have been unduly hasty in moving it. The House will expect me to give some indication of the business which the Government do not, propose to take, and of the business which they do propose to take, before we adjourn. Among the Bills which we propose to allow to stand over for consideration in the Autumn Session are the following:
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]that is if it prove contentious.
- Agricultural Holdings Bill for England and Scotland respectively,
- Clinical Thermometers Bill,
- Coal Mines (Temporary Provisions as to Safety Lamps) Bill,
- Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (further stages),
- Fishery Board (Tenure of Office of Chairman) (Scotland) Bill,
- Legitimation Bill,
- Measuring Instruments Bill,
- Merchandise Marks Bill—
232 Two Bills in another place are in the same category, namely, the
- Sale of Bread Bill—should it continue to be contentious.
- Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill.
- Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill.
Three of these—the first mentioned and the last two—have come down to us from another place. Then there is the
- Allotment Bill,
- British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill,
- Criminal Law Amendment Bill,
- Electricity (Supply) Bill,
- Oil in Navigable Waters Bill,
and should it not prove too contentious, as I have already mentioned, the
- Allotment (Scotland) Bill,
- Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill,
- Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill,
- Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill,
Then we have to consider and deal with the Lords Amendments, if any, to some of the above Bills, and to the following, which have passed this House:
- Naval Discipline Bill.
- Post Office (Parcels') Bill,
- Solicitors Bill,
- Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill.
That sounds a more formidable programme than it is. Though the number of Bills is considerable, they are not of a contentious character. In these circumstances I have every hope that with the continued assistance of the House—and I would like to pause for a moment to express the obligation which the Government feels to the House for the measure in which all parties have contributed to our progress recently—I hope with the continued co-operation of the House, the Motion for Adjournment can be made on Friday of next week, and I would put before the House tentatively, the following programme:
- Air Ministry (Kenney Common Acquisition) Bill.
- Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill.
- Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.
- Lunacy Bill.
- National Health Insurance Bill.
- Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition) Bill.
- Representation of the People (No. 4) Bill.
- School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
- War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill.
- Whale Fisheries (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill.
To-day we shall take the Report and Third Readings of the Electricity (Supply) Bill, Allotments Bill, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill—it is very important that we should obtain these, in order that there may be sufficient time for their consideration in another place and their return to us, if that return should be necessary—the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, and the Third Reading of the Telegraph (Money) Bill—I hope all may be taken to-night. I do not think there is anything contentious about the last three I have mentioned, and I think we are nearing agreement, if we have not reached agreement, about the first three.
To-morrow (Wednesday) and Thursday we propose to complete Supply.
On Friday we shall take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill Second Reading and other Bills.
On Monday we shall take the discussion on Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the Orders under it.
On Tuesday we have ordered the hon. Member for South Hackney to attend, and I propose to take the Motion, which it will probably be my duty to make on that day, and the further stages of several Bill and Lords Amendments.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the Appropriation Bill, Second and Third Readings
On Friday, Lords Amendments to some of the above Bills, and the Motion for Adjournment.
I understand there is a strong wish on the part of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and his colleagues on the Estimates Committee that an opportunity should, if possible, be found for a discussion on the Report of that Committee. I think that is a most reasonable demand, and that the suggested discussion is one which the House would desire to have. If we can arrange, I think it is possible—although I am not certain—that time might be found on Tuesday for such a discussion. If so, we shall be very glad to co-operate in that arrangement.
As regards the date of the Adjournment, everything depends on the progress which we can make with the Bills I have enumerated. I am encouraged by the proceedings of the last week or two to believe that the House, having to meet again in the autumn, would desire to rise as early as possible, and to reduce discussion on those Bills within as narrow limits as are consistent with our duty to our country and our constituents. If we are able to get this programme through, I shall make the Motion for Adjournment on Friday week, and I shall propose that, subject to a provision for summoning Parliament to an earlier meeting, should occasion arise—of the character which we had, I think, not last year but the year before—I shall propose to move the Adjournment until Tuesday, 14th November.
There is only one word that I would add, and I add it not so much to this House as to the public outside. I think the public outside this House has an imperfect appreciation of the labours which Members of this House have undergone during the present Parliament, and many of us 235 in the preceding years. Parliament has been in almost continuous Session, and I cannot think that it is good for the work of Parliament or a reasonable exaction to expect from Members that they should continue further so close an attendance without a reasonable recess. I hope Members will contribute to secure that recess, and that when it comes they will be enabled to enjoy it.
