HC Deb 22 May 1928 vol 217 cc1755-71
Mr. GILLETT

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

If it meets with your approval, Mr. Hope, I propose to speak on this Amendment and also on the following Amendment: to leave out lines 28 to 33 inclusive. We can then take a Division on the two Amendments at the end of the Debate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If that meets with the general wish of the House it can be done.

Mr. GILLETT

We come now to one of the most debatable Clauses of the Bill. I was a little surprised at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War just now that the gold standard was in some way endangered by inflation, because I have always looked upon the gold standard as being our protection against inflation, and I could not follow the argument when he said that unless we were very careful the whole position of the gold standard must be endangered. If there is inflation there is immediately such an alteration in the standards of value in this country that in a short time we should find that the exchanges were moving against us and the gold leaving this country. As soon as that takes place the procedure connected with the gold standard comes into force, and the Bank of England takes such action as will prevent a further outflow of gold. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly in keeping with the defence which he made.

The main point about this Clause is that it deals with the relationship between the Bank of England and the Government. There are two aspects of that question, but the larger aspect hardly seems to come within the limits of this Clause. It was referred to by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he moved the Amendment on the Second Reading Debate and outlined his idea of what a national bank ought to be. I do not think we can debate this larger question under this Clause, but at any rate we can debate the question as to how far the Treasury, as the system is organised, are to have a voice in any change that is made if the Bank of England later on decides to alter the fiduciary issue from £260,000,000. We have already settled on the preceding Clause the procedure that is to be followed if the Bank wishes to reduce the amount. This Clause deals with the other aspect of the question, and it is interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman obviously seems to express a fear which is latent in his mind, and which I am certain is behind the whole of this Bill, however much is may be denied publicly—namely, a fear not of deflation but of inflation.

The right hon. Gentleman said that if inflation took place we may endanger the gold standard. The risk we run in deflation is that we may lose our trade and increase unemployment, and if I had to choose between the two things I look upon deflation, especially in view of the condition of trade at this moment, as a greater evil than inflation. Some people suggest that inflation may have the same effect upon our industries as a tonic has upon an invalid. It is a dangerous argument. With the right hon. Gentleman looking on inflation in the way he does, while ignoring the dangers of deflation, I could not help expressing the view which I know is held on these benches, that we are more frightened of deflation than of inflation. In this Clause the Government., following out the fears of the right hon. Gentleman, have made regulations in regard to inflation. When the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick - Lawrence) moved an Amendment to this Clause in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would cut out the last word by Parliament, and would deprive Parliament and this House of any check on the amount of the increase in the fiduciary issue. I think that is an exaggeration, and I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman will actually stand by those words.

I am willing to agree that the Amendment I am now proposing, strange though it may seem, does to a certain extent limit the voice of Parliament in this matter. I make no apology for this, and for this reason. If you want to have Parliamentary control I do not think that anything that is included in this Measure is going to be satisfactory, Having turned down the scheme which we put forward these are small points which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes. The first of these two Amendments is obviously quite useless. The House will notice the words: For such period not exceeding six months as the Treasury think proper. The Treasury are going to give their consent to the figure being raised, and therefore could impose any time limit they desired without these words being inserted. When you come to the second Amendment which I propose to move, I agree that it does take away from the power of Parliament, and the reason we are proposing it is this. The right hon. Gentleman who will not meet us on the larger questions has now brought in the Parliamentary veto at the very point where it is not needed, and where the only effect is going to be to help to reduce the fiduciary issue. Suppose the figure has been increased, it is going to be excedingly difficult for it to remain at the higher figure for more than two years. Every one knows the difficulty of getting matters before Parliament. This Clause means that the Bank may say to the Government "We have raised the figure for the fiduciary issue for the last 18 months over £260,000,000, it is obvious that it should continue for some time at that rate." Then the Government will have to come to this House to ask for permission for it to remain at that figure. Think of all the trouble this means. The whole idea of the Bill cornea out in this arrangement. Although we are really asking the House to vote for a certain diminution of their powers, we feel that the larger interests of trade and employment should be considered, and that such a Clause as this will impose a handicap because Parliament has not the time to attend to it.

