HC Deb 17 May 1928 vol 217 cc1355-83

I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "aforesaid" in line 23, to the end of line 24.

We have now reached what is really the most important. Clause in the Bill and one on which there is a very wide measure of controversy touching its provisions. There are two Amendments in my name and it will probably be to the convenience of the Committee if we discus them simultaneously, moving the second formally and taking a vote on it.


I think that will be a convenient course.


This is the Clause that gives the alleged elasticity to the Bank, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to extend the fiduciary issue by a figure of £260,000,000, but this permission is limited by the Clause in two very vital respects. In the first place the permission, which can be given by the Treasury for any specified amount, is limited in the matter of time so that the period during which this extension may be permitted cannot exceed six months, or some shorter period which the Treasury may think proper. I should, perhaps, say that the Treasury can from time to time extend this period if it thinks desirable, but not beyond the period of two years. This condition for extension is limited in two ways. In the first place, it can only be given by the Treasury for six months, and that can be extended for a further period of six months up to a maximum of two years from the start, after which it becomes subject to the further limitation that this cannot extend beyond the two years, except provided that no such authority shall be renewed so as to remain in force (Whether with or without variation) after the expiration of a period of two years from the date on which it was originally given, unless Parliament otherwise determines. So that in the Clause, as it stands, first the Treasury may give power to extend for six months, and that can go on for two years, and after that Parliament has itself to sanction the extension beyond that period. The first Amendment that we are proposing is to leave out the period of six months so that the Treasury, if the Amendment be carried, can give, in the first instance, permission to extend this amount so as not to limit it. Should the Treasury take that step, the second Amendment relieves the Bank and the Treasury of the necessity of going to Parliament at the end of the two years. Therefore, if the first Amendment be carried alone, the result will be that the Treasury will give consent to extend the issue for two years, at the end of which time it will come to Parliament. If, in addition to that, the second Amendment be carried, then the effect will be that the Treasury will give permission to extend and it will not be limited in time at all. Finally, should the Committee reject the first Amendment and accept the second, it will mean that the Treasury can continue indefinitely to go on giving permission for the amount to go beyond £260,000,000. Whether we are for these Amendments or against them, and in whatever part of the Committee we sit, we are all really aware that it is the spirit and not the letter of this provision that is the more important.

If this Clause were to stand in its present form and the Bank, Treasury and future Parliaments were all to act in one way, that would be far more important than if we made certain modifications in the Clause, freeing some of the restraints which it at present contains. Nevertheless, though that be true, I think that the actual terms of these Amendments are of some considerable importance, because they will give an indication to future Courts of the Bank and future Treasuries of what the House intended when this Act was passed. I think, therefore, that if we carry these Amendments we shall impart into the Bill a different idea of the meaning of Clause 8 than if we leave it standing as it is at the present time.

Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have raised the issue of the elasticity of the Clause. Is it intended to apply it to emergencies only, or can it be used, or is it intended to be used as a permanent means of increasing the fiduciary issue if experience indicates that that is desirable? In spite of the interpretation that has been given by several hon. Members opposite, I have no doubt that in its present form the object of the Clause is to give temporary relief in a case where the needs of the currency are pressing, and to give temporary relief only. As it stands, I think that will be the interpretation. The Secretary of State for War discussed this Clause at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill, and referred to the various occasions on which it might be brought into operation. He dealt with certain crises that had occurred during the last century, and indicated that if similar crises were likely to occur in future this Clause would prevent a panic and anticipate the crisis. As far as that is concerned, I do not think there is much that need be said.

He also dealt with a second possibility, which has been referred to by more than one hon. Member, and that was the case of a sudden foreign demand. He pointed out that it would be the duty of the Treasury, on application from the Bank, to meet this emergency, providing there was a sufficient foreign demand for gold to put the Bank into a position of some unpleasantness. Supposing there was not one big foreign demand for gold, but that what actually took place was a demand for gold coming from abroad which consisted of a number of small movements in that direction. Not one of these demands might be sufficient in the opinion of the Bank of England to justify their coming to the Treasury, and not one of them might be sufficient to lead the Treasury to consider that it was adequate ground for granting a request for an increase of currency; yet in the aggregate they would have a considerable effect. What will be the procedure in such an event?

The Bank of England will be confronted with this quite formidable demand. It will decide that by a very little screwing down of the position, it can meet the occasion. A little later there will be a further demand on the Bank, which they may not consider adequate for the making of a demand for an increase of the currency, and their going through all the paraphernalia required in Clause 8, and again they will limit credit, and restrict the activities of industry, in order to meet, the demand. It seems to me quite likely that the effect of that in the aggregate will be very grave, because these steps would follow one upon another. It is quite possible that the Bank which never adequately realises the grave effect upon industry in this country by the restriction of credit and the lowering of prices, will put on the screw, little by little, and produce very grave effects upon the country.