§ Mr. CLYNES
I do not rise to debate generally the announcement which has been made or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. My purpose is to put two questions arising out of the announcement. First, may I be allowed to say that, though this announcement be customary, it is no less unsatisfactory than it has ever been in a preceding Session, and clearly it is time that the Agenda of this House were so arranged, and the business so presented, as to prevent, towards the close of each Session, such a step as a Minister is obliged to take before the House of Commons. Some dozen Measures of importance, some controversial, all in some degree interesting, again have had to be dropped, greatly to the disappointment of their promoters and also of the interests which are covered by them. I cannot acquiesce in this Motion for the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule, because on principle it is bad at any time for the House of Commons to sit after that hour. The House must find, either by the process of meeting earlier or by the process of not taking up as much time as has been taken in this Session and during the last few years with matters that very well could have been left alone, time within what might be termed normal and suitable hours for the general discharge of House of Commons duties, but I do not regard this moment as a fitting one for taking up more time with general observations. I want to ask whether the Leader of the House can make any announcement on the Government's attitude towards Private Bills in the course of the Autumn Session when it is begun. It would be of advantage to many of us interested in Private Bills to know the intentions of the Government in regard to such Measures. Secondly, I observe that one of the Bills which is to be carried over is the Sale of Bread Bill. As I understand, there is a Food Order which will lapse at the 236 end of August, and between the end of August and the passing of the Bill mentioned in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman there will be an interval in which there will be no Order or Regulation affecting this point. I would like to ask, therefore what step the Government can take to repair that deficiency? I presume it must be repaired, either by hastening the passage of the Bill or extending this particular Order.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEAN
The Leader of the House thought the country had a rather imperfect appreciation of the labours of this House. I think, on the contrary, they seem to have all too accurate an estimate of the value of the labours of this House during the past three years, and I want to say a word or two by way of comment on some of the Measures which we are taking, and the time which the Government propose to give them. It is perfectly true that we all wish for a holiday, and I hope we all deserve it. There is no man in the House who deserves a better holiday than the Leader of it, and we all wish him the rest, recuperation and renewed strength which he needs. There are one or two points to which I should like an answer. Let me remove any dubiety in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman at once as to the contentious character of the Merchandise Marks Bill. I think he must at once put that off to the Autumn Session, as it is a highly contentious Measure, and I would ask him so to regard it. There is a Measure to which I do not think he made any reference, and that is the Ecclesiastical Charges Bill. Is that included in the list?
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I am very glad to hear that, because it would have raised a considerable amount of discussion in the House. In regard to the business for to-day, like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Measures which he has indicated will not be very contentious and that we shall be able to rise at a reasonable hour after 12 o'clock to-night. I shall do what I can to facilitate it this evening, but I do not pledge myself further than to-night. In looking at the Measures which the Government have introduced, it might be of 237 interest to the House to know that the Government have introduced no fewer than 69 Bills—I am not quite sure whether it is not 70—and I hope that the War Charges (Validity) Bill, of whose introduction we have had notice this afternoon, is going to be the last Bill that the Government is going to introduce, not only before the House rises, but when we meet again. What I want to enforce upon the Government is this—
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
Of course, we must have them in the Autumn Session, but we have had far too much legislation. I will not say the promises, but the hopes and expectations of the Leader of the House at the beginning of this Session have been falsified, as they nearly always are falsified. The Departments have a large number of Bills in cold storage. They seize any opportunity of pressing them upon Ministers, who are not nearly sufficiently strong-minded in this matter. They get Ministers in a weak moment, the Bills are introduced, and before the House realises what has happened we are faced with the Second Readings of a large number of Measures, most of them expensive, and every one of them adding to the cost of the community. There has not been a single Session of this Parliament, or indeed of the Parliament which preceded it, in which that fault has been so prominent as in the present Session. Every Department has a long list of Bills which are put in, I will not say surreptitiously, because I would not accuse my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury of that for a moment, but with a pleasant forgetfulness of the desires of the House. I hope that the House is going to take this matter into its own hands in what remains of this Session, and will see that the time is devoted to the purposes for which the Government have declared it is intended, and that we shall not have a number of Departmental Bills put before the House again and the Opposition and other Members in other parts of the House put in the unpleasant position of looking as if they were obstructing business, when, in fact, they are discharging a public duty in preventing too much legislation being rushed through the House. How much more profitably the 238 time could have been occupied if the Government and the Leader of the House had carried out the undertaking or expectation or promise held out in the King's Speech? This is what was said in the King's Speech:Every effort has been made to reduce public expenditure to the lowest possible limit, regard being had alike to the security and efficiency of the State, to public obligations and to the necessity of relieving our citizens to the utmost extent from the burdens which now rest heavily upon them.Then they go on to say thatEconomy must be practised by all and in every direction.They then indicated that they were going to introduce some Measures which would facilitate that object, and we all remember the now famous phrase thatThere will he laid before you a Bill substituting yearly audit in the case of rural district councils and boards of guardians, and other Measures framed to give effect to the policy of retrenchment.They have carried out their undertaking with regard to the rural district councils and boards of guardians, hut, with regard to the other Measures for promoting economy, the only Bill before us is that known as the Economy Bill—the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—which excites very great controversy and which has been relegated to the Autumn Session. What ought the Government to have done? Instead of bringing in these Departmental Bills, expensive and unnecessary, they ought to have given at least. 10 days more to Supply. I acknowledge, with such gratitude as I can summon to my aid, the grant of one extra day of Supply, but time and time again—you cannot avoid it—the Estimates raise large questions of public policy, and, of course, the attention of the House has been concentrated on those great general questions. As for that close intensive examination of the Estimates on the Floor of the House, quite apart from the work of the Estimates Committee, there has been very little indeed. It is that to which the House ought to have devoted itself in Committee. There was no reason at all why it should not have been done. There was ample time, but, unfortunately, there was not the inclination or desire on the part of the Government to give the opportunity which, at any rate, the Opposition and some Members in other parts of the House 239 wished to have to give attention to this most important question. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper to-day, they will see the number 105. That indicates the number of days that the House has sat. Out of 105 days, we shall, by the time the House rises for the Recess, including Appropriation Bills, the Consolidated Fund Bill, and Supply itself, have devoted about 32 days to the question of finance and how retrenchment can be effected.
