§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
It may be more convenient for the Committee if I move to postpone this Clause—it raises a rather complex question—until a later period in the discussion. It follows the precedent of last year. More over, there is a new Clause which deals with the same question as is raised. It will be convenient to bring these two discussions into relation as far as possible with each other, which no doubt can be achieved some time this afternoon or in the early part of to-morrow morning. Therefore, I move to postpone the Clause in order that it may be taken after Clause 28.
§ Mr. DALTONI see no ground what-ever for postponing the consideration of this Clause. By studying the Paper certain hon. Members on the other side who should be here are not in their places in order to take part in the discussion of the Finance Bill. They prefer to be in their beds. That is no reason why the discussion should not be taken. I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the result of pressure exercised through the Conservative Press 478 and through sections on his own side of the House, is proposing to make certain concessions to the clamour of Super-tax payers, asserting that they have been charged more than is reasonable. My hon. Friends are quite prepared to discuss the Clause now. We have not asked to report Progress. This is a matter of greater importance than many of the things on which a good deal of time has been spent during all these hours. We shall oppose the proposal to postpone the Clause.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDThe right hon. Gentleman has not been sitting here through all the night, but we have been. There has been nothing in the shape of obstruction all through, and now, just because one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's friends are absent, he asks us to postpone the Clause until a later date.
§ Mr. GILLETTI wish to voice my opposition to this proposal, because it seems to me to a certain extent that the Chancellor wishes to postpone this Clause for the convenience of some of his friends. There is another Clause coming on which is more important and of much more interest. I refer to Clause 18, which excites a great deal of interest in quarters not confined to these benches. I think it a great misfortune that a Clause which will lay down certain principles dealing with the Sinking Fund should be taken at this hour in the morning. If the Chancellor proposed to postpone that as well as the other there would be something in it, but to take this one and leave Clause 18 is an extraordinary proceeding, when relatively speaking the Clause which he wishes to postpone is trivial compared with Clause 18.
§ Mr. MACLEANI want to lodge my protest against the manner in which the Chancellor is bringing forward this proposal that we should leave this Clause out until a later period. This Committee is evidently looked upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as merely a convenience to suit himself and his friends. We have been asked to wait here all through the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Oh, yes. We have been asked to wait all through the night because the Government have moved the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. [HON. 479 MEMBERS: "No!"] It has been exempted business for the rest of us, but not for the Chancellor and his friends. The Chancellor and his friends have not been here all through the evening. They have gone home to bed, and now he wants us to postpone this Clause until they can be here. What guarantee can he give that his friends will be here at the time he is going to bring forward this Clause? Has he any guarantee? It seems to me that it is purely for the convenience of the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) or one or two of his friends. When we have Amendments down for discussion, the Committee should not await their convenience but should go ahead with the business. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put forward some sounder reason than the one he has given why we should delay the matter, to adjourn the whole question. Until the three members of the Committee who are absent come from their beds to discuss it, is not sufficient. Really, we are going to have three Mussolinis in the House instead of one. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to go on with it. Why cannot the Chancellor? In the earlier stages of this Debate the Chancellor, in the brilliant way in which he met all objection, and with the energy he displayed, looked as if he was going through with the whole Bill to-day. Now he wants to leave it over to a later period. Is he tired out? If he is, let us all go home. If he is exhausted, we will take pity, and we will all go home together. We shall all come back to-morrow and have a fresh start. We will come back in a fresh state, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to go forward, and with high dialectical skill he will be able to meet the objections put forward from all parts of the Committee, and dispose of the arguments. I think it is not a question of leaving over this Clause and of allowing the Chancellor to go away, but of postponing the rest of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member now appears to be arguing in favour of reporting Progress. The Motion before the Committee is to postpone the Clause.