The outstanding point in this Clause with regard to the relationship of the Bank to the Treasury is this. Hon. Members may say what they like about our views on this question, but we really view with great concern the enormous powers that are being placed in the hands of the Bank of England by this proposal. You are practically placing in the hands of one person the credit policy of the country. Everybody knows that for many years the policy of the Bank of England has been largely dictated by the Governor of the Bank, especially if he is an able man such as the present Governor. He is not like the chairman of a bank. His position is really greater than that of the chairman of any of the five great banks, not because the Bank is more important but on account of the combination of offices which he holds. You have the Governor of the Bank of England to a large extent dictating the policy of the Bank, and you are now asking him to dictate the credit policy of this country. So long as he does not want to move the figure of the fiduciary issue, however much the Government may think it should be altered, there is nothing here which gives them any power to compel him to make any change. They can informally approach the Governor and say that they consider he has made a mistake in not asking for permission to increase the figure, but beyond that they have no means whatever of compelling him to alter his policy.

6.0 p.m.

We think that it is an exceedingly serious thing. We know why this Bill is being introduced. We know that many people think that in a very short time there will be a Chancellor of the Exchequer other than the present holder of the office. They think they can foresee a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer may perhaps not be so conservative—if I may so put it—or so orthodox a financier as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). The Government are thinking of the future. They do not know what the policy of a future Chancellor might be and therefore this Bill with this Clause in it is being put through in order to ensure that power shall be taken from the Government and placed in the hands of the Governor and Directors of the Bank of England. Our case is that the proposals in this Clause which in a way seem to defend the position of Parliament are unsatisfactory. The first is quite useless and the only effect of the second will be that if a trade crisis arises the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation may prevent things being done which ought to be done. In order that Parliament may not be troubled the Bank will say, "In the circumstances, we agree to go back to a lower figure." Deflation will follow with its attendant evils, a falling off in trade and an increase in unemployment. The trade advance will be checked because of this Clause. On those grounds we do not see that it is any benefit to have it, and we ask the House to support this Amendment as well as the one which follows it on the Order Paper.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Our position with regard to this Bill is that we desire inflation and deflation to be placed on an equal footing. The Amendment which we moved to Clause 2 has been rejected by the House. Had it been accepted, we would have withdrawn this Amendment in order to make the position equal, but as that Amendment was rejected we, in our pursuit of equality, have moved the present Amendment and we propose to move the Amendment which follows it on the Order Paper. The avowed object of this part of the Clause is to prevent unwise inflation and to check tendencies which might at some time become prevalent, widely to inflate the currency. My hon. Friend the Mover has dealt with one answer to that question, namely, that the existence of the gold standard in itself prevents that unwise action being carried out to any extent. There is another answer which is quite as powerful. It is that these nominal safeguards would prove useless if such a set of circumstances arose as would induce the Bank and the Treasury in consultation to make unwise inflation. I have no doubt that what is in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite is a Socialist bogy. They have the idea that some Socialist Government will come into power who, in order to obtain a little popular support, will carry out some utterly absurd and extensive inflation.

As has already been said, that is a very wild idea because the financiers on this side of the House are, at least, as alive to the dangers of unwise inflation as hon. Members opposite. But supposing that were not so. Supposing a Socialist Government were returned to power which had wild inflationist ideas, and was supported by a large party sitting on those benches opposite. All these safeguards would then be perfectly worthless, because Parliament would carry through the enactment which is specified in this provision. The fact that this can only go beyond the two years when Parliament agrees to it, would not have any real significance. From that point of view, nominal safeguards do not count at all. But the fact is that the kind of crisis in which inflation takes place arises when you have the kind of thing which happened during the Great War. I would have the House note that many of us on this side, myself in particular, opposed the inflation which then took place, whereas the right hon. Gentleman who is here as the apostle of safeguarding the country against deflation was a member of the Government which practised inflation in the most shameless way. The safeguards which existed before the War were even more rigid against inflation than the provisions which it is now proposed to put into this Bill, but they did not prevent hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite from inflating. They did not prevent those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from swelling the currency and the credit of this country in a way to which sound doctrine is absolutely opposed.

When you have a crisis of that kind, ordinary safeguards go by the board and this little safeguard that the decision of the Bank and the Treasury is, at the end of two years, to be reviewed by Parliament would have no value at all in checking inflation whether it came from a Socialist Government or from a Government of hon. Members opposite in some such crisis as a national war. It may be said, then, that if these safeguards are of so little importance and if, as a matter of fact, in the teeth of any emergency they would be swept aside, why should we object to them? We may be asked, if they have no effect, why do we not allow them to pass without protest? Our answer is clear and definite. It is that the presence of these provisions, worthless as safeguards, will nevertheless produce a definite effect upon the Bank of England which will be very injurious. They will produce the impression that Clause 8 is only to be used in time of emergency, and that when the temporary emergency has passed away, then, in all probability, the currency will be expected to revert to its former position. Our view is entirely different. Our view is that there should be provision, not for the temporary emergency expansion of the currency, but for such expansion of the currency as may be required to keep prices at a stable level when industry expands.