The charge which we make against the Government is that, out of time not loaded up with great Governmental Measures exciting controversy on a large scale, they have neglected once more to give that opportunity which they alone could give to the House of Commons to discharge its primary function, namely, the guardianship of the public finances and the retrenchment of extravagance wherever it may be found. That is the principal charge which I make against the Government with regard to its programme. They have passed a great number of Bills, alarming in complexity, and often very useless and irritating in administration, thereby taking up time which could have been well devoted to other and more fruitful purposes.
§ Sir HERBERT NIELD
I do not propose to criticise in general terms the programme sketched out, but, since the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of proceeding with the School Teachers' Superannuation Bill before the Recess, I do want to ask him also to bear in mind that the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Bill has not only passed this House by common consent and has received support from all quarters of the House, but has gone to anther place and is passing the Report stage to-day and the Third Reading tomorrow. If I bring him, as undoubtedly I shall be able to do, a memorial from all sections of the House asking that the Lords Amendments which have been agreed with the Ministry and to which there is no objection at all—Amendments which could not be moved here because of the pressure of time appropriated to private Members' Bills; owing to discussion indulged in purely for the purpose of warding off other Measures, we were only able to get the Committee stage concluded at two minutes to four on the penultimate day and the Third 240 Reading on the last private Members' day—may be considered here, will he afford facilities for taking those Amendments, about which there is complete agreement and which will receive universal assent. I ask him, therefore, to let this Bill pass concurrently with the School Teachers' Superannuation Bill.
§ Sir A. HOLBROOK
I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the threatened opposition to the Merchandise Marks Bill, he will, if opportunity occurs, re-introduce the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Bill before the Recess. That Bill was promised in the King's Speech three years ago. It is not contentious—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is VI —and it would take a very short time. I do ask him whether it cannot be introduced before the House rises for the Recess.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give some indication to the House as to what the Government propose to do before we rise with regard to making a statement, an authoritative and constructive statement I hope, on a question which is agitating the country and alarming all sections of the community more than anything else, namely, the question of the present position as regards reparation from Germany, the collapse of the mark, and the general collapse of the European exchanges. The whole question is bound up with the collapse of the mark and with our relations with our Allies, particularly with France, and above all, with the question of the interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles. I know that the Government perhaps will reply that there will be an opportunity for this matter being raised on the Appropriation Bill. If we are invited to do that without any promise of a statement from the Government, hon. Members will raise the question, and there will be a Debate, which will be answered very ably by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He will say that the matter is under consideration, that primarily it affects the Prime Minister, and that therefore he is not in a position to give any more definite information to the House, and the matter will go over until the 14th November. If that be the Government's intention. I maintain that it is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I make no reflection on my hon. 241 Friend who speaks for the Foreign Office. This is a question more nearly in the hands of the Prime Minister than of the Foreign Office, and he is perfectly justified in refusing to be the head of his chief in this matter. He knows that I mean no discourtesy or reflection of any sort on him.
There is no use burking the fact. The business community, bankers, and workmen who think at all and who find themselves out of employment are agitated about this question of reparation and the collapse of the mark. Wherever you go and talk to people, you find them saying to you, "What are you doing about the exchanges? Is there no remedy? You have all the information available. What is being done about it?" We have been put off for some months. I myself have had a Motion on the Paper for about nine months. I have repeatedly invited the Government to find time to debate it, and they have always said that the time is not ripe and that there will be an opportunity later. Two or three times a week, hon. Members, like myself, ask questions about this matter, but we are only met with evasive answers. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to inform us whether it is possible before the House rises for the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he be directed and instructed to do so, to make some statement to the House plainly setting forth the difficulties with which we are faced, what we propose towards their solution, and, above all, what steps we intend to take to meet the present state of affairs. The mark to-day is sagging between 1,800 and 2,400 to the £. All hon. Members here who have the misfortune to be engaged in the export trade to Germany will bear me out in saying that this is putting the greatest difficulty in the way of finding employment for our people, and from that point of view alone it is of the greatest importance to this country. In addition to that, if the mark in Germany is going to follow the kronen in Austria—
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I beg your pardon. I was, perhaps, led away by my apprehension of what would follow if the Government proceed to do 242 nothing at all. But I would beg of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal really to consider that this is not simply a matter raised by the Opposition to make trouble for the Government, but that there is a strong feeling in the country, especially in the City of London, that this thing must be tackled at once, or disaster will result. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will bear me out.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will take the opposite point of view. At any rate, there is a great deal of feeling in business circles in London, if I may put it that way, and I do hope the Leader of the House will use his utmost endeavours to see whether, between now and the rising of the House, an opportunity cannot be found for a suitable statement to be made by the Government, and, of course, the opportunity given to criticise it.