My view, therefore, of the effect of this Clause as it stands is that it goes away from the proposals put forward at the Genoa Conference, and it would be much better if the Government had really implemented the Genoa proposals instead of attempting to deal with it in this way. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another possible difficulty. He said that there might be a scramble for gold by the central banks. In regard to that I want to say, first, that it seems to me that the proposal in this Bill is in itself an unnecessary demand for gold by the Bank of England. The example we are setting here is a bad one, and one which I think will have deleterious effect upon the international situation. I have dealt already with that point to some extent and, therefore, I do not mean to deal with it again except to say this that what the right hon. Gentleman said was: Should the Bank of England find that, owing to a world demand for gold, credit would be unduly restricted, not as a check on speculation, but to the injury of legitimate requirements, then the Bank can request the Treasury to extend the fiduciary issue and so free gold in the hands of the Bank for further credit operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1928; col. 745. Vol. 217.] It may be that they will take that course, but I fear very much, if this Clause is left in its present form, that they might easily do something else. Suppose they did adopt the procedure in this Clause. The essence of the structure is that it is a temporary expansion. Is it not exceedingly probable that they will begin to restrict credit with a view to getting back, through deflation, to a position where they no longer need the assistance of the Treasury in this matter? I fear that this will be the effect. Then we come, finally, to what is the gravest matter of all, and that is the question of industrial expansion. It has been said many times during these Debates that there is a possibility of a revival of trade. We hope it is much more than a possibility and that we shall see a large proportion of the million unemployed absorbed in industry. If that happens there will be a demand for much more cash, and that demand will be reflected in a desire for more currency. The right hon. Gentleman himself visualised this and he said: It may be that in the course of the years to come with an increased population, and as we hope, much greater employment, greater earnings, greater expenditure and a higher standard of comfort for the people, the currency of the country will require permanent expansion. The provision in the Bill to increase the fiduciary issue is not intended, therefore, to be a mere legislative substitute for the crisis letter. On the contrary, it is intended to be used not in a crisis but before it and to prevent undue stringency arising from any of the causes I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1928; cols. 745–46; Vol.217.] Not during the crisis but before it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether that phrase "not in a crisis but before it" applies to the question of industrial expansion. If it does, then he is not really meeting the suggestion the point that is at stake. With us it is not a question of a crisis at all. We anticipate—the Committee as a whole, I am sure, anticipate—that when the revival of industry comes, it will not be in the form of a crisis. It will be a steady growth which may extend over a considerable period. It is not, therefore, a matter of providing for a crisis when it arises. It is a matter of taking care that when industry at last sprouts up again we shall have a currency that is capable of keeping pace with it and that it shall not be cut down by a bankers' frost. If that is to be so, then the elasticity provided for in the Clause will not be a temporary affair dealing with emergencies. It will have to be a permanent increase of the currency, without any intention of going back at some early date to a smaller amount.

That brings us, I think, to the second Amendment and to the question of bringing the matter before Parliament at the end of two years. I am not quite clear as to the precise form in which Parliament would have to deal with the matter, but it seems to me that it will have to be done by Statute—either by a separate Act brought in and carried through all its stages, or, at least, a separate provision in a Finance Bill which for all practical purposes is really the same thing. But I imagine that it would not be by a simple Resolution of the House. To carry through an important and controversial Measure of that character would require considerable time. We all know that Governments resist any encroachment on their time, and it would very likely be found difficult to take such a step as that. Therefore, I think there would be a very great obstacle to effecting the permanent extension of the note issue, which even the right hon. Gentleman himself realises is of profound importance if the revival of industry is not to be checked the moment is begins.

Finally I put this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know hon. Members are impatient, but this is a very important matter which will affect industry for years to come, and while I may have taken up a long time, I do not think there should be any complaint on that score. The right hon. Gentleman says that is is quite a mistake to imagine that this is an emergency proposal; that on the face of it, it is temporary but that in practice it can be removed. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that his obiter dictum does not settle the matter. What the Bank and the Treasury and Parliament will look to in the future, is not the particular statement on this Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—important as that may be—but the terms of the Act itself. If the Act is carried in this form, they will find that this is, apparently at any rate, a temporary provision and they will be guided by that fact. Some Members no doubt will say that public opinion will prove too strong for the Bank. It may be that the Bank, and possibly the Treasury, mean to use this only as a temporary emergency measure; but when the time comes and when industry begins to recover, public opinion will be too strong to allow the Banks to take that course and they will be compelled to use it in a more liberal sense.