§ Mr. MACLEANThe Motion is to postpone this particular Clause. I understand 480 that it is to postpone discussion on this Clause. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show some more cogent reason why the Clause should be postponed, and why other Clauses should not be postponed along with it. Why not take the Bill in its proper sequence, Clause by Clause, and not jump over a Clause and leave it for another day. That is going over the Bill in piece-meal fashion. I am quite certain that, if the Chancellor only looks at the benches behind, he will see that his own party are quite anxious to go ahead with the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really any desire to discuss the matter properly, we can argue the postponement of this Clause for a few minutes longer, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who knows where the three hon. Members are residing, or reclining, or slumbering, can send for them as he does when there is a speedy Division, bringing Members from all round Westminster to take part in the Division. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury can send for these three Members and get them to come along. We will keep the Debate going. We will keep the Committee going until they come along. We will oblige the Government and meet their convenience. We can go on for a long time yet. Between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will be quite possible to dig out from their dug out the three Members in whose interests we are supposed to postpone the discussion of this Clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will really consider that it is possible for this Debate to continue. Clause 13, after all, at this early hour will not be considered an unlucky Clause for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might get it and he might not. It might be an unlucky Clause. At any rate, he might chance it and risk getting it at this time in the morning. I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the matter.
§ Mr. PALINGThe right hon. Gentleman has some audacity, and it needs some audacity to make such a Motion after an all-night sitting. The Opposition have been here arguing the business from beginning to end and no Members of the Tory Benches have taken part in the Debate except the Minister and his colleague. The right hon. Gentleman himself, I admit, had a bad time at the 481 beginning of the day, but he has had time to recover since then. He has had a few hours sleep, and now he comes and asks us to leave this Clause and take some other up. The Tory party or someone behind thinks they have got so many Members that they can carry on in shifts. They have got the wrong men on the wrong shifts. They have got day men on night shifts. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is asking for this postponement. I want to ask him: Does he think it fair because he has got them on the wrong turn and the right Members do not happen to be here, that people, who have sat here all night from a quarter to three in the afternoon until a quarter to six in the morning doing Parliamentary business, should be asked to go on to another Clause, to suit the convenience of the Tory party? Surely the honourable thing, if the hon. Members cannot go on with the business they have set down, is to give it up and let us all go home. I wondered when the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up whether there was any reason for it. He has been jibed pretty often for not knowing much about some of the things which we have been discussing. We have asked for information and have not got it. But, apparently, it is because the wrong people are on the shift. We have discussed things in their proper sequence all night, and there is no reason why we should depart from that order.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAs I said a little time ago, the Committee would be quite wrong in assuming that the Clause is being postponed on account of the absence of the three Members. As a matter of fact, it deals with a matter that was dealt with in the small hours of the morning before, and many firms and authorities complained that the matter had been settled at a time when they thought it could not be appreciated and understood by many Members. It was in view of that, that I was anxious that this year, when the same points came up, that they should be discussed at a time when they could be discussed properly and the information given with regard to those factors. It is that reason and not for any question of the convenience of any particular Member that we have proposed the postponement of this Clause, to which proposal I must respectfully adhere.
§ Mr. PALINGIs not that an argument for abolishing night sittings?
§ Mr. WESTWOODI am afraid the second appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no more convincing than the first. We are being seriously asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer no think that it is a mere coincidence that three of his own supporters should have their names down to an Amendment. Then we are told seriously that it is not for their convenience that we should postpone this particular Clause. It was the Chancellor, in one of his historical speeches before he joined the party to which he now belongs, who told us that the Tory party was one of great vested interests. It is of interest to know that among the three Members who have their names down in connection with this particular Clause is the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who evidently is not physically able to be here at this time in the morning. If it had been a question of silver coinage or bad coinage, on which we have often heard him, he would probably have been here. I feel sure this particular Clause has something historical about it. It caused some trouble 12 months ago. Then, there is the Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who, I understand, represents the great financial interests, and the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). I think Yarmouth is famous for bloaters, and this if apparently a red herring drawn across our track. Surely, when Members on this side of the Committee have attended to their work since 10 o'clock yesterday morning, they should not be asked to postpone this particular Clause. Members on this side, I am sure, are prepared to go on with the business. I feel sure that if the Chancellor made an appeal to the Attorney-General he would wake up.
§ Sir THOMAS WATTSDoes the hon. Member propose to go on with the Clause with only four Members of the Liberal party present?