§ Sir J. BUTCHER
I desire to put one question, and it is this. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the Lords Amendments to the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill will be brought before this House at some time when there can be a reasonable discussion of those Amendments? They are very important in themselves. They excite a large amount of interest among various sections of this House, and they are matters of exceeding great importance to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary themselves, especially in view of recent events in Ireland. If these important Amendments were to come before the House between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, we should have, in the first place, very few Members present, I fear, and further than that, those who were present would be rather disposed to accept the decisions of the Government without adequate consideration. I am sure that is a result which, in the abstract, at any rate, the Government would greatly deplore. They do not want this House to be a mere registering institution—at any rate, I should be sorry to imagine that they did, and I am sure they do not. Therefore, may I ask the Leader of the House if he can ensure, as far as possible, that these Amendments shall come before the House when there can be some fair and reasonable opportunity of discussion?
§ Sir J. REMNANT
May I put in a plea to the right hon. Gentleman to give, if he possibly can, facilities for the Rating of Machinery Bill? Although it has not got so far as the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend opposite, it has undergone vast revision, and was prevented from getting its Third Reading in this House owing to the same tactics that were utilised, and are so well known in this House, when Members are anxious to stave off subsequent Bills. The Rating of Machinery Bill, I venture to think, is one that is undoubtedly of great necessity to the industries of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] It is practically unopposed, except by a few hon. Members who, after all, are not very seriously affected by it. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will find for this Bill, which has got so far in its progress, some facilities in order that it may be passed. It is likely to have a considerable effect in the relief of unemployment, which is so rampant at present, and is also required and desired by the great industries of the country.
§ Mr. WIGNALL
May I say a word in reply to the hon. Member who said the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill was not contentious? I wish to inform him that it is contentious, and in its present form will be most vigorously opposed by some of us on these Benches, and by many other sections of the House.
A good many questions have been put to me, and I will do my best to answer them. I am afraid it is the fact that there is a disposition on the part of those in charge of Bills to regard as entirely non-contentious projects which, in other parts of the House, or by other Members, are not viewed in quite as favourable a light. The Government in these matters must deal with things as they are, and be guided by the signs of the times. The two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke first from the front Bench opposite have a great advantage over most of those who have occupied their positions in similar 'circumstances. Neither of them has yet been responsible for the conduct of business in this House, and they can therefore still talk with a light and an airy grace of what they would do, without having their promises compared with past performances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) thinks 244 that it is an intolerable thing that every year before the Adjournment we should suspend for a certain time the Eleven o Clock Rule, and sit later than our normal hour. When his time comes, I shall follow with interest the development of the plan by which he will secure that all the business which the Government find it necessary to ask the House to pass, is passed with adequate discussion, with no more than adequate dicussion, strictly within the normal hours allotted to business, and without encroachment upon private Members' time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Start earlier!"] I know it is very easy to say "Start earlier," but it does not follow that you finish any earlier, or that you will be any further advanced, or that when you come to the end of your prolonged labours, my right hon. Friend will not still be appearing in this House and saying, with much regret, but in accordance with the practice set by all his predecessors, he must ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and so forth.
Then there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). He is always most genial when he is lecturing the Government on their sins. He has found matter for reproach in our conduct of the business of this year. We have introduced too many Bills. He took the trouble to count them, and found that we had introduced no less than 69, or it might be 70, Bills in the course, of the present Session. An active and energetic friend of mine was so stirred by this that he went to see how far he could make any comparison with previous years. He found that in the year 1911, for example, the House passed 58 Acts, and in the year 1908 the number of Acts passed was 69, or exactly the same number as the number of Bills which we are condemned for introducing to-day. I never heard a protest from the right hon. Gentleman in those days against over-legislation by the Government, and I am interested now to find that the complaint of the Independent Liberals against this Government is not, as it has usually been, against the Government, in which Unionist Members form a part, that we have done too little, but the complaint is that we have done too much. As regards his further complaint, that we have devoted too little time to finance—and I am sorry he is not here at the moment—
I make no complaint. He is one of the most conscientious in his attendance, but I am only sorry to be replying to his observations in his absence. With regard to the complaint that there has been too little time devoted to finance, I make two observations. First of all, his definition of financial discussion was so limited, or restricted, as to give a very imperfect impression of the proportion of the Session which has been devoted to financial business. In the second place, I make this reflection. I had, before Easter, to ask the House to give me control over the time of the House for the purpose of getting through the necessary business. The right hon. Member for Peebles then said that I was making an wholly exorbitant demand upon the time of the House for the business which there was to be done, and I said if it were not required for the programme I had announced, I would give it back to private Members. My right hon. Friend's prophecy as to the length of time Bills would take at that period of the Session was falsified before Easter came. Every hour was required. I beg hon. Members to observe that when you get near the close of the Session the Government at any time can count upon some measure of that genuine co-operation that we have had in the past week, and hope to have in the next two weeks.
I come to the more specific questions. The right hon. Member for Platting asked me about the Bread Bill. I am sorry to say that that Bill appears to be considered highly contentious by Scotland, for what reason I am not informed. There is no chance of getting it through without a considerable prolongation of our labour before the Adjournment.