I am afraid that I cannot accept that view, and for the reason that the Bank act rather subtly and almost secretly, and it is very difficult for the ordinary man or woman, either employer or employed, to realise that owing to some slight action by the Bank their troubles, which extend in the aggregate to millions of pounds and hundred thousands of unemployed, are really due to that cause. It is something like keeping a bird in a cage. The bird tends to grow and the cage is very small, and it does not exactly complain against its cage, but it mopes and finally dies. I feel that if the Bank and the Treasury feel so disposed they will use these powers that are given them in this Act and will not use the provisions which this Clause theoretically enables them to use, and British industry "cabin'd and confin'd" by the monetary proposals of the Bill, will droop and die. It is because I want to see it clearly set out in this Clause that it is not a mere emergency provision, but a means of enlarging, if necessary permanently—as the right hon. Gentleman himself said—the note issue of this country, that I formally move the first of the two Amendments standing in my name, and that I shall subsequently move the later one dealing with the further period of the proposals before Parliament.


This Amendment has been the peg on which the hon. Gentleman has hung a very interesting speech, which went a good deal further than the Amendments themselves. I do not propose to re-discuss the provisions for elasticity in Clause 8. I discussed them at length on the Second Reading, and the hon. Gentleman has done me the honour of quoting a good deal of what I said on that occasion, and has reminded the Committee of the arguments with which I supported the Clause. I would like to say one word about his conception of the action of the Bank of England. He seems to fear that it is a reasonable supposition that the Bank will so use its monetary powers as to restrict trade and throw people out of work. He seems to think that they might do that maliciously.




Well, if not maliciously, then ignorantly, without appreciation of the vast harm and sorrow that they would create among large numbers of working people. I do not for a moment believe that they could do such a thing ignorantly, and certainly I do not believe that they would do it maliciously.


They are doing it at this time.


They are experts, and they have experts advising them on this very currency question. We are determining as a House to put the currency and credit policy of this country into their hands, and I am sure, when we are making that a major determination, we need have no fear that they would do it ignorantly in carrying out that policy. Let me look at the other side of that proposition. There are times, I suppose the hon. Member would admit, when restriction is necessary and salutary and not only desirable in the interests of bankers, but also desirable in the interests of industry and the people employed in industry, because unless a check is put on it at the right moment, industry suffers and those employed suffer also. The hon. Member must remember therefore, that this credit power is one of the most delicate and one of the strongest instruments, and he must not consider that the Bank through ignorance or malice would use it against the industrial people of this country. Let me deal with the Amendment itself. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with the views that he holds, should move these Amendments, because the result of both these Amendments, if they are carried, will be this: The Bank could ask for an extension of the fiduciary limit and the Treasury and the Bank could agree to a permanent increase of that limit, without coming to Parliament or even reporting the matter to Parliament.

That is the effect of the Amendment. I believe the Government have chosen a much better middle course, namely, that of saying that the Bank can go to the Treasury and make a case and, if the Treasury agrees, the Treasury can agree to an extension of the fiduciary issue for six months. With the experience gained in those six months they can either reduce it or increase it, or continue the increase for a period not exceeding two years, and before the end of the two years, with the experience gained Parliament will have the last word. The Amendment is to cut out the last word by Parliament and it would deprive Parliament and this House of any check on the amount of the increases of the fiduciary issue. I do not ask that so wide a power should be given to the Bank and to the Treasury, but I do ask that the power that is given in this Clause should be given, and I believe that if it is used in the way that I contemplated when I spoke on the Second Reading, it should form an instrument which will prevent any undue restriction.


The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is really surprising in his attitude on this particular Amendment, having regard to the attitude which he took up on the Second Reading. As I understood his position then, it was that our desire for greater State control over matters of finance and currency was to be condemned, and yet here to-night he is pleading that the currency shall be subjected to the review of this House of Commons at frequent intervals, whenever the necessity for an increase arises. It seems to me that these two points of view cannot possibly be reconciled. As an actual fact we on this side of the House believe that the great need of this nation in recent years has been a greater supply of currency. I am not going to charge the director of the Bank of England with ignorance, because it would ill become me to do so. I am not claiming to-night to have any great knowledge of this subject, but what I do say, as I endeavoured to tell the Committee earlier in the discussion, is that eminent bankers and economists are agreed that we need a currency which shall be increased or decreased in relation to an index based upon production and on prices, in order that the supply of currency may have a proper relation to economic factors. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are taking a middle course. In matters of this sort I venture to submit that middle courses are not likely to be correct courses. If eminent men in the financial world are able to recommend to the Government a means whereby they can closely relate their finance and their currency to the industrial and economic problems of the day, then I say that the Government would be well advised to take that course, even if it be an extreme course.

11.0 p.m.