§ Mr. WESTWOODNever in my long experience in public life have I used a word of slander of the dead. I have not the slightest intention of being slanderous of the dead at this time of the morning. It may be possible that the Liberal party have died only from 483 the feet upwards, but the Tory party has been dead for a long time from the head downwards. It is because we have remained mentally and physically alert that we are entitled to a little more courtesy and fair treatment from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he is seeking to give us at the present time. We are all anxious to hear the Chancellor, and we could get our ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to come back and give him just the same thrashing as we enjoyed yesterday.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIf the Clauses are taken in their proper order the Clause which will be taken now is this Income Tax Clause. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his way and we postpone this Clause regarding the Income Tax, we proceed to deal with these Clauses about the Sinking Fund, Clauses 18 and 19. They are Clauses of great importance, altering the whole future of the financial relations of this country—doing away with rules of finance which have existed for a long time and substituting some of the meritricious proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to put in their places. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the conclusion that this is the wrong time to discuss Income Tax proposals, it is a wrong time to discuss these Clauses.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am bound to say, on behalf of the Government, that we have not been kindly or very well treated in view of the fact that I did not press the House to sit at all late last night, feeling something of an assurance that business would not be protracted. Obviously, had we known that discussion on these comparatively small matters would have lasted so long, we should have made considerable inroads on last night. But, if it would have the effect of enabling us to terminate our proceedings in an amicable spirit, and with a feeling that we have done our duty, I should be prepared to meet the views expressed by the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in not taking these Clauses affecting the National Debt until to-morrow night. We might proceed from Clause 14 down to the end of Clause 17.
§ Mr. KELLYI do not think that even that suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. If he feels that now that we have reached this stage we cannot go on with the Clause immediately following that has certainly the effect of postponing the whole discussion. We are quite prepared to go on with the whole matter in the sequence as we have it now. The right hon. Gentleman said it was difficult to explain these matters at this time of night. After our being engaged the whole night on this work, he comes with that statement and gives that as a justification for postponement. My party, I hope, are not going to accept it.
§ Mr. HARDIEI noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not looking so well as he usually looks. He is not just up to normal health during this night, and, while I am prepared to consider things like that, had the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to go away he could have left his Bill in security in charge of his assistant and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We might have kept the sequence in the Bill. I think, if we look a little more closely at the Clause, we shall see the reason for the postponement. You notice it in the point of the first £500. Had this been something dealing with the man on 30s. a week, there would have been no postponement until the friends of the 30s. a week man were in the House to put forward Amendments. It is a malicious thing to do. Surely, if it is wrong to discuss this part of the Bill at this hour of the morning, it is wrong to discuss any other part, because a properly balanced Finance Bill must have all its parts balanced. If a part is out of balance, you cannot get anything to swing. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer was never more out of his balance than he is now. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him a little bit of a thrashing yesterday, but he should not take it out of us who are not responsible. I would not mind if it was coming to me for something I had done.
6.0 a.m.
The suggestion is that we should pass on; the right hon. Gentleman would like to see us get down to Clause 17. That is just the point. The excuse he made was that we were not fit mentally to give due consideration to the Income Tax Clause, and yet we are supposed to have 485 the mental capacity to deal with what he proposes. If we are in a fit condition to do that, we are in a fit position to deal with any other part of the Bill. There has been a relay system going on all night, and, while other Ministers were acting as reliefs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt trying to sleep. That is an unfair thing. The Attorney-General is now sleeping, and I am sorry for him also. We are not going to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick out certain bits of his Bill in order to suit the convenience of his Friends. We are going on, as we have always gone on, but we are going to demand the sequence of the Bill. The hour is now 6 o'clock, and some of us have been on these premises since 10 o'clock yesterday morning. We are not complaining; we are explaining. When we take that into consideration, it seems to me that nothing but insult is meant by asking the Committee to meet his convenience. We are not here to obey the dictates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we are here to obey the best methods of business. We are not here to have it thrown at us that we are in the position mentally that we are not capable of considering this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be speaking for the Members on his side, but if he is the sportsman that he is advertised to be, he will take this Clause now and let us fight it out fairly and squarely.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly given us a rather more conciliatory speech than we have had from that Bench in the last seven or eight hours. But he really has no ground for saying that he had any assurance that facilities would be given for progress on this Bill to-day. It is true that, in asking leave to report Progress last night, I said that the Debate had been conducted with good humour and that we had made good progress, but there was no assurance at all with regard to any arrangement for subsequent business on the Committee stage of this Bill. If there is any point made with regard to the length of speeches, it cannot be made here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) moved to report Progress nearly six hours ago, so that we might obtain quite definitely from the 486 Chancellor of the Exchequer what his intentions were with regard to the subsequent stages of discussion.