§ Mr. WATERSON
Could not my right hon. Friend see the necessity of bringing in a special Bill to deal with Scotland, and leave England to be dealt with alone, seeing that Scotland is already protected?
Introducing a special Bill for Scotland on a subject which has already proved contentious does not seem likely to me to remove contention. As the Bill is contentious, and, as a matter of fact, is opposed by a large section of the House, it is not possible for us to pass it before the 246 Adjournment, and it must stand over. I am sorry to say it follows inevitably that there will be a gap between the expiry of the present powers and the coming into operation of the powers which the Bill will give.
May I deal with Private Members' Bills l It is obvious that with the programme I have sketched I cannot give time for any Private Members' Bills before the Adjournment. What may be possible in the Autumn Session it is too soon for me to say, but it is quite clear I cannot deal with one Bill without surveying all the Bills mentioned to-day, and some others which have been pressed upon me outside this House, or at different times within it.
§ Sir H. NIELD
Will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in relation to the Bill I mentioned, there has not been a discordant voice at any stage of it?
That may be, but the programme which I have sketched does not leave me any option with regard to Private Members' Bills, for I cannot deal with one Private Member's Bill without being prepared to say what I may be able to say or do in regard to the others. Private Members who have taken a Bill up to a certain stage with a certain prospect of success, come to me and plead the particular merits of their Bill, and the particular circumstances which differentiate their claim from the claim of every other Member in the House. I am afraid, however, that I have had too much experience of the sanguineness of hon. Members as against the difficulties of passing a Bill to feel reassured by the confidence of the sponsors of Bills that the House will let one Bill go through without putting forward a claim for others. A question was put to me by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). I have not yet got the Bill to which he refers. The Amendments have been put in in another place.
Well, I have not yet got it, and I do not know when we shall get it. I cannot make any promise with regard to the time at which we shall take the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill. We will do our best to take it at a reasonable time, but at this period of the Session, if we are to rise on Friday week, 247 I can make no definite promise as to the hour it will be taken.
We have had a kind of dress rehearsal by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) of a performance which he hopes to repeat on the Appropriation Bill. Members of the Government sometimes complain of the insufficient notice and character of the questions which hon. Members wish to raise, but, at any rate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has on this occasion given the Government a very full sketch of the case he will make. I can only say that I take notice of the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise—
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me, but he has promised that before the House rises this question is to be dealt with.
All I can say at this moment is that I take note of the desire of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise this question on the Appropriation Bill, and his desire for a statement of the policy of the Government. I am not in a position to-day to say how far it will be within the power of the Government to add to such statements as they have previously made. I am a little inclined to doubt whether in the present state of affairs we can usefully add anything to the statements made on behalf of the Government. I can only say I will inquire. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks as if the solution of this question depended on us alone, or even upon us as the sole power. That is not so. Nothing that we can do by ourselves, nothing we can do of our own sole action, will relieve the situation or cure it—so far as policy can cure all these evils of which he spoke—that is for joint action. Whether it will be possible to make any further statement or not on behalf of His Majesty's Government I cannot say, but I take note of the desire of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for discussion, and I will bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. WILLIAM SHAW
Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill in the Autumn Session to carry out the wish expressed by the House last night?
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Will the Government be able to find time for the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent Charges (Rates) Bill which is merely a formal matter?
§ Captain BENN
There are several questions I should like to put, and I have a few observations to make. In respect to the Sale of Bread Bill, as I was one of those who put my name down in opposition to it, I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman that it is only Scotland that objects to it. If you are to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill a satisfactory settlement might be arrived at. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I only throw that suggestion out. As regards the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill if it were the Government's intention at a later part of the Session to give any facilities for the further stages of this Bill they would meet not only with the opposition already displayed by the Labour party, but the opposition, I think I may say, of the whole of the Members of the Independent Liberal party in this House who were responsible for the passing of the original Act, and consider that it needs no amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the merits of the Government can be made known by an enumeration of the Bills that have been put forward. My right hon. Friend stated that they had brought in 59 Bills, and the right hon. Gentleman retorted by saying that the Liberal Government in 1908 passed 69 Bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Acts."] Yes, but the difference was that the 59 Bills brought in by the Government are mostly bad, and the 69 Acts passed by the Liberal Government were mostly good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not seem to be in agreement with the majority of the House; but I never heard yet that legislation had to be measured by the simple process of counting noses. The complaint of one hon. Member against the Government was that we have not had enough time to discuss finance. That is a very great pity. It is unfortunate that the Estimates Committee has, as a matter of favour, to seek late in the Session an opportunity to say something. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a sturdy opponent of the House of Commons control of expenditure. He wants the control exercised by outside bodies or by some extraneous machinery. Many of us 249 want expenditure controlled by the House of Commons itself. I certainly feel that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said about the inadequate amount of time given to the House of Commons to control the expenditure of the Government is true, and I venture to think that it was not only in these Bills which are being passed, but in the list of Measures which were not to be passed that the House can find a good deal to think about. We have been told that of two Bills, the Rabbits Bill, is not to pass, and the Clinical Thermometers Bill is. When you examine the programme that the right hon. Gentleman put forward for this part of the Session, and its effect upon the programme of work to be accomplished in the remainder of the Session then we get some real enlightenment of what the Government intends to do. We meet again on 14th November. That will leave about five weeks before the House will be prorogued. An Irish Free State Bill will be essential. There must be an Irish Indemnity Bill. There will be a great deal of Finance, and the remaining stages of Government Bills which have been held over from this part of the Session. It is obvious that there will not be time even for a Measure abolishing the Ministry of Transport, which I think would be, widely welcomed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"] It is very doubtful whether there will be time for a Bill to give effect to the Resolution passed by this House last night. It is more than doubtful. But after all the House of Commons is supreme in these matters, and not the Government, and it is very significant that when the hon. Member for York put a question he was not able to get an answer from the Leader of the House—
The hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted when I was about to answer that question.