My information is that the world's potential power of production is altogether in excess of the world's power to consume, and the difference between our potential production and the possible markets is held by the highest authorities to be due to our old-fashioned and antiquated financial methods. This Clause is purely temporary in character. So far as I can see, there is no provision for normal growth and expansion. It is, in fact, an experiment which may be continued for two years, and at the end of every such period, you introduce the State interference, to which the Government claim to object so strongly. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War if, when this Bill has become an Act, he will advise the Government to appoint an inquiry into the whole question of the relation between currency and production, in order, whilst we have been compelled to accept this Measure at the moment, there may be a reasonable possibility, in the interest not of the Labour party, but of the whole industrial and commercial life of this country, to find a satisfactory way of relating currency to production.


I confess after listening once again to the right hon. Gentleman, that I am only confirmed in the conclusion which I came to the other day, that, in practice, this Clause will be used in an emergency, and not in the way for which we have been arguing in the discussion to-day. It is more intended for crises, than for the ordinary expansion of trade. I cannot help thinking that the policy of the Bank in recent years tends to confirm that belief. We do not really clearly understand, at the present time, how far Parliament will have to be asked to confirm any of the actions that are taken. The real point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman may be said to be that we are placing this matter in the hands of the Bank of England as experts. That is where the fundamental point of difference comes between us. It is not that we are throwing any reflection on the Bank of England, but finance, like everything else, is a thing which you can look at from the standpoint of the expert, or from some other standpoint. If we were to put the control of the Air Force into the hands of the experts of the Air Force, in time, we should be presented with a Bill infinitely larger than the House would be prepared to pay. We do not put anything fully into the hands of the experts. We take their advice, and then consider how far it is possible to adjust that advice to the circumstances of life.

What this Bill does is to put the control of currency, and of credit finally, into the hands of the experts entirely, and you do not retain in your hands any measure of control, so as to modify the advice of the experts in the way that is essential in anything else. No one suggests that the Bank of England deliberately throw people out of work, but there cannot be a shadow of dispute that the policy of inflation has always meant in this country, as in every other European country, that people are thrown out of work. We say that to place the control entirely in the hands of people who look at it purely from the financial standpoint is wrong. You cannot blame them if you put it into their hands. They look at it from the financial standpoint; the great industrialist would have looked at it in a different way, and the working man might have looked at it in a different way still. You have only one aspect and one vision of the whole problem when you place the matter entirely in the hands of the Bank of England; and if you do so the result naturally is that this House is to blame and not the Bank of England. That, to my mind, is fundamental. We cannot claim to have anything more than a say in the matter if the Bank of England is willing to consult us; and if they are not willing to consult us we have no voice. That must be borne in mind. The figure may remain fixed at this sum of £260,900,000; we might have a large expansion of trade and this House of Commons might want to see the figure raised, but until the Directors of the Bank of England went to the Treasury it would be of no use for the Treasury to go to the Bank and to suggest that the figure ought to go up.

Meanwhile, the financial result of the policy—and this has to be borne in mind—is borne by the House of Commons. When you had the policy of the Bank and the policy or the great industrialists creating a large number of unemployed, who paid the money which had to be paid and which is being paid to the unemployed? This House of Commons had to find the money. Therefore, as has happened in other countries, it may well be that you might say to the Bank, "It is quite true that financially your policy is a sound one, but it is too expensive for us." That has been done in other countries, and the policy of inflation has been slowed down or stopped altogether. That is the problem which we have before us to-day. In all probability when an era of real trade expansion comes, you will find that by this Bill you have placed the decisive power of decision in the hands of the Bank—in the hands of a body of able and disinterested men, but of men who will be looking at the problem from one standpoint only; and when they have looked at it and come to their decision, that will be the final decision of the country; and in all probability that decision will mean that at the crucial moment the brakes will be put by the Bank of England on your trade revival, the trade revival will be slowed down, men who might have got employment will remain unemployed, and industries which might have been expanded and might have found a larger output for their goods if this financial policy had not been followed will find that the era of prosperity for which they have hoped has been postponed. That is what I still believe about this Bill, and nothing that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have said convinces me that that is not what will happen.


I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Government appear to have closed their minds to the demand which emerges as the result of the Debate, including speeches made from their own side. I should have thought that at least we would have had some suggestion that they were going to consider the matter on Report, but we have had no suggestion of that kind at all. These two Amendments which are now under discussion are important Amendments. I propose to confine what I have to say very briefly to the second of them, the provision for a two years' limit on the authority to increase the fiduciary note issue. I should like to stress the very depressing psychological effect that this provision is bound to have upon the minds of industrialists. It would introduce an element of political uncertainty into all the calculations which are made by employers and other interested in business. They may be able under the mechanism of this Clause to get a temporary increase in the fiduciary note issue for six months and then again for a further six months and so on up to a period of two years, but they will learn that under the terms of this Bill, if it passes into law as it is now drafted, at the end of the two years Parliament may or may not consent to make permanent, or to continue, the increase of the fiduciary note issue which has already been agreed. How is that going to influence the minds of intelligent industrialists who understand the situation, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who has been conspicuous by his absence from these Debates? Bow is that going to affect their plans: and how is it going to affect their minds as to the possibility of carrying out a continuous policy of increase of output and the extension of employment? It will have a most damaging effect, because they will not know what is likely to be decided at the end of the two-year period.

