The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HERBERT MORRISON:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Before the Minister of Transport moves the Motion which stands in his name, I want to raise a point of Order. The Title of the Omnibuses Bill makes provision for enabling local authorities to provide and run omnibuses within and without their districts. The Title of the Road Traffic Bill, with which the Omnibuses Bill is to be consolidated, runs as follows:An Act to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads and vehicles thereon, to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.If the Omnibuses Bill is to be incorporated with the Road Traffic Bill, obviously, the Title of the Road Traffic Bill will have to be amended, because the Title of the Road Traffic Bill contains no reference to any extended powers of municipalities to run omnibuses. In this connection I think it is germane to the question to note that when the Road Traffic Bill was introduced into another place the Title of that Bill contained very definite provisions to enable the Omnibuses Bill, or something like it, to be incorporated, because in the Title as it then existed there was a significant sentence. The Title was the same as in the present Road Traffic Bill, with this addition:To amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles.That Title was amended in another place, and the provision to which the latter part of the Title referred was struck out of the Bill. When the Bill came to this House the Title was as it now stands in the Road Traffic Bill. I want your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is within the power of this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, and, if so, how are we to consolidate the Omnibuses 1620 Bill with this Bill without first of all the Title being put right? If it is not competent for this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, how will it be possible for the Committee upstairs to deal with these two Bills if we pass the Motion which stands in the name of the Minister of Transport, because if this House cannot amend the Title of the Bill and the Omnibuses Bill and the Road Traffic Bill are consolidated, obviously the Title of the Road Traffic Bill will have to be altered in Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONrose—
§ Colonel ASHLEY
If it is not competent for this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, surely it is not competent for a Standing Committee of this House to do so. Therefore, I want your Ruling as to whether the Title is in order, and if it is not in order whether it is in order for the Government to seek to incorporate these two Bills. In my submission, the Committee upstairs would have no power to amend the Title of the Road Traffic Bill, being a Government Bill, with which the other Bill is proposed to be incorporated.
§ Mr. RICHARDSON
My point of Order is this. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what it is your business to do?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was only asking for my Ruling. In regard to the point of Order which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised, his premises seem to be wrong. I see no reason why this House should not alter the Title of a Bill, whether it comes from another place or wherever it comes from, provided it needs alteration. The Instruction which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport appears to me to be quite clear. It is an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill and the Omnibuses Bill. That is a form of Instruction which is a common practice in this House, and it is covered by Standing Order, that the Committee is 1621 to have power to deal with an Instruction sent to it from this House. Having considered these two Bills and having consolidated them, if they find that when they are consolidated they are outside the Title of the Road Traffic Bill, they have power to amend the Title so as to include what they have incorporated in the Bill.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Then the power does not rest wholly in the House as a whole, but the Committee upstairs can do it.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Committee upstairs will have the same power as a Committee of the Whole House, having considered the Bills, to amend the Title.
On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there has been no precedent where a Committee upstairs has altered the Title of a Bill, but in all cases when the Title has been altered it has been altered in Committee of the Whole House?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have not had an opportunity at short notice of looking up the precedents, but I fancy there have been plenty of precedents.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed at some future time to raise the question and to ask for your Ruling.