The history of the last century in this country makes us realise that there is every reason to suppose that the volume of industry will expand in the years to come. I do not think it would be unduly optimistic prevision, if I suggested that every generation the volume of industry is likely to double. If so, it stands to reason that there will be required not necessarily a doubled currency—I do not go as far as that—but certainly a very considerable increase in the currency as time goes on and as the number of transactions increases.

Sir FRANK NELSON

Permanent?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Yes, I quite agree with the hon. Member.

Sir F. NELSON

I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am in favour of what he is saying. I was questioning him.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE

The point of view which I am putting for- ward is that if the number of transactions doubles in every generation—and I think that is a low estimate—it is not at all unreasonable to say that the currency will have to expand not necessarily in proportion to that increase but will have to expand permanently and steadily in order to meet the additional requirements. If we go back over the last century we find that currency did expand and it expanded by a great in flow of gold. It expanded also in effect by the great increase in the system of cheques. It has been shown earlier in these Debates that there is little possibility of a wide extension of the currency in the future owing to a large inflow of gold. Equally it is doubtful whether there is likely to be any wide expansion in the cheque system to-day such as there was 70 or 80 years ago. Therefore, it is to the fiduciary issue that we must look for this permanent steady expansion of currency that will be necessary if any revival of industry which occurs is not to be checked by artificial financial restraints imposed by this Bill.

That is the reason why we want the impression of Clause 8 to be different from what it is at the present time. The impression of Clause 8 is that it is to provide for a temporary emergency and it is assumed that when the emergency is over the currency will revert to its former figure. We want to make Clause 8 mean that while inflation which would involve a rise in prices and an artificial stimulus to industry may be stopped, a genuine expansion required in order to keep prices at a stable level shall not be prevented. We desire it to be recognised that such a steady expansion of currency is not only a thing which is not to be objected to, but is the natural and proper action which ought to be taken in order to enable industry to advance in the future.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken dealt with the Clause rather than with the Amendment. I do not propose to re-debate the objects which we had in view hi putting Clause 8 into the Bill, nor do I think it necessary to add to what I said on Second Reading as to the sort of occasions on which one might reasonably anticipate that these powers would be used. But I will, if I may, reassure the hon. Member on one point. I am not by any means convinced that there may not be a considerable increase in the use of cheques, and I hope there will be such an increase. I hope the day will come when the working man will have his bank account as well as his motor car. I see no reason why the system of small hank accounts should not increase considerably. As I say, however, I do not want to discuss the Clause generally but rather to deal with the Amendment.

Mr. GILLETT

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should take a penny off the cheque?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of debating on another occasion. Clearly it would be out of order at the moment. I was about to say that this Amendment is inconsistent with the policy—as far as one can gather that there is a policy—on the other side, with regard to this Bill. As I understand it, on the back benches opposite—at any rate on the further back benches—the policy is that the Bank of England ought not to be allowed to have any powers but that these powers should be concentrated in a national bank of some sort. When we come further forward on the benches opposite, that policy becomes gradually watered down and on the Front Bench it is denied altogether. But the hon. Gentleman the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment, who sit two benches back, are inconsistent in their policy. They wish to take the power from Parliament altogether, and to give to the Bank of England the uncontrolled and unchecked right to increase the fiduciary issue.

Mr. GILLETT

They would, even if our Amendments were carried, still have to consult the Treasury.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has been addressing to the House. What this Amendment suggests is that, once an agreement has been come to between the Bank of England and the Treasury, there should be a permanent increase in the fiduciary issue.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

No.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

As I understand the Amendment, it is that Parliament should not be consulted, even after two years, but that it is to be open to the Bank of England and to the Treasury to agree to a permament increase in the fiduciary issue, without consulting Parliament at all. That is not our view. Our view is that on any fixed fiduciary issue, you must have some power of extension under some circumstances. We believe we have selected the right method, which is that it is to be at the instance of the Bank of England, and with the assent of the Treasury, and there is to be a strict limit of time during which that increase can subsist without coming back to Parliament, so that Par-

liament can, if necessary, legislate after knowledge of the facts. We believe our scheme to be by far a better plan than that contained in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) added that he thought that this Clause was so shaped because we feared that some other Chancellor, someone different from the right hon. Gentleman, who held that post with so much honour, would come in, and would enter into inflationary methods. I am not going to deny that there is some ground for that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman himself has heard the two speeches made by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). Suppose, by any chance, his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr were ever in power, and ever in a position to put into effect the speeches which he made in this House; he has been Chairman, I understand, of the Independent Labour party for three years, so that he is not a man in the street; he is a man of considerable position. He has been a pupil, I think, of the hon. Gentleman, because the hon. Gentleman was appointed lecturer to the Independent Labour party, and this is the result of his lectures. So after all, are we wrong in taking some precautions against such results as we have seen of the hon. Gentleman's lectures?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

My point was that these precautions would be quite futile.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That seems hardly a reason why we should not try our best.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 269: Noes, 117.