I regard this two-year period as one of the most serious blemishes in the Bill. It introduces uncertainty and just that policy of political interference in its most objectionable form against which the Government have themselves protested. The position will be, that it will only be possible to maintain the note issue at the level necessary to carry a larger volume of trade and employment, at the price of political uncertainty as to what Parliament will do at the end of two years' control, or else this will have to be done by drawing into this country an increased supply of gold, giving an increased note issue without having an increased fiduciary issue. One of these alternatives is bad politically and the other is bad financially, because to draw in this gold you will have to raise the bank rate and so put another brake upon trade in that way.

I am surprised the Government have not thrown out some suggestion that they will be open to argument on this point. The best we can do in the circumstances is to observe that two years is a period which may well cover a change of Government in this country. If this Bill passes in its present highly objectionable and rigid form before the full period of two years has run and before the knife has been brought down again upon the neck of expanding industry, it is possible that certain political changes will have occurred which will enable amending legislation to be put through on the lines of the Amendment.


After the speech of the hon. Member objecting to the very mild political control given to Parliament at the end of two years I suppose we may take it as definitely the policy of the Labour party's Front Bench that the Government and Parliament generally are to have no say in determining what the currency system is to be.


But for the intervention of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) perhaps I should not have spoken at this late hour. I thank the hon. Member for the assistance he has given me in concentrating my thoughts. The Amendment does not very well convey the point we are trying to put across the Floor of the House. It certainly does not admit of the interpretation the hon. Member for Yarmouth put on it. I think everybody ought to be anxious to establish a system which seems to be the natural corollary of the power conferred upon the Bank in Clause 8. If the Bank may make representations to the Treasury, surely it is only fair that in such a partnership the Treasury should have the right to make representations to the Bank.

The Secretary of State for War asked if my hon. Friends thought the experts of the Bank of England were malicious or ignorant. I do not know them well enough to make a positive assertion that they are not both, but they are not the only two failings which may attach to human beings. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself is either malicious or ignorant; in some directions I think he knows far too much; but I am prepared to say that on many occasions he has taken decisions which had very evil results on the general population by looking at the problems before him in a one-eyed, partisan way.

The right hon. Gentleman, as a statesman, has had some experience in looking at things from a wider point of view. The experts who advise the Bank of England have not had the opportunities of the Secretary of State for War for that broad intellectual development that he has acquired and which the opportunities of this House afford of mixing with men of different classes. These experts live in a more limited sphere and have a more limited measurement of the odds, but they are quite capable of taking decisions which might have very evil results on the whole of the national life. I intervened on the Second Reading to put the plain man's view on this question of banking and currency. I feel that in the course of this Debate the Government might have seen their way to concede some points which would give to this House and to the country some hope that in future the banking of this country would be directed in a way which would have some regard to national welfare, and the industrial and social welfare of the general body of the people, instead of being directed merely towards securing that the stability of the Bank of England and the interests and profits payable to the shareholders of the Bank of England should be the first consideration.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. Member is making the speech which he made on the Second Reading. The two Amendments are of quite a definite character.


While I accept your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, I must express my personal opinion that I never make the same speech twice. I will endeavour to keep my remarks definitely to the Clause and the Amendments which are on the Paper. My hon. Friends contend that unless their Amendments are accepted we shall not be able to secure greater elasticity in the contraction or expansion of the fiduciary issue. I thought it was possible to make a speech without using the words "fiduciary issue," but I must confess that I have failed. I was asking for a greater freedom of expansion and contraction and that is the meaning of the Amendments we are discussing. In defending the case against this Amendment the Secretary of State for War told us that we could safely leave this question in the hands of the experts of the Bank of England. I have a great respect for experts, whether educational, surgical, military, or any other kind of experts, but I am not prepared to trust my life and liberty to any one of them without first exercising my own judgment; and, similarly, I think that the House of Commons ought to be as careful and precise in its handling of its responsibilities for the national welfare in regard to the operations of experts as Members would be in dealing with their own personal affairs.

I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be present to give us the benefit of his expert knowledge, his greater elasticity of mind, and in some degree his greater desire to meet the reasonable and intelligent views of those who hold different political principles; but I would point out to the representatives of the Treasury who are present that they have introduced this Bill in a very careless and slipshod fashion, and with no other consideration but to give back into the hands of the Bank of England, their industrial, commercial and political friends, the great power which they had before 1914, and which they could not exercise efficiently in 1914.