§ Mr. HARDIEOn a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to lie snoring on the seats when business is going on.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI was saying, when I was interrupted, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley moved to report Progress six hours ago in order that we might obtain a specific statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what his intentions were with regard to the progress of this stage of the Bill We had a very unsatisfactory answer from the President of the Board of Trade. We did not know what the specific intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, but it was conveyed to us second hand that it was hoped to get the whole of the Clauses, whatever time might be necessary.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt was entirely due to a misunderstanding that I was not in my place when the right hon. Gentleman rose to inquire and made the Motion to report Progress. I had understood that he was going to make that Motion immediately after the last part of the business then under discussion had been disposed of. Instead of that, he rose unexpectedly, as I gather from him, immediately before instead of immediately after the Division was taken. Although I knew that he was to make the Motion, I was not able to reach the Chamber before he sat down. It is a regrettable accident which, I am sure, arose from a misunderstanding.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWe must ask hon. Members on the other side to consider the position of a large number of hon. Members on this side. When the last train has gone, there is no earthly reason why we should not go straight on with the business for which we have been kept up. There is no other course open to most of my hon. Friends but to stay here right through the night or to go on with the business. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues do not bear that in mind, we cannot be expected at 6 o'clock in the morning suddenly to come into a new and conciliatory spirit and give facilities. With regard to the last suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he could make arrange- 487 ments, if we agreed, to postpone Clauses 13 and 18 if we gave him Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17, obviously that is on the assumption that these intermediate Clauses are not contentious and will not require any debate at the sitting later in the day.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not say that they could not be debated. We could have a discussion, but it would not be of a controversial character. I am suggesting that we go to Clause 17 and omit Clause 13.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThey will not take longer to debate now than later in the day. We might as well debate Clause 13 as the later Clause, and as far as I am concerned, I have been warned by hon. Members on the other side that, on certain Clauses, matters would be raised in which both they and I are interested. I have been here the whole night for the purpose. Why should I, then, be asked suddenly to agree to the postponement of this Clause when we have been sitting here for the specific reason of hearing matters raised that they warned us were to be raised on that particular Clause? We do not want to cut across the spirit of conciliation, but I do not think we are called upon to agree to this proposal.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI am perfectly certain of this, that a pledge given by the Government has been broken. The President of the Board of Trade told the Committee that they intended to get all the Clauses to-night, but there was no mention that Clause 13 was to be postponed. Now we are departing from a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade. It is breaking word. I have been here all the time, and there is no Member of the House who can say that there was any wish to treat the Government badly. We could have been at Clause 5 or Clause 6. We could have gone on hours and hours longer, and the proof is that the Government have never needed to move the Closure. Even on the last Clause—Clause 12—we made no speeches, and we did not even force a vote, and then we get amazing cheek, which only the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses. He rises in his place and says the Government have not been fairly treated. He is breaking the pledge given on behalf of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am certain, 488 before he made his speech, never consulted his own Whips. If he had consulted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, he would have told him to adjourn the House, being satisfied with the progress made. There has been no obstruction, and it is only the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to drive on. He is the only Member of his party who is fresh.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have been practically in every Division.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThere is no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Chief Whip, he would be informed that the Government had got their expectation. As a matter of fact, the person who is obstructing is the Chancellor himself. I am sure Clause 13 would have been passed. It is one we agreed to pass. He is keeping back his own Bill, and he blames us when he is the leading obstructionist. Any Whip doing what he is doing would get his money to-morrow. But for some big twist the Chancellor starts up and says we must postpone the Clause. Now we begin to find out one or two reasons. We begin to look at this Clause and see what is behind it. Hollow-ware can be taken at three o'clock in the morning, but a Clause for the friends of the rich must be taken at his own time.
§ Mr. B. SMITHLast night, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, and his statement was very definite. In consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said, it was the intention of the Government to take the whole of the Clauses of the Bill to-night and that the new Clauses would come on to-morrow. That was the statement definitely made, and made in the name of the Chancellor.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI cannot consider that statement and the wish and the hopes of the Government in regard to the progress of the business as a pledge binding to carry out that programme. Why, it is not in our power, if we sat until the next Sitting began, to carry the whole of this Bill in the face of considerable discussion. Intentions in regard to business are always subject to the progress of business, and any considerations that may be thrown up in debate.