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
I beg to move,That it be an Instruction to the Committe on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill.The Motion is short and simple. The Committee is to have power to amalgamate the two Bills. The merits of both Bills have been disposed of so far as Second Beading is concerned, and the issue now before the House is a very simple and very narrow one, namely, whether the Committee upstairs shall have the power to consolidate the two Bills. Therefore, I will not say anything about the merits of the Bills. The Bills have a relationship. It is perfectly clear that if local authorities are to have certain extended powers in running omnibuses that that has some relationship to Part IV of the Road Traffic Bill, which sets up machinery for the licensing of public service vehicles. It would be unfortunate if the House were to pass the 1622 two Bills separately, without a proper relation one to the other. In order to make a good workmanlike Measure of both Bills it is desirable that they should be consolidated and brought into proper relationship one to the other. The House has affirmed, on Second Reading, the principle of both Bills, and the question which we have now to decide is the bringing of the two Bills, which have relationship to each other, into one Measure, and their consolidation in proper form.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
My admiration for the Parliamentary tact of the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport increases every day. Yesterday he made not only an interesting speech, but a speech of considerable length, and in introducing the Road Traffic Bill he spoke for no less than an hour and 20 minutes. Knowing the weakness of his case to-day, he thinks that silence is golden, that brevity is the soul of wit and, having opened the case in the manner the junior did in the trial of Pickwick, we know about as much of the reason for this Motion as we did when he got up. You, Mr. Speaker, in your Ruling just now, have enlightened me as to why this Motion is necessary. I thought in my ignorance of Procedure, though I have been in the House a good many years, that the hon. Gentleman and the Government were prevented from enlarging the Title of this Bill when it came down from another place. I thought that they were prevented from doing what was the obvious thing, namely, to move in Committee that Part V of the original Bill be re-inserted, and thereby vindicate the rights of the Commons against the hereditary aristocrats in another place. I think that would be the natural and proper way to do it, especially in a Government that is supposed to stand up for the rights of the people. The hon. Gentleman did not do what was the obvious thing, apparently, but took another path, and he now asks this House to adopt what is to me, at any rate, a very novel procedure. I do not say that it has never been done before, though I do not remember that a private Member's Bill has been in Committee incorporated with a Government Bill. Probably it has been done before, and must be within the Rules of Order or you, Mr. Speaker, would not have permitted the Notice to appear 1623 on the Order Paper. Now we know why the hon. Gentleman has taken this procedure, and not the obvious and simple one. He is afraid of his own followers. That is quite plain to us.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) who moved the Omnibuses Bill—a most pernicious Bill, I might say—was on the London County Council a humble and devoted follower of the hon. Member the Minister of Transport when they both eat on the London County Council, and some other hon. Members who supported that Bill were also intimately connected—and honourably connected, I am sure—with the Labour party. Therefore, the Minister of Transport was not able, from reasons of expediency, to take the obvious course, but had to allow the Omnibuses Bill to get a Second Beading, though in his heart of hearts he agrees with me that it is a most pernicious Measure.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISONindicated dissent.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
At any rate, he will agree with me that it is pernicious as far as machinery is concerned, as far as the control of Parliament and the Minister is concerned, although I am not attempting to suggest that the hon. Member does not adhere to the principle he has laid down definitely that those municipalities should not have to come to Parliament every time they want to extend their transport powers.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Omnibuses Bill, which has already been decided by the House.
May I raise a point of Order? The Minister in his statement made a rather obscure reference to the relationship between the one Bill and the other. I was going to ask you at the time, out of regard for the Rules of the House, whether or not it is in order to refer to this relationship, and, if it were in order, then to ask the Minister what the relationship was. While, of course, my right hon. and gallant Friend is not entitled now to discuss the merits of either of the Bills, I 1624 would submit that he is entitled to ask the Minister in moving this Motion, the object of which is to instruct the Committee upstairs to incorporate the two Bills, in what relationship the two Bills can be combined, and in order to prove that the two Bills are not in relationship, I suggest, with great respect, that my right hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to refer to certain features of the two Bills which conflict one with the other.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Before you answer, as this is an unusual Motion, and we wish to do exactly what you, Mr. Speaker, rule, am I entitled to ask the hon. Member, as I think I am, why he has taken this procedure instead of the other procedure of enlarging the Title of the Bill in order to reinsert Part V of the original Bill?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not see that there is any particular reason why the hon. Gentleman should not be asked why he has done this, but it does not seem to me to be a matter for debate. This is, obviously, an Instruction, and it is clear that the only question which can be discussed is the reason for instructing the Committee. Really, that is the only point at issue.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Then I want very definitely to ask the Minister this question. We have in this Instruction, I submit to you and the House, an unusual procedure. We have a public Bill fathered by the Government, on which the Government Whips are put, and we are to be asked in Committee upstairs to take up a Private Member's derelict Bill and incorporate it with a public Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why derelict?"] Because it would never have gone any further unless the Government had taken it up. Anyhow, I submit that this is an unusual procedure, and I would ask the House not to agree with it, because there was an obvious line of procedure open to the hon. Member. He could perfectly well have moved that the Title of this Bill, which came from another place, should be enlarged. He could then have moved in Committee to insert Part V of the original Bill which would have given us much more opportunity of discussing the merits of the case than does this cumbersome procedure Therefore, I object to this Instruction on the ground 1625 —and I think it is a sound ground—that for reasons into which I am not allowed to enter now, the hon. Gentleman has taken an unusual and a cumbersome course, instead of the obvious and usual course of enlarging the Title of the Bill and restoring in Committee upstairs certain Clauses which were eliminated in another place.