§ Captain BENN
I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will afford us an answer as to when he is going to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Resolution passed last night. Will he answer that question now?
I did not care to interrupt, or I could have done so before. I waited till I thought all the questions that were to be put had been 250 put to me, and then I rose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the Parliamentary form, and I was proceeding on the assumption I was answering the questions put to me when the hon. and gallant Gentleman got up to put other questions. The Government have had no opportunity since last night of considering what action they should take upon the Resolution, but I frankly say I do not think there is a prospect within the limit of the Parliamentary Session of this year of passing a Bill on this subject. I am speaking merely personally at the moment. I have had no opportunity of consulting my colleagues since last night on what should follow the Resolution of last night.
§ Captain BENN
The interval between 25th April, 1911, and 24th July, 1922, ought to have been sufficient to have enabled the Government to make up their minds as to whether they would bring in a Bill on this subject, but the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer. There is not to be a Bill, so that what we drew inferentially from the programme he sketched the right hon. Gentleman has practically implemented in a positive manner. Then there is the other question which we see cannot be dealt with in the programme, and which have been brought forward. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir G. Younger) present. It is quite obvious that in the programme now presented there is no chance whatever of dealing with what the hon. Baronet in a speech the other day announced as "one of the most important problems of the day," being disposed of, at any rate, this year. I presume the hon. Baronet is quite satisfied with that announcement. We were told at the beginning of the Session in the gracious speech from the Throne that this Measure —no, on 21st November, 1918, that this was urgently required, but certainly there is little light as to the Amendment of the Parliament Act, to restore the powers of the other House. This was urgently required in November, 1918! Now we have the programme from which we can see quite clearly that the Resolutions have been introduced in this matter that leave the subject without form and void. There will be nothing definite so far as this year is concerned. All this throws some light on the way the Government intend to do what they have 251 promised to carry out the mandate by which they secured their election, and by which they keep together the various parts of their parties.
§ Mr. HAILWOOD
Is there not considerable opposition to the Sale of Bread Bill in many parts of Lancashire?
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
May I ask the Leader of the House if he will not give time this Session to pass that short Act repealing that section of the Administration of Justice Act, whereby the subject was deprived of his immemorial right to have his case decided by a jury? The matter has been greatly commented upon by the High Court, as Mr. Speaker doubtless remembers. It should be possible to restore trial by jury to the subject before we separate.
§ Mr. THOMAS SHAW
Will the Leader of the House give an opportunity to discuss the conditions alleged to be demanded by the allied Governments in regard to the control of German expenditure? Will he say if it be a fact that all expenditure on public services of sums over 500,000 marks are to be controlled by allied officials, 500,000 marks being equivalent roughly to £250 at the present rate of exchange. I would like to know whether it would be possible to have an estimate of the number of civil officials required to control this expenditure; whether it is likely that the reparations we shall receive will be sufficient to pay for the civil officials we have to employ; and whether a definite statement will be made on this matter before we adjourn.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I hope that before the House separates an opportunity will be found by the Government, if it is at all possible, to make a statement on the reparation question. I am afraid I should be out of order in discussing this question, but I think I am in order in saying that it is unquestionably the most important European question of the day, and upon a satisfactory settlement of that question probably a very great deal of the immediate future history, not only of this country, but of the whole of Europe, may depend. To separate until the 14th November, and then meet for an Autumn Session to deal only with such a specific question as the Irish Constitution, I think would be very deplorable if it could be avoided.
252 The House has always been in the habit of saying that the Executive of the day must, in the last resort, say whether or not they can make a statement upon a particular question of foreign policy, The House has always recognised that that is the responsibility and privilege of the Government. I do feel, however, that it will be little short of a disaster if this House should separate without something having been done to enlighten the public mind on this question, and without indicating some hopeful scheme for settling this very grave question. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has referred to one aspect of this question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to another aspect, but I am sure that the Government must recognise that, as this question really is the basis of the whole international position of the present day, some settlement must be found. I trust that the Government will be able to make some statement on this question before the House separates.