§ Mr. B. SMITHThe Chancellor wants to postpone Clause 13, but the statement made was that the whole of the Clauses were to be discussed to-night.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI cannot admit that there is any question of a breach of faith.
§ Sir ROBERT SANDERSMay I venture to put a suggestion in this matter? Undoubtedly, there is a strong feeling among a good many Members on this side of the House that they want to have a fair discussion on Clause 13. I think it is a reasonable suggestion, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding outside the House and in the Press about the new arrangements that are going to be made as to Income Tax and what is now called Surtax. At the same time, I should be very sorry to be pressing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything which even wrongly could be described as a breach of faith. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the President of the Board of Trade gave an assurance earlier in the evening that we were going to take all the Clauses. I would just throw out a suggestion. Would it be possible that we should go on with these Clauses now and take them to the end of Clause 17, and the Chancellor give us an assurance that on Report stage we shall have a proper discussion on Clause 13, and that we have it at some reasonable hour of the day? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I just throw out the suggestion to see whether it is acceptable to the other side of the Committee.
§ Mr. MACKINDERThe Chancellor wants to select what business he is going to transact, but it is not going to be done in sequence. If the Chancellor wants to discuss Clause 13 at a reasonable hour, it is up to him to ask us to report Progress. I speak for myself, and I speak for a number of my colleagues. We shall not ask to report Progress. If the Chancellor wants to get the Finance Bill through, we will stop up and do it. If he wants to discuss Clause 13 we are prepared to do it. We want the Clause fully discussed, and if Members are not here, it is not our fault. If the Chancellor wants to discuss it in its proper place it is up to him to ask to report Progress. I am prepared to sit all day and all night. If the Chancellor is going to take that point of view I am prepared to suggest to some of our Members that 490 we make longer speeches on each Amendment, and that we have the closure moved on us. The Chancellor cannot say that last night there has been any obstruction. There has been no obstruction at all. The mere fact that there have been all the Divisions without a single Closure on the speeches shows that there has been no obstruction. I say it is almost impertinent to ask the Committee at six o'clock in the morning to jump over a Clause and go on to something else. It may be important, but it was not too important to discuss articles of domestic use in working-class households at three o'clock in the morning. That was an important matter to us, and is is just as necessary that we should discuss very important matters at six o'clock in the morning. I for one am prepared to sit here all day, and make longer speeches, unless the Chancellor is prepared to report Progress. [An HON. MEMBER: "Say it again!"] I can say it again. I am quite in order in saying it at least a dozen times. As a Member of this side of the Committee I have been doing work, and Members on the other side of the Committee have been tearing paper, and making rude interjections. We can make longer speeches and we can get closured. I suggest that the only thing the Chancellor can do in fairness to us and himself is to report Progress.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am afraid that I cannot respond to that appeal.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIt is not an appeal; it is a challenge.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI cannot bow to that challenge. We have sat also for a long time. We have not made the progress which we expected to make in our discussions. We have now reached another set of Clauses. No one can say that they are controversial, and I had hoped that we could have wound up with them. As for my suggestion, I made it in a conciliatory spirit, and it has been treated with extreme harshness. My assumption was that progress of business would be rapid. I must ask the Committee to postpone Clause 13, and proceed with the further Clauses in the Bill. It is true the Closure has not been moved. It has always been my desire, following most distinguished Chancellors of years 491 gone by, to carry the Budget as far as possible without recourse to the Closure, and I should be very reluctant to make any such suggestion. I trust that may be avoided. Let us proceed on our course of duty faithfully.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESWhen similar Clauses were discussed last year in the early hours of the morning we protested against serious Clauses being taken at that hour. Surely, the Bill should be taken as a whole. There are some important proposals. We object very strongly to this proposal of skipping this Clause at this stage.