§ Major SALMON
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if it is his intention to go any further in Committee in connection with the Omnibuses Bill than the communication which he received from the Royal Commission in answer to the inquiry that he made. The whole point hangs upon that. If the Minister is prepared to say that he does not wish any greater power than was in Part V of his original Bill, then, speaking for myself, I shall most heartily support him, and support him on these grounds. I hope I shall be in order in just mentioning this point. Previously when we have had Bills before the House on the question of giving powers for running omnibuses, the licensing authority in those cases has been the local authority. In this case, under the new traffic scheme, you are going to add commissioners—
§ Major SALMON
The only point I am desirous of making, without, of course, going outside your Ruling, is to ascertain from the Minister whether the effect of this Motion that is before the House at the moment alters in any way the matter which was raised in the letter from the Chairman of the Royal Commission dealing with Part V of the Traffic Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can answer that question, it will solve the matter, or, at any rate, make it much easier for the whole position to be understood.
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I, too, desire to object to this Instruction. There are, I think, two very definite reasons why we ought to move its rejection. The first is that the two Bills are quite separate Bills; they do not deal at all with the same point. The one is called a Road Traffic Bill, but, in fact, deals with motor services and rules and regulations for roads all over the country. The other Bill is an Omnibuses Bill, and cuts right across this Bill. It gives powers to local 1626 authorities to run omnibuses in their area wherever they like. The other Bill controls authorities and controls the running of omnibuses throughout the country. There is this very great difference in the two Bills, and the other House, when they discussed the original Bill, said that it should be divided into two parts, because one part was not suitable—
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
Cannot I raise the objections that there are to this Instruction? I was simply giving one of the two reasons why the two Bills should be separated. In the other House it was stated that Part V, as it was then, which is, roughly, the Omnibuses Bill, was not suitable for the Road Traffic Bill, and ought to be taken as a separate Bill. Yet here we are asked to bring the two Bills into one again. May I not argue on these lines?
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I want, if I may, to differentiate the two. The Noble Lords told us that the Bills ought to be treated separately. The hon. Gentleman pretended in his speech that here were two Bills which were passed equally easily by the House, and therefore ought to be incorporated, but he omitted to say that there was one Bill which we all wanted and there was this other Bill which is highly contentious, and which we considered, from our point of view, ought to be quite separate. Another reason why I object to it, is that we have already got a very long Bill of 106 Clauses and four Schedules, and there will be all sorts of confusion arising with regard to this Bill. It contains many contentious points, but I should be out of order if I went into details. You are adding now a far more contentious Bill. If the Minister of Transport wants to get his first Bill through why add to the difficulties? He must be a glutton for work; and we shall keep him very busy if he is going to incorporate the Omnibuses Bill in this Measure. He is going to set up a great deal of trouble for himself in Committee. We are all anxious 1627 to get the good Bill, but if you add a bad Bill to a good Bill it is like trying to make an omelette with one good and one bad egg. No one is going to eat it. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is adding a bad Bill to a good Bill and making the mixture very unpalatable. For these two reasons, first, that the two Bills should be considered separately—the House of Lords thought they should be kept—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, while it is a narrow point he cannot go into the merits of the two Bills.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
The House is being asked to consolidate two entirely inconsistent pieces of legislation. The principle of the Road Traffic Bill is that all road traffic coming under the description of public service vehicles shall be under the control of traffic commissioners. That is the definite principle which this House approved on Second Reading. The principle of the Omnibuses Bill is something quite different, and I submit that I am entitled to point out the difference. The principle approved in the Omnibuses Bill was that local authorities should run omnibuses in any part of the country without any regard to their own requirements and free from any control of traffic commissioners. How can the Committee be instructed to consolidate two entirely different principles. It is like trying to mix oil and water. You are to reconcile a principle which says that public vehicles can be run in any part of the country by any municipality free from any control of the commissioners with—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. and learned Member reads the Motion on the Paper, he will see that it is not an order to the Committee, but only an Instruction that they shall have power. It means that the Committee may consider the question when we have given them an Instruction that they have such power.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
Are we going to give the Committee authority to do something which is inconsistent? It means that one 1628 principle will have to give way to the other, one principle will have to be sacrificed for the other. If this House has come to inconsistent decisions, it is for this House to settle which is to be the dominating principle. That question should not be referred to the Committee. These two Bills contain two entirely in-consistent principles. One, that traffic is to be subject to the Traffic Commissioners, and the other than a certain class of traffic is to be entirely free from their control. I object to asking the Committee to reconcile two principles which are absolutely inconsistent. The House itself should determine which of these two should govern.
