§ Mr. MAXTONOn the question of business, Mr. Speaker, it would probably be for the convenience of the House if you would be good enough to explain what will happen to Order No. 2—Bank of England (Nationalisation) Bill—standing in my name, should that Order be reached. Following it there is a note to the effect that this Bill is to be reported upon by the Examiners. Many of us are here mainly out of interest in this particular Bill, and we would like to know just exactly what effect that note has upon this discussion to-day.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt may be for the convenience of the House that I should deal with the matter now. Hon. Members will find on page 387 of Erskine May the following paragraph which refers to a Bill of this kind:
If it appears, after its introduction, that a public bill may affect private rights, notice of this circumstance is sent from the Public Bill Office to the member in charge of the Bill; and the examiners of petitions for private bills are ordered to examine the Bill with respect to compliance with the standing orders relative to private bills; but the reference to the examiners does not affect the order for the Second Reading of the Bill, which remains upon the Notice Paper, though the Second Reading cannot be moved until the examiners have reported on the Bill.In Clause 6 this Bill says thatThe Bank Council shall acquire all Bank of England stock, property and assets in existence at the passing of this Act.907 That made it my duty to refer the Bill to the Examiners as soon as I saw it on Wednesday morning last. It has been impossible for the Examiners to make their report by to-day, and for that reason the Bill cannot proceed to-day.
§ Mr. MAXTONSome time ago I had my attention directed to the section of Erskine May dealing with cases where a public Bill interfered with private rights, but there is no such thing as a Bill which does not interfere with private rights. I would refer to the Standing Order dealing with private rights, which gives a very precise definition of what is meant by interference with private rights. It says:
The object of a private Bill is to alter the law relating to some particular locality, or to confer rights on or relieve from liability some particular person or body of persons.A very close examination of this Bill for the nationalisation of the Bank of England shows that it does not come under any of those definitions. It does not attempt to alter the law relating to some particular locality, or to confer rights on anybody, or to relieve them from a liability. So far from wishing to relieve the Bank of England shareholders from a liability, the Bill proposes to relieve them of an asset. Therefore, I do not think there is a primá facie case for reference to the Examiners. A very thorough search of the precedents in Erskine May only led me to find one that was anything like it. In 1873 a public Bill was introduced for the protection and preservation of certain ancient monuments in various parts of the country. Objections were raised that the Bill affected the property of persons upon whose lands those monuments were situated, and it was said that it ought to have been brought in as a Private Bill; but its nature and objects were obviously of a public character, and it concerned too many counties and localities to be treated as a Private Bill. The claim on that occasion to regard that Bill—which is the nearest approach to this Bill that I can find among the precedents—as a Private Bill—was rejected, and I put it to you, Sir, that this Bill ought not to be presently under the consideration of the Examiners, but that the House ought to be allowed to proceed with the discussion of it this afternoon.
§ Mr. STEPHENI would like to submit one point in connection with this matter. The original Act setting up the Bank of England and the Bank Charter constitutes it as a bank apart from all other banks in this country. It is in a distinct position by itself, and the point I wish to make is that, therefore, a Measure affecting this bank, inasmuch as it is the one institution of this character in the country, does not come within the Standing Order which has been referred to. I understand that if all banks had been included in this Measure there would have been no question as to it being in order, and, arguing on the analogy of the Nationalisation of Mines Bill, it would have been treated as a public Bill. The Bank of England is the only form of property in this category; it is different from all others; therefore the Bill should not be before the Examiners, but should have been discussed as a public Bill by this House.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIt strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that if you are going to adopt this line of procedure with Bills of this character that we bring in, it is going to have a very far-reaching effect. When we put down a Question, in order to elicit information, so that we might know how to act, and how to conform to the usages of the House, we were told by you, Sir, that we could not have a discussion of the subjects on a question, and that the best way to proceed was to bring in a Bill. We have now done so, just as I brought in a Bill for getting hold of the Stone of Destiny for Scotland. That was a Bill which had as far-reaching effects, according to some people, as this Bill has. The only difference was that there was a good deal of sentiment surrounding the Stone of Destiny, and that appealed to the intelligent minds, not only of the Scots, but of the English. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Irish!"] There are supposed to be no Irish here. They are not here as Irish, they are here as English or Scots. That being the case, that Bill was allowed to go on, and I carried it here on Second Reading; but this is a Bill striking, I think, at the very root of this hellish system under which we live and rule and have our being. 909 This Bill would mean that we should be getting control of the finances of this country and of the capitalist system and when we have control we should organise that system in the interest of the working classes as against the interest of the capitalist classes. That is the only reason I can see that you, Mr. Speaker, are giving that ruling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—and this ruling is biased really in favour of the Government [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat remark cannot be permitted. It is not in order to attack the integrity of the Chair. The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI am quite willing to withdraw, and there is no Member of the House who pays you higher respect than I do. Nevertheless, this is a question upon which we feel very keenly. We try sometimes to get behind the rules and regulations which govern this House, and we are getting more and more convinced every day that when we bring forward some Measure which would be of actual benefit to the electors who have sent us here to fight for these principles as against the opinions of those hon. Members sitting opposite, because they represent the banking interests of this country, and we are sent to smash those interests—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not make a general speech. I only dealt, at the request of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), with a point of Order, and I cannot listen to this sort of speech. Has the hon. Member anything to submit to me on the point of Order?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI am doing my very best to submit my point of view. I was sent here to disturb this House and shake it up, and make hon. Members aware of the actual conditions of things.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROrder, order. That has nothing to do with the point of Order which has been raised. I will deal with the points which have been raised by the other two hon. Members. What they have submitted to me is a perfectly proper matter for them to submit to the Examiners. It is the principle of this House that, when a Bill is introduced which appears to affect, as this one does, 910 private rights, the Bill should be referred to the Examiners. It is not for me to anticipate what the verdict of the Examiners may be, or what the report of the Examiners may be. It may be in favour of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and no doubt he can submit those suggestions to them. It is when the House is in possession of their report that it will be able to deal with the Bill further, but not until that report has been received. Had the Bill been in my hands earlier, it might have been possible to have had the report upon the Bill before to-day. All I am saying now is that we cannot proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill under the practice of the House until the House is aware of the Examiners' report.
§ Mr. MAXTONDo I understand that I have an opportunity of appearing before the Examiners, and advocating the claims of this Bill?
§ Mr. SPEAKERCertainly, and also the other parties.