Division No. 145.] AYES. [6.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bainiel, Lord Brass, Captain W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Banks, Reginald Mitchell Brassey, Sir Leonard
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Barclay-Harvey C. M. Briant, Frank
Albery, Irving James Barnett, Major Sir Richard Briggs, J. Harold
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Briscoe, Richard George
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Berry, Sir George Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Atholl, Duchess of Blundell, F. N. Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Boothby, R. J. G. Buchan, John
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Buckingham, Sir H.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Remer, J. R.
Bullock, Captain M. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Rentoul, G. S.
Burman, J. B. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Rice, Sir Frederick
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hilton, Cecil Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Ropner, Major L.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston) Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hopkins, J. W. W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Salmon, Major I.
Charterls, Brigadler-Ganeral J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Christie, J. A. Hume, Sir G. H. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hurd, Percy A. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hurst, Gerald B. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Sandon, Lord
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Conway, Sir W. Martin James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)
Cooper, A. Duff Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Cope, Major William Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Shepperson, E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Knox, Sir Alfred Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Lamb, J. Q. Skelton, A. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Loder, J. de V. Smith-Carington, Neville W
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Looker, Herbert William Smithers, Waldron
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lougher, Lewis Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Dalkeith, Earl of Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Lynn, Sir Robert J. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Storry-Deans, R.
Drewe, C. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Strauss, E. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony Macintyre, Ian Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Edge, Sir William McLean, Major A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Edmondson, Major A J. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I Templeton, W. P.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Macquisten, F. A. Thorn, Lt., Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
England, Colonel A. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Margesson, Captain D. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Everard, W. Lindsay Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Meyer, Sir Frank Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Fenby, T. D. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. Tinne, J. A.
Fielden, E. B. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Tomlinson, R. P.
Forrest, W. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Foster, Sir Harry S, Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Morris, R. H. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Fraser, Captain Ian Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Waddington, H.
Frece, Sir Walter de Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Galbraith, J. F. W. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Wayland, Sir William A.
Ganzoni, Sir John Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wells, S. R.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Gates, Percy Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Wiggins, William Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Goff, Sir Park Nuttall, Ellis Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Grace, John O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Owen, Major G. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Contral)
Grant, Sir J. A. Penny, Frederick George Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Perkine, Colonel E. K. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grotrian, H. Brent. Perring, Sir William George Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Withers, John James
Hacking, Douglas H. Pilcher, G. Womersley, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir George Pilditch, Sir Philip Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pownall, Sir Assheton Wood, E. (Chtst'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Hammersley, S. S, Preston, William Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Price, Major C. W. M. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Harney, E. A. Radford, E. A. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hartington, Marquess of Raine, Sir Walter
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Ramsden, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rawson, Sir Cooper Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.
Haslam, Henry C. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Attlee, Clement Richard
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Ammon, Charles George Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Baker, Walter Hollins, A. Ritson, J.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Barnes, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Rose, Frank H.
Barr, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bondfield, Margaret Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Scrymgeour, E.
Broad, F. A. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Shinwell, E.
Buchanan, G. Kennedy, T. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Smillie, Robert
Charleton, H. C. Lansbury, George Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Cluse, W. S. Lawrence, Susan Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lawson, John James Snell, Harry
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Connolly, M. Lindley, F. W. Stamford, T. W.
Cove, W. G. Lowth, T. Stephen, Campbell
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William Sullivan, J.
Day, Harry MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon) Sutton, J. E.
Dennison, R, Mackinder, W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dunnico, H. MacLaren, Andrew Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Tinker, John Joseph
Gardner, J. P. MacNeill-Weir, L. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Gillett, George M. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Viant, S. P.
Gosling, Harry March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Greenall, T. Maxton, James Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Montague, Frederick Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wellock, Wilfred
Groves, T. Murnin, H. Westwood, J.
Grundy, T. W. Naylor, T. E. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Palin, John Henry Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hardie, George D. Paling, W. Windsor, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wright, W.
Hayday, Arthur Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Potts, John S.
Hirst, G. H. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Riley, Ben Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.
Mr. GILLETT

I beg to move to leave out lines 28 to 33.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I beg to second the Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 120.