I congratulate the Minister of Transport on his ingenuity in so framing this Motion as to make it practically impossible for the House to discuss it. It shows high Parliamentary finesse, upon which I heartily congratulate him. Apparently, he will go a great deal further than some of his colleagues. I am estopped from discussing the merits of the proposal by the Rules of the House, and after what has occurred, I think a future Conservative Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—will have to consider some alteration of the Rules of the House. I did not say a future Socialist Government because there will be no future Socialist Government. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement did another cute thing—I hope he will not mind my using that word, it is not intended to be in any way discourteous. He just kept within the Rules of Order, only just, but be had one foot outside when he spoke about the present Bill, which has passed its Second Reading in this House, being without relationship to the rest of the Bill unless you incorporate something in it, but he was prevented by the Rules of the House from giving any explanation. Very wisely he did not do so. But that is a very strong argument against this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman is not able by the Rules of the House to explain his reasons for it. Surely that is an obvious reason for rejecting the Instruction.
The House is asked to pass something which the Minister of Transport is not allowed to explain. He knew that he had to do something in the matter, because it would never do for him to just get up 1629 and propose the Motion without giving some reasons. The House would not regard such action as being at all courteous and, therefore, he makes this vague reference to other matters without any explanation at all. There is another point which should be emphasised. I am estopped from discussing the merits of the Omnibuses Bill or Part V of the original Bill, which was cut out in another place. Why could he not take the simple course of giving an Instruction to the Committee to restore the original Part V of the Bill? I am not discussing it. Everybody knows why he has not done so. It is because of the domestic pressure which has been brought to bear upon him by his own supporters. I fear that there has been a very sad declension in the Parliamentary position of the Minister of Labour. Two days ago he came forward as a most admirable exponent of the Road Traffic Bill. Now he comes forward in much more of a party guise and attempts, under this very narrow procedure, to do something which he knows many hon. Members on this side no not approve and which hon. Members below the Gangway on the Liberal Benches do not approve. One Measure was passed after very acute opposition, the other Bill was passed with every sign of consent, almost nemine dissentiente; at any rate, with the general consent of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will take a very long time to get the Road Traffic Bill through Committee if it is examined Clause by Clause with that care which should be given to an important Measure of this kind with over 100 Clauses. If the Committee is to give proper consideration to a Bill of that character it will take two or three Parliamentary months, and in a Session when Parliamentary time is much curtailed. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the Bill can only go through if there is a general desire not only on the part of the majority but of all Members to accelerate discussion without neglecting the obvious duty of the Committee to examine carefully so complicated a Measure relating to very technical matters. Every hon. Member knows that if the Committee upstairs generally is in favour of a Measure it goes through much more quickly than if you have a division of opinion among Members. By giving this Instruction to the Committee, the right 1630 hon. Gentleman is jeopardising the passage of his Bill. That must be obvious to anyone. It is not necessary to convince the Minister of Transport on that point. On the one hand, you have a Bill which was passed with general consent and, on the other hand, a Bill which was very fiercely opposed. In the case of the one Bill there was a possibility of coming to terms, but by his action the right hon. Gentleman is really jeopardising the passage of the Road Traffic Bill. As an old Member of this House I confess that if I was a junior Member of a Government and they attempted to do this kind of thing I should consider that they were making a great mistake by asking a Committee upstairs to incorporate a public and a Private Member's Bill in one Measure.
I should not object so much if the Government had told us at once that they intended to take up the Private Member's Bill. They did not do so, and from the point of view of political purity I am strongly opposed to this course. The Bill will leave the Floor of the House and we shall have no control over it. We have to be very careful in these days of the growing power of Departments. I have been long enough in this House to realise how soon precedents grow. The Government of the day do a thing which they find they can do, but which hitherto has not been done under the Rules of the House, and the next Government comes along and finds that they can improve upon that precedent. In this way the power which this House exercises is gradually lost. Therefore, I submit that on its merits the proposal is wrong, that from a constitutional point of view it is wrong, and that the Minister is doing a foolish thing from a tactical point of view, because by his action he is jeopardising the good spirit, the unanimity, which prevailed at the time of the Second Reading of the more important of the Bills; and he is doing it for a reason which is perfectly understandable but is very regrettable, namely, to yield to the pressure put upon him by some of his less instructed back bench supporters.