§ Mr. MACLEANI have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer making several explanations, and he always winds up by informing the Committee that he intends to stick to the proposal he has made, and asks the Committee to postpone this particular proposal. I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is taking rather an arbitrary attitude at this time in the morning. He himself has been responsible for holding up the business of the Committee for the past hour and a-half. If he had not made that proposal we would in all probability have passed over Clause 13 by this time. He wants the Committee to abandon Clause 13, meantime go right on, and then take Clause 13 up when we resume business later to-day. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expecting too much from members on this side of the Committee. He is asking too much. He has stated that they have not moved the Closure. They have had no reason to move the Closure; no cause has been given by the Opposition to move the Closure. The Opposition has treated the Government in every respect in a way that has enabled them to get through with their business. There have been a great many Amendments down, but every one discussed has been shown to be an important Amendment, in that it has been called upon by the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of the House of Commons. They have been discussed, and the Government themselves have admitted that they have been discussed rationally, that no obstructive methods have been employed, while the Government have not employed the Closure. All I have to say with regard to the Chancellor 492 of the Exchequer is that he was very ill-advised in making the proposal that he did make. Those of us who have waited through the night carrying on this business are prepared to go right on until relays belonging to this side of the House come back, and are able to carry on a little longer. If the Chancellor does not watch it, we shall overlap into to-day's sitting, and he will lose a whole day's sitting. I say that the attitude taken up by the Chancellor and persisted in by him at this hour in the morning is ill-advised. As far as I am concerned, I have taken very little part in the Debate on this Bill, but now I shall do everything I can and employ all the tactics of which my connection with this House has given me some knowledge, to obstruct this Bill and retard its progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had it practically all his own way. We, on this side, have not employed the Standing Orders to obstruct business, but, if the Chancellor persists in this attitude, we will let him see that we understand, not only the procedure of this House, but all the tactics to retard the Bill. He will see if he gets his Finance Bill through by Friday. I should like the Chancellor to take a thought as we say in Scotland. Second thoughts are best. Let him give a little cool reflection to it and give a sound reason why the House should accept the Motion to postpone the Clause.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI would remind the Committee that yesterday I said that, relying on the assurances which I had received, that the House would be willing to expedite this business, I was ready to fall in with any arrangement. I am afraid that there is no such spirit, and in that case it is certainly not the hon. Gentleman who has any right to reproach me with harsh conduct on any occasion. We have listened with very much patience to the whole discussion.
§ Mr. MACLEANCan you point out any part in this Debate where the opposition of the Labour party has taken up more time as an Opposition than the right hon. Gentleman's own friends? The major portion of the time taken up on the Bill has been by members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
493§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
| Division No. 210.] | AYES. | [6.36 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ganzoni, Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Goff, Sir Park | Preston, William |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Radford, E. A. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Bethel, A. | Hammersley, S. S. | Ramsden, E. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Harland, A. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Harrison, G. J. C. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Honnessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hilton, Cecil | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Lamb, J. Q. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Christie, J. A. | Loder, J. de V. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Long, Major Eric | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Lougher, Lewis | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Tinne, J. A. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Couper, J. B. | Lumley, L. R. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | McLean, Major A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macmillan, Captain H. | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Mac Robert, Alexander M. | Wells, S. R. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Womersley, W. J. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | |
| Finburgh, S. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Captain Viscount Curzon and Major |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Oakley, T. | Sir William Cope. |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Penny, Frederick George |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro') | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Mackinder, W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacLaren, Andrew | Westwood, J. |
| Day, Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Dunnico, H. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Windsor, Walter |
| Fenby, T. D. | Murnin, H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | |
| Gillett, George M. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Potts, John S. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. |
§ Question put accordingly: "That the Clause be postponed."
494§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 56.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 57.
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.) | Preston, William |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hammersley, S. S. | Radford, E. A. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Harland, A. | Ramsden, E. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hilton, Cecil | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Christie, J. A. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Savery, S. S. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Lamb, J. Q. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Colfox, Major Win. Phillips | Loder, J. de V. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Long, Major Eric | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Couper, J. B. | Lougher, Lewis | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro) | Lumley, L. R. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tinne, J. A. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Dawson, Sir Phillip | McLean, Major A. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Macmillan, Captain H. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Margesson, Captain D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Ellis, R. G. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Wells, S. R. |
| Fade, Sir Bertram G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Finburgh, S. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Oakley, T. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Penny, Frederick George | |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Goff, Sir Park | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Major Sir William Cope. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Mackinder, W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacLaren, Andrew | Westwood, J. |
| Day, Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Dunnico, H. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Murnin, H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gillett, George M. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling. |