Before the House pass this Motion I want to ask the Leader of the House a very important question. I may say in passing that I see no reason why, given careful management and arrangement, we should be called upon to pass this Motion to-day. If the House had before it the record of the work done in the last six or eight months it would be found that nearly 50 per cent. of our time has been spent on very small Measures of no real import. There was the Measure dealing with law charges and Courts of Law, which may be of some importance to the legal profession, but it was of no real national importance. We spent six or seven days on the Measure dealing with miscellaneous war charges, and, after reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT in regard to both these Measures, I find that the Members who have spoken have been almost exactly identical in the case of both those Measures. We have spent, several valuable days in discussing the important question of zinc phosphates, while really important business, such as the Washington Conference decisions and matters of that kind, have been rushed through on a Friday afternoon. I want to ask the Leader of the House a very important question. It is one that, affects the whole attitude of mind with which we 253 approach the legislation which we are going to be asked to consider in the Autumn Session. I think we ought to know at this time when there is going to be a General Election. I d0 not know whether I am in order in discussing that question—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I will answer that question at once. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that question.
I think that is a question which I ought to address to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), but I hope the question will be answered before we re-assemble for the Autumn Session.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE
I would like to ask if the Government will be able to make any statement before we adjourn with regard to their policy concerning the Report of Lord Dunedin's Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland. This Committee has been sitting in Scotland for a very considerable time. It reported two months ago, and we have not had any statement from the Government in regard to it. We have repeatedly asked far a statement, and unless we get it before the House rises we shall be met during the Autumn Session with the reply that it is impossible to give effect to those recommendations because there has been no opportunity of discussing them. I ask the Leader of the House if he cannot make a statement that may be considered in Scotland during the Recess in order that we may have legislation on this very important subject during the Autumn Session.
§ Mr. LUNN
There are many hon. Members who would like to know what is to be the attitude of the Government towards the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill. May I take it that the answer given by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member who introduced the Motion last night, which was carried by the House, that no time can be given for a Bill dealing with the subject matter of that Motion during this Session means that no other Bill or a Bill similar to the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill will receive any time or support from the Government. It is very important, in the country, at all events, 254 that we should know where the Government stand upon a Measure of this kind.
I missed from the statement made by the Leader of the House any indication as to when there would be an announcement as to the appointment of the Royal Commission upon the question of Honours which is agitating almost every section of the community at the present time. Some of them are in fear and trembling lest their names may be forgotten, but from every point of view I think we are entitled to some indication as to whether such a statement will be made. I should also like to suggest to the Leader of the House that he should not allow Ministers in charge of Bills to accept Amendments at short notice which make such Measures far more contentious than they were in their virgin state.
The Postmaster-General the other day brought in an innocent Bill, and he accepted a manuscript Amendment which turned it into a, most contentious Measure. It was an Amendment setting forth that you are not allowed to send a message that tends to subvert public order in the country. The Prime Minister might go again to Limehouse and make speeches tending to subvert public order. I do not think Ministers should be permitted to accept Amendments which make their Bills more contentious than when they were first submitted to the Committee.
§ Mr. WATERSON
I listened with very great attention to the speech of the Leader of the House, particularly that portion in which he replied to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). As one who was put upon the Committee to deal with the Sale of Bread Bill, naturally I feel disappointed that the Government has felt it necessary to drop this important Measure. I am not going to suggest to the House that there is not some opposition to it, because it would be idle to do so. I do claim, however, that the difficulties of the Bill have been due entirely to the position of Scotland, and if the Government could have seen their way clear to introduce a special Measure dealing with the special circumstances in Scotland, we should have had an opportunity of passing it. The serious position is that on the 31st October certain Orders expire, and if the House is not going to meet until the 14th November there will 255 be a state of anxiety, not only as far as the consumer is concerned, but also as far as the baking fraternity is concerned. A special Committee was set up to deal with this question, of which I was a member, but owing to the attitude of one or two members of the Committee the Government have decided to drop this Bill as far as this Session is concerned.
I notice the Leader of the House said that the Solicitors Bill was to go through before the Session ended. I submit that the Sale of Bread Bill is far more important than the Solicitors Bill. I do not say that the Solicitors Bill is a highly contentious Measure, and I do not know much about its details, but as far as the Sale of Bread is concerned, it is one which affects every individual in the community, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should have given some opportunity for this Bill to go through, because on a straight issue in the Division Lobby I am sure it would have been settled satisfactorily to the baking fraternity and to the great consuming public of our land.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, in answering a question I put to him in regard to a certain Bill being withdrawn, he referred to the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent Charges (Rates) Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill coming down from the other House with Amendments which are likely to give rise to much controversy?
§ 5.0 P.M.
Apparently there is some misconception. Speaking generally, I think the criticisms which have been made were covered by my earlier reply. Take the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and another Bill mentioned by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten). I have already said it is quite obvious that we cannot give facilities for any private Bills in this portion of the Session, and it is too early for me to make promises in regard to Bills of that character to be dealt with during the. Autumn Session. As regards reparations, and, indeed, the 256 whole of that problem—not Reparations alone, but international indebtedness arising out of the War—my Noble Friend will not suppose that I regard that problem as less serious, less worthy of consideration, or less requiring wise counsel than he does himself. But, as I have said already, there are others concerned besides ourselves. It is not a case where action of the British Government, standing by itself, could give any solution to an afflicted world. The co-operation of others must be secured. Whether it is possible to have a Conference of Allied Ministers, and I hope it will be very shortly, and whether it is possible to say more than we have said in advance, or whether, if possible, it would be wise, I would not like to answer to-day. All I can do is to convey to my colleague more immediately concerned the desire expressed by Members of the House that a statement should be made on this subject if we are in a position to make it. That I will do. Beyond that I cannot go. There is only on other matter which has been referred to, and it is the reference which the hon. Gentleman opposite made to the Royal Commission with regard to honours. I have no doubt we shall be able to announce the names of the Royal Commission before the House rises. I should hope so, certainly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is at this moment actually engaged in a series of interviews with those whom he promised to consult before he took any definite steps in the matter.