Sir HILTON YOUNG
This is one of those discussions in which one gradually begins to see a very important issue affecting the procedure of the House emerging from what at first sight appears to be only a question of expediency upon 1631 a particular Measure. Let me define briefly what appears to me to be the very important issue which, has been raised by the Minister. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, there is nothing out of order in this Motion; but nevertheless there remains the question whether, though in order, it may not be a precedent which is dangerous in its present stage and will be still more dangerous if it is extended. As has been so well pointed out by the Noble Lord, any precedent adopted contrary to the general spirit of the House by one Government is always liable to be extended by a succeeding Government. The point which occurs to me is this: Humble students of our procedure from the point of view of basic common sense have always been accustomed to think that many of the more intricate and elaborate rules of our procedure, which so often really work for the saving of time, are based upon one broad and wide principle, which is the identity of a Bill. A Bill once it is introduced must in general preserve its identity during its passage through the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is certainly not in order to discuss the whole elements of Parliamentary procedure, but it is in order to discuss Parliamentary procedure as it affects and is relevant to this particular Motion.
Sir H. YOUNG
It is very far from my intention to range as far as the hon. Member suggests. I wish to confine myself to the application of this particular Motion. The identity of a Bill is one of the principles upon which our Rules of Procedure are devised. In general, broadly speaking, a Bill once introduced preserves its character. The rule to which reference has been made already, that a Bill is not to have its title changed except under those conditions which you, Mr. Speaker, have just ruled to be in order, is designed for the same purpose of maintaining the general identity of a Bill. It is my contention that the Motion now before the House is a very dangerous widening or abrogation of the spirit of that general rule of procedure, that a Bill should maintain its identity. The 1632 practical uses of the rule must be well known to everyone who makes it his habit to work at the daily duties of the House. It is in order that the House shall not be taken by surprise in working out a Bill. It is, I imagine, in order that the procedure on Second Reading shall lead up logically to the proceedings in Committee, and that those in Committee shall be limited by the proceedings on the Second Beading, so that each stage of a Bill, including the Third Reading, shall continue with due relation to the stages which have gone before or that come after.
The point to be brought out in such a connection is this: If there is any wide extension of the practice, such as this Motion suggests, of the sudden—I stress the word "sudden"—blending of Bills, the sudden consolidation of Bills, we lose the whole of that practical advantage which is given in the principle of the identity of a Bill. Where shall we be if at any time it becomes the practice for a Government to move to throw Bills together which no one had expected to come together? One can often test an instruction by considering what would happen if it was carried to extremes.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The hon. Member has said that he did not expect this combining of the two Bills. On the Second Reading of the Omnibuses Bill, and on the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill I clearly indicated the intention of the Government to proceed on that basis when the Second Reading was carried.
Sir H. YOUNG
I am afraid that even on the question of fact that notice is inadequate. But the question goes deeper than that. It is a question whether the character of the Bills suggests any similarity. That can at once be decided on the merits of the Bills. I was about to say that the absurd extreme would be to take the case of a Government coming down with half a dozen principal Measures and proposing to throw them altogether into one Bill. That would show what complete confusion the procedure of the House would be landed into. Owing to the special circumstances of this Motion in relation to what has gone on in another place, there is the suggestion also of a dangerous extension of another possibility, and that is the splitting up of Bills once they 1633 have been introduced. My suggestion to the House is this, and I think it is a very practical one to all who care about the regularity of procedure: That we should look more than once with the greatest care upon a Motion such as this which would have the effect of sacrificing the identity of a Bill and which would extend the possibility of throwing Bills unexpectedly together or of splitting them apart. If one follows far down that path one reduces the procedure of the House to complete confusion.