We ask that the House of Commons should not throw that power away foolishly and absolutely, but should retain its power to direct and guide and compel the experts to see that the function of banking is to keep the wheels of industry running. It has not done that during the last dozen years, and there is nothing in this Bill that helps it to do so in the future. When the Bill has passed through all its stages, the whole of this tremendous field of our national operations will have been handed back to a small commercial directorate, and the Secretary of State for War, as representing the Conservative Government, tells us that this must be left entirely to the experts, and assures us that they are neither ignorant nor actuated by malice; and he thinks that that is a responsible way for a Cabinet Minister to look at this business. We would not adopt that in regard to the Air Force, nor would the right hon. Gentleman adopt it in regard to the War Office—


The hon. Member is now really arguing in favour of the Bill. These two Amendments propose to do away with the power of the Treasury in this matter.


Not as I understand it. They are trying, as I understand it, to reduce a limitation by the removal of certain restrictions, and surely it is legitimate for me to reply to the arguments that were put forward by the Secretary of State for War in his attack on the Amendments. [Interruption.] I am doing the best that I can in the very limited circumstances.


You did better last week!


The circumstances were different, and the object is different, The Secretary of State for War would not trust the running of the Army to the experts. I know exactly what his attitude would be with the most responsible field-marshals and generals that he would have in front of him. He would say, and rightly, "I want to hear what you have to say. You have special experience that I have not, but I have responsibilities that you have not. I have certain capacities and qualifications which you have not got. I am willing to listen to what you have to say from your expert point of view as to how war should be run or how preparations for war should be made but in consultation with my fellows in the Cabinet, will decide finally what the action of the Government is going to be." He comes here to-night and tries to tell me there is to be a different attitude towards the banks, which after all in the normal day to day life of the nation, in the commercial life of the nation, is a much more important thing than the question of war. This affects our everyday life. The Prime Minister made a speech yesterday.


The hon. Member must really confine himself to the Amendment.


I was only introducing that point for the very limited purpose of arguing that it is not possible, if the Government is going to carry out the promises its leader makes to the country, to give effect to the hopes which a speech raises unless the Amendment I am now supporting is carried. The Prime Minister promises the country by implication that he is ready to see that the banks make their sacrifices along with other sections of the community. But his Minister of War, defending a Clause of this Bill, says it must be so framed that when it has been passed unamended, the whole working of the thing must be left for the experts and even the Prime Minister must not be allowed to intervene. Why tell industrialists who are looking for assistance that industry is going to be supported as against the Shylocks? How are we going to retain a, pound of flesh on our industrial body? That is the problem and the Prime Minister tells the country he is prepared to defend them and see that the banks are compelled to make their sacrifices in a period of bad trade along with the others. Then his Minister of War, specially selected out of the whole range of the Cabinet to defend the Bill because of his expert knowledge of financial questions, tells us it is not a matter the Cabinet or the House of Commons has anything to do with, or even the Treasury, and it must be left to the experts. I am not accepting that view and I hope my hon. Friends will divide.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208 Noes, 98.