Perhaps it is the more permissible that I should have forgotten to deal with that point, because my hon. Friend himself has obviously forgotten the answer which the Lord Advocate has given him on two or three occasions. I think my hon. Friend has been informed by the Lord Advocate that this matter is being carefully considered by the Government. It is a very complicated and difficult subject, as we all know. Rating reform is enough to send a shudder through every bench in the House, and, above all, through every Member who takes any interest in safeguarding the taxpayer. It is a very difficult subject, and I do not think there is any statement of policy that can be made before the Adjournment.
My hon. Friend has assumed for a Let, that which is not a fact. He will have his opportunity of raising his question, which is part of that large question of national indebtedness of
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 14.259
|Division No. 234.]||AYES.||5.7 p.m.|
|Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent||Gilbert, James Daniel||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Murchison, C. K.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James||Grant, James Augustus||Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Murray, John (Leeds, West)|
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir w. (Hack'y, N.)||Neal, Arthur|
|Astor, Viscountess||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)|
|Atkey, A. R.||Greig, Colonel Sir James William||Newman, Sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Guthrie, Thomas Maule||Newton, Sir D. G. c (Cambridge)|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Hailwood, Augustine||Nicholson, Brig.-Gcn. J. (Westminster)|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Hamilton, Sir George C.||Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Norr's, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Barrand, A. R.||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Bartley-Penniss, Sir Edmund Robert||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket|
|Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase||Hills, Major John Waller||Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J- G.||Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlycn W.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Parker, James|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell||Hood, Sir Joseph||Pearce, Sir William|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)||Percy, Charles (Tyntmouth)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Birchall, J. Dearman||Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)||Perring, William George|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pllditch, Sir Philip|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Borwfck, Major G. O.||Hunter, General Sir A, (Lancaster)||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Hurd, Percy A.||Pratt, John William|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Rae, Sir Henry N.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Jameson, John Gordon||Raeburn, Sir William H.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Jephcott, A. R.||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Briggs, Harold||Jesson, C.||Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Remnant, Sir James|
|Brown, Major D. C.||Johnstone, Joseph||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Brown. Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Robinson, sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rodger, A. K.|
|Casey, T. W.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)||Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender||Lorden, John William||Seager, Sir William|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||M'Connell, Thomas Edward||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. p.||Slmm, M. T. (Wallsend)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Smithers, Sir Alfred w.|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||M[...]Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.||Starkey, Captain John Ralph|
|Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||McMicking, Major Gilbert||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Edge, Captain Sir William||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Stevens, Marshall|
|Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Elveden, Viscount||Macquisten, F. A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Mallalieu, Frederick William||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.||Mulone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Taylor, J.|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey||Martin, A. E.||Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)|
|Fell, Sir Arthur?||Mcysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Middlebrook. Sir William||Thomas, Brlg.-Gen. Sir O (Anglesey)|
|Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.||Thomas. Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Forrest, Walter||Mitchell, Sir William Lane||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Molson, Major John Eisdale||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Tickler, Thomas George|
|Gardiner, James||Morden. Col. W. Grant||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Morris, Richard||Wallace, J.|
|Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham||Morrison, Hugh||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor|
|Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.||Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)||Worstold, T. Cato|
|Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)||Worthington-Evant, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)||Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Waring, Major Walter||Windsor, Viscount||Young, E. H. (Norwich)|
|Warner, Sir T. Caurtenay T.||Winfrey, Sir Richard||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.||Winterton, Earl||Younger, Sir George|
|White, Col. G. D. (Southport)||wise, Frederick|
|Whitla, Sir William||Wood, Hon. Edward P. L. (Ripon)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Williams, C. (Tavistock)||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.|
|willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud||Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)||McCurdy.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.||Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Rattan, Peter Wilson|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Hallas, Eldred||Randall, Atheistan|
|Banton, George||Halls, Walter||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hayday, Arthur||Rose, Frank H.|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hayward, Evan||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Sutton, John Edward|
|Brlant, Frank||Irving, Dan||Swan, J. E.|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cairns. John||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M||Waterson, A. E.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kenvon, Barnet||Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Klley, James Daniel||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawson, John James||Wig nail, James|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)||Lunn, William||Wllkie, Alexander|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Foot, Isaac||Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Galbralth, Samuel||Mills, John Edmund||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, c.)|
|Gillis, William||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton]||Myers, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Naylor, Thomas Ellis||Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hogge.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||O'Connor, Thomas P|
Question put, and agreed to.
That, except on Fridays, Government Business, until the Summer Adjournment, be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and that at the conclusion
of Government Business each day, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any order, rule, or regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall he taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.