§ Captain BOURNE
Although there are precedents for combining Bills by means of an Instruction, it must be a very long time ago, if any precedent can be found, since an instruction was moved to combine a Government Bill which has received the universal assent of the House, with a Bill, introduced by a private Member, to which violent objection has been taken in some quarters of the House. It is very undesirable that the Government should by Instruction revert to an old practice against which objection has often been taken, in order to make a Measure which is generally desirable to carry a Measure which is disliked by large sections of the House. Such action is not likely to facilitate the passage of the Government Measure. The two Bills to some extent stand on an entirely different plane. When the Minister introduces a Bill he has behind him the advantage of the advice of his Department, and he produces as Measure which is logically thought out and carefully drafted. Even then the Measure requires amendment. A private Member has not those advantages, and it is very difficult indeed for him to produce a Bill which on its Second Reading is in anything like a sufficiently perfect state for the Statute Book. Should a private Member be fortunate enough to obtain a Second Reading of his Bill, it is nearly always necessary for the Government to take a hand with the Bill if it is to be seen through.
If the Minister really desires the Omnibuses Bill to get on the Statute Book this year, the proper course would be to do what has been so often done by Governments in the past, namely, to let the Bill go forward under the procedure for private Members' Bills, and if sufficient time is not found in the ordinary way to secure its passage 1634 through the House, the Government can give facilities for its later stages. There are plenty of precedents for such a course. It is a thing which all Governments have done, and I have never heard objections raised. But I do feel that it is a dangerous precedent to give instructions to a Committee to join a Bill which is universally agreed to but which from its nature is long and complicated and is bound to occupy a great deal of Committee time, to a Bill which is hotly contested and will have to be drastically amended if it is to fit into the Government Bill.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I cordially agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that this instruction is very unusual. Though it may reflect very great credit on the Minister for his cleverness, I do not think he deserves as much credit for ingenuity in getting the friendly feeling of the House. Nearly everyone has talked so far of the point of view of the House of Commons itself. It is possible that I have seen as much of Committee work upstairs as most Members present. I do not claim to have any expert knowledge of that work, but I do claim to have followed it for many years, and I say that instructions of this kind, which are vague in a sense, and yet are apt upstairs to be held as practically compulsory—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
When interrupted I was referring to the position of a Bill in Standing Committee. You, Mr. Speaker, stated just now that the Instruction is not mandatory, but that it gives power to do a certain thing. What are we asking the Committee upstairs to do? We are asking it to bring about a marriage between two utterly incompatible parties. There are several Standing Committees. Some deal with Private Members' Bills. Others deal with Government Bills, but, under this Motion, it is proposed to ask a Committee to consider, possibly at great length, the advisability or otherwise of bringing together these two Bills one of which is a Private Member's Bill and the other a Government Bill. One of the effects of that procedure will be to discourage 1635 members of Committees in their work, because Members as a rule have reasons for joining one or other of the two kinds of Committees I have mentioned. Some Members are interested in Private Member's Bills and other Members are deeply interested in Government Bills; and if we suddenly force on to one Standing Committee a Measure of this kind, I think we shall be setting a very bad Parliamentary precedent. If it is desired to get legislation through Parliament with that kindliness and good feeling which we all desire to see, it is necessary to consult the general wishes and the convenience of Members of the House and of the Committees. As I listened carefully to the Minister and did not chatter during his speech I hope he will hear my views as far as this Instruction is concerned. Why cannot he say quite definitely what the Committee are to do? Why cannot he have the courage to say to the Committee either that they are or they are not to take this course. Why should he lay the burden on the Committee?
I think it very unfair to lay such a burden on the Chairman of the Committee and it is still more unfair to lay such a burden on any representatives of the Government who attend the Committee upstairs and -who may have to persuade that Committee. These are some of the reasons why I ask the Government to say definitely if they want these two Bills amalgamated or not. May I also emphasise the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). He drew attention to the fact that here, for the first time as far as we know, we are being asked to pass an Instruction for the amalgamation of two Bills which are utterly different in character. It would not be in order on this occasion to go into the merits of the provisions in these two Bills, but if one did so, it would be impossible for any reasonable person to vote for this Motion after comparing the two Measures to which it refers. I have no doubt that that is the reason why the Motion has been drawn up in this form, but it is an additional argument against passing the Motion in this form. If these Bills are so divergent that it is not humanly possible to consider them together, or as one Measure, that is an excellent reason for not passing the Instruction.