Division No. 132.] AYES. [11.31 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Grant, Sir J. A. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Albery, Irving James Greene, W. P. Crawford Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Grotrian, H. Brent Pilcher, G.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hacking, Douglas H. Power, Sir John Cecil
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Preston, William
Balniel, Lord Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Price, Major C. W. M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hammersley, S. S. Raine, Sir Walter
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsden, E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Harland, A. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Bennett, A. J. Harrison, G. J. C. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bethel, A. Hartington, Marquess of Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Betterton, Henry B. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Haslam, Henry C. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Brass, Captain w. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Salmon, Major I.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hills, Major John Waller Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hilton, Cecil Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandon, Lord
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw k, Nun.) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Bullock, Captain M. Hopkins, J. W. W. Savery, S. S.
Burman, J. B. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Shepperson, E. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Skelton, A. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hiffe, Sir Edward M. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Carver, Major W. H. Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Stanley, Lieut,-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Christie, J. A. Kindersley, Major Guy M. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Storry-Deans, R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Knox, Sir Alfred Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lamb, J. Q. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Conway, Sir W. Martin Little, Dr. E. Graham Tasker, R. Inigo
Cooper, A. Duff Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Templeton, W. P.
Couper, J. B. Loder, J. de v. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Looker, Herbert William Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)
Cowan, D. M. {Scottish universities) Lougher, Lewis Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Tomlinson, R. P.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) Lynn, Sir R. J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Curzon, Captain Viscount MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) MacIntyre, Ian Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon McLean, Major A. Warrender, Sir Victor
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Macmillan, Captain H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dixey, A. C. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Drewe, C. MacRobert, Alexander M. Wells, S. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Margesson, Captain D. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fielden, E. B. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Meller, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Forrest, W. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Womersley, W. J.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Meyer, Sir Frank Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Monseli, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ganzonl, Sir John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Nelson, Sir Frank Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gates, Percy Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Oakley, T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Glyn, Major R. G. C. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Major Sir George Hennessy and
Gower, Sir Robert Penny, Frederick George Major Cope.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Batey, Joseph Dalton, Hugh
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Broad, F. A. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Bromley, J. Day, Harry
Ammon, Charles George Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Duncan, C.
Attlee, Clement Richard Buchanan, G. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Baker, Walter Cape, Thomas Gibbins, Joseph
Barnes, A. Charleton, H. C. Gillett, George M.
Barr, J. Connolly, M. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Greenall, T. Lunn, William Snell, Harry
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Mackinder, W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Stamford, T. W.
Groves, T. Maxton, James Stephen, Campbell
Grundy, T. W. Montague, Frederick Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Murnin, H. Sullivan, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Oliver, George Harold Sutton, J. E.
Hayday, Arthur Palin, John Henry Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hayes, John Henry Paling, W. Thurtle, Ernest
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, G. H. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Varley, Frank B.
Hirst, w. (Bradford, South) Ponsonby, Arthur Viant, S. P.
Hollins, A. Potts, John S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilno)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Purcell, A. A. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wellock, Wilfred
John, William (Rhondda, West) Ritson, J. Welsh, J. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Saklatvaia, Shapurji Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sexton, James Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Kelly, W. T. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Windsor, Walter
Kennedy, T. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Kirkwood, D. Sitch, Charles H.
Lawson, John James Slesser, Sir Henry H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lee. F. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley
Lindley, F. W. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 28 to 33.

Question put, "That the words pro-

Division No. 133.] AYES. [11.39 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Davies, Dr. Vernon Hopkins, J. W. W.
Albery, Irving James Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Dixey, A. C. Hudson, Capt.A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Drewe, C. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ashley, Lt. Col. Ht. Hon. Wilfrid W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Balniel, Lord Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Elliot, Major Walter E. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Fanshawe, Captain G. D. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fielden. E. B. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Bennett, A. J. Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Bethel, A. Forrest, W. King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Betterton, Henry B. Foster, Sir Harry S. Knox, Sir Alfred
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lamb, J. Q.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Fraser, Captain Ian Little, Dr. E. Graham
Brass, Captain W. Fremantle, Lleut.-Colonel Francis E. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Loder J. de V.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Ganzonl, Sir John. Looker, Herbert William
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lougher, Lewis
Brown-Lindsay, Major H. Gates, Percy Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lynn, Sir R. J.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Gower, Sir Robert MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Bullock, Captain M. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Burman, J. B. Grant, Sir J. A. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Butt, Sir Alfred Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Macintyre, Ian
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Greene, W. P. Crawford McLean, Major A.
Carver, Major W. H. Grotrian, H. Brent Macmillan, Captain H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) Hacking, Douglas H. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) MacRobert, Alexander M.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hammersley, S. S. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Christie, J. A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Harland, A. Mason, Colonel Giyn K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Harrison, G. J. C. Meller, R. J.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hartington, Marquess of Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Conway, Sir W. Martin Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Meyer, Sir Frank
Cooper, A. Duff Haslam, Henry C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Couper, J. B. Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Courtauld, Major J. S. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Nelson, Sir Frank
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Oakley, T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H,(Lindsey, Galnsbro) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hills. Major John Waller Penny, Frederick George
Dalkeith, Earl of Hilton, Cecil Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Perkins, Colonel E. K.

posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 96.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Savery, S. S. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Pilcher, G. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Power, Sir John Cecil Shepperson, E. W. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Warrender, Sir Victor
Preston, William Skelton, A. N. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Price, Major C. W. M. Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Raine, Sir Walter Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wells, S. R.
Ramsden, E. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Held, D. D. (County Down) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Williams, Com. C. {Devon, Torquay)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Storry-Deans, R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Womersley, W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Salmon, Major I. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Sandeman, N. Stewart Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Tomlinson, R. P.
Sandon, Lord Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Ciement TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Major Cope and Capt. Margesson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Hirst, G. H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, w. (Bradford, South) Sexton, James
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hollins, A. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Amnion, Charles George Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sitch, Charles H.
Baker, Walter John, William (Rhondda, West) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J. Jones, J. J, (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snell, Harry
Broad, F, A. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Stamford, T. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kennedy, T. Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C. Lawson, John James Sullivan, J.
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Sutton, J. E.
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, F. W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Day, Harry Mackinder, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Duncan, C. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Varley, Frank B.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bidwellty) Maxton, James Viant, S. P.
Gibbins, Joseph Montague, Frederick Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M- Murnin, H. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Oliver, George Harold Wellock, Wilfred
Greenall, T. Palin, John Henry Welsh, J. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Paling, W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Groves, T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grundy, T. W, Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton) Potts, John S. Windsor, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hayday, Arthur Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hayes, John Henry Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Saklatvala, Shapurji Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