1636 We have heard in this discussion various points in connection with the power of this House to order the consolidation of Bills. It is quite clear that the Government procedure in this matter will definitely endanger the lives of two Bills and that is a point of vital importance to us as Members of Parliament in giving our decision. I do not care at all what happens to the Omnibuses Bill but a great many hon. Members are concerned as to the Road Traffic Bill. If we do anything foolish in connection with the Motion now before us, if we allow a Measure which is comparatively popular and which is generally well thought of, to be complicated by the addition of highly controversial proposals brought in by means of an Instruction, in this underhand way, we shall be setting a bad precedent. For that reason and also because I object to the responsibility being placed on the shoulders of the Committee upstairs so that if the proposal does not work they may get the blame, I protest strongly against passing a Motion of this kind which is contrary to the best interests of the House.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
It is quite true that the terms of this Instruction only give power to the Committee to consider the amalgamation of these two Bills, but that is of course the only way in which the Motion could be drawn and for all practical purposes the Committee will be bound under the Instruction to take into consideration the terms of the Omnibuses Bill. In the interests of the Road Traffic Bill and in the interests of Parliamentary procedure. I protest strongly against having the Omnibuses Bill tacked on to the Road Traffic Bill. The two Bills are entirely different in character. Broadly speaking, the Road Traffic Bill deals with matters of administration—with the creation of a code for all persons using the roads --and it gives no special authority to any particular person. It is a Measure which everyone is anxious to see passed into law, though some of us may differ as to the terms and limitations to be applied in its administration. But the other Bill gives special powers to local authorities, which have nothing whatever to do with the administration of the roads and have no connection with the roads at all except in so far as we authorise them to run omnibuses along the roads. If we tack 1637 a Measure of that kind on to the Road Traffic Bill, it will have the effect of clogging and making more difficult the work of any body which hereafter has to investigate the powers of municipal authorities.
The Omnibuses Bill raises a totally different system of considerations from the other Bill, and one of the main considerations which the Committee will have to consider under this proposal is how the vexed question of competition is to be dealt with—under what conditions municipal authorities are to be given powers to run omnibuses and how competition is to be controlled. I am only taking that as an example of the many difficult issues which will be raised by this procedure. Not one single question which arises on the Omnibuses Bill has any reference to the Road Traffic Bill. I ask the Attorney-General to say, as a matter of practical procedure, how he can justify tacking on to the Road Traffic Bill a Bill which grants fresh powers to a number of local authorities in the country. How can he support attaching a Measure of that kind on to a purely administrative Bill designed to regulate the conditions of road traffic? Those who at any time are called upon to consider the powers of municipal authorities will then have to look through a Measure of 100 Clauses, containing a code of law for the administration of traffic on the roads and they will find tucked away at the end of that Measure this provision giving local authorities the power to run omnibuses outside their districts. As I say, it will make the work of any persons who have to investigate those matters hereafter very difficult, and for those reasons, quite apart from what has been said on the question of setting a bad precedent for future Parliamentary procedure, I say that the House ought not to adopt the Motion.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I can only speak again by leave of the House but as a number of points have been raised it is probably the wish of hon. Members that I should say something upon them. One of the charms of the House of Commons is that each day provides its new surprise, and certainly to-day has brought me an extraordinary surprise. I had the impression—evidently wrongly—that this was a 1638 perfectly innocent, obvious and businesslike Motion which would immediately commend itself to the House. But I find Member after Member rising in his place and, as best he can, discussing the merits of this Motion and giving me, I will not say a great deal of trouble, but a great deal to think about. I am bound to say that it is a great surprise to me because I thought this Motion would have been agreed to without discussion. There have been other surprises. I have been told by the late Minister of Transport that I am a very clever tactician and I am much obliged for the compliment. I have been told by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that I am an abominable tactician.
Not at all. What I said was—and I had no intention of being sarcastic—that I genuinely admired the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MORRISON
Then I was told, I think it was by the Noble Lord, that I was bringing a lot of trouble on myself and I was also told by an hon. Member opposite that I was putting all my troubles on the shoulders of the Committee. I am perfectly willing to try to please hon. Members opposite but they set me a very difficult task and I can only do my best. The business before the House is of the most simple, straightforward, honest, clear and obvious character. The House of Commons has given a Second Reading to two Bills and has therefore said that, as far as the general principle of those Bills is concerned, it is willing that they should both become law. It does not matter that one is a Government Bill and the other a Private Member's Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] They are both public Bills, and far be it from me to say that a Private Member's Bill is necessarily a bad Bill or that a Government Bill is necessarily a good Bill. These, as I say, are both public Bills. It is the intention of the House that they should be considered on their merits, which merits I have all along been very careful, and am careful now, not to discuss.
One of the hon. Members opposite supported the Omnibuses Bill, and there is considerable support among them and their friends for it, but I will not discuss that now. The fact remains that the 1639 principles of the two Bills have been approved, and, so far as the House knows, it is quite competent and not to be precluded from expectation that both these Bills should go to Committee, come back to the House on Report, and pass on Third Reading. The only question now before the House is whether it is better that these Bills, which both deal with road transport—that is their relationship—should be dealt with in an unbusinesslike way, separately, or whether the Committee should endeavour to consolidate them. In the latter case, on Report hon. Members will be free to move that any part should go out or to take any other step which they may think it right to take
There has been a complaint that I might have taken another course, which may be true. It is not for me to presume upon any rulings of Mr. Speaker. It is said I might have gone to the Committee, put certain Clauses in, amended the Title, and come back here. It may be so, but supposing I had done that, I should have been condemned for going to the Committee and bringing in Clauses which the House had given me no authority to bring in. I have done the democratic thing, fully consulted the Opposition, and given them every opportunity to complain, have told the House honestly what I was proposing to do, but they now tell me that I should not have told them, that I should have done it first and told the House afterwards.
I have been consideration itself in this matter. I told the House on the Omnibuses Bill what I should do, and I told the House on the Road Traffic Bill what I was going to do. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was doubtful and asked me for further details, which I gave him at once, and I have told the House again to-day. Really, one cannot do more. There was, however, one note in this Debate which I regret very much, and I cannot believe that it will be persisted in. It came from the Noble Lord opposite, and from an hon. Member behind him, and was almost a threat of wilful obstruction in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman has—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are slow in learning how foolish they are in interrupting Members 1640 of the Opposition. Let me answer the point. I made no such threat. It would be an extremely wrong thing for anybody speaking from this or any other bench to make such a threat. What I said was that one of these Bills was a very complicated Bill of over 100 Clauses, and I said that a Bill of that nature would take at least two months to get through Committee if it was to be given proper attention, and that it was only human nature that if you had general assent, that Bill would get through more quickly than if there was a division of opinion about it. If the hon. Gentleman reads into that a threat of obstruction, I can only say that he is reading into what I said something that I never intended for a moment.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
As the hon. Member also referred, I suppose, to what I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"]—I say quite frankly that what I said was that he was making what is a non-controversial Bill into a controversial Bill, and that anything of that kind never makes legislation quicker and easier. All of us, particularly on this side, want to do everything in our power to make legislation easy when it is good legislation.
§ Mr. MORRISON
It is highly probable that I did also refer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), because my recollection is that he succeeded in Baying himself what everybody else had already said. However, I am delighted that I was in error, that there is to be no obstruction in Committee, and that we are to have the assistance of the official Opposition in passing the Road Traffic Bill as such rapidly into law. I expect criticism on the Omnibuses Bill, and I will face that when it comes. All I say is that it would be unfortunate if, because we are going to consider that as part of the Measure, we are going to have a needless length of time devoted to the Road Traffic Bill, as to which I am pleased to know there is a wide measure of agreement. I shall have to face the disagreements between myself and the Opposition, but I should be sorry if it were felt that we were going to delay passing the Road Traffic Bill, because that is a very useful Measure.
§ Mr. MORRISON
I am obliged, and am glad to have the assurance that there will be no obstruction in Committee so far as the Road Traffic Bill is concerned. I think that is all that I need say. I am sorry there has been any difficulty about the matter, because I always like to get things through the House by consent as far as I can. It is true that I spoke but briefly at the beginning of to-day's Debate, but I spoke on one day for an hour and ten minutes and on another day for nearly three quarters of an hour, and I thought it was high time that I began to behave myself. Therefore, I spoke shortly to-day, and that was the sole reason. That is the whole position. There is nothing terribly wicked about it, and despite our disagreements on the merits of one of the Bills, disagreements which I hope we shall be able to compose, I hope the House will see that what I ask is not unreasonable in the circumstances and will agree to the Motion.
§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN
When the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport protested his innocence of any objections on this side to his Motion, I rather felt inclined to join in the congratulations which were offered by my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Minister of Transport to the hon. Gentleman on his ingenious and very slim move in bringing forward this Instruction. The hon. Gentleman moved it in such a short speech that we do not know where we are at all. The Instruction asks that the Omnibuses Bill shall be incorporated with the other Bill, but how is it to be incorporated? The hon. Gentleman has not told us