I beg to move "that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I think we have reached a stage of the discussion when we might conveniently adjourn. At this late hour it is, I suggest, unreasonable to expect us to finish the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper, and it would be still more unreasonable to attempt to get the Report stage and Third Reading to-night. Two hours have been taken—not unreasonably, but quite reasonably—out of the time intended for the consideration of this Bill, and I think the Bill is now bound to be set down for further consideration. Therefore we might adjourn now and leave the Amendments which are undiscussed and the other stages of the Bill to be taken on another day.


I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is a little impatient. It is only 10 minutes to 12 o'clock and four Amendments remain to be considered. Two of these are Government Amendments, and they are quite plain and simple, and should not take more than a few minutes each. As to the two Opposition Amendments it does not, of course, depend on the Government how long they will take, but they are very simple and do not raise any big questions. All the big questions have been debated at length—I do not say at too great length, but certainly at length. Formally there has to be a Report stage because of two very minor Government Amendments, but these do not require to be discussed a second time, and if hon. Members opposite co-operate with the Government, the whole business could be finished in the next 20 minutes.


I think the position of the right hon. Gentleman is a most unreasonable one. The Government have only allowed an interval of two days

Division No. 134.] AYES. [11.52 p.m.
Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hollins, A. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hore-Belisha, Leslie Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sitch, Charles H.
Ammon, Charles George Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Buchanan, G. Jonas, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stephen, Campbell
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sullivan, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Day, Harry Kennedy, T. Thurtle, Ernest
Duncan, C. Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lawson, John James Varley, Frank B.
Gibbins, Joseph Lindley, F. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M. Lunn, William Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mackinder, W. Wellock, Wilfred
Greenall, T. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Welsh, J. C.
Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne) Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murnin, H. Whiteley, W.
Groves, T. Oliver, George Harold Wilkinson, Ellen c.
Grundy, T. W. Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Norm[...]nton) Paling, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, G. H. (Morthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Windsor, Waiter
Hayday, Arthur Pethick-Lawrance, F. W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hayes, John Henry Potts, John S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Purcell, A. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Saklatvala, Shapurji Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Barnes.
Hirst, G. H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Fraser, Captain Ian
Albery, Irving James Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Christie, J. A. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Ganzoni, Sir John
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Gates, Percy
Balniel, Lord Conway, Sir W. Martin Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cooper, A. Duff Gower, Sir Robert
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Couper, J. B. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Courtauld, Major J. S. Grant, Sir J. A.
Bennett, A. J. Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bethel, A. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Grotrian, H. Brent
Betterton, Henry B. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro) Hacking, Douglas H.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Curzon, Captain Viscount Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Dalkeith, Earl of Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Brass, Captain W. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hammersley, S. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Harland, A.
Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I. Dixey, A, C. Harrison, G. J. C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Drewe, C. Hartington, Marquess of
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Edmondson, Major A. J. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Bullock, Captain M. Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Haslam, Henry C.
Burman, J. B. Elliot, Major Walter E. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Butt, Sir Alfred Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Carver, Major W. H. Foster, Sir Harry S. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

between Second Reading and Committee stage and propose that every stage of the Bill—Committee stage, Report and Third Reading—should be taken at one sitting. The only explanation I can suggest for the anxiety of the Government is that they know that the more time that is allowed the more opposition will develop. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is treating the Opposition fairly, and, in those circumstances, I must press my proposal.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The committee divided: Ayes, 81, Noes, 177.

Hills, Major John Waller Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hilton, Cecil O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Oakley, T. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hopkins, J. W. W. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Storry-Deans, R.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Pilcher, G. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Power, Sir John Cecil Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Kindersley, Major G. M. Preston, William Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Price, Major C. W. M. Tomlinson, R. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred Raine, Sir Walter Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lamb, J. Q. Ramsden, E. Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.
Little, Dr. E. Graham Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wallace, Captain D. S.
Lougher, Lewis Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Warrender, Sir Victor
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wells, S. R.
MacIntyre, Ian Salmon, Major I. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
McLean, Major A. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Macmillan, Captain H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sandeman, N. Stewart Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
MacRobert, Alexander M. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Sandon, Lord Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Margesson, Captain D. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Womersley, W. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Savery, S. S. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Shefliclo, Sir Berkeley Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Meller, R. J. Shepperson, E. W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Skelton, A. N. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)
Mcore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Smith-Carington, Neville W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Nelson, Sir Frank Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

Original Question put, and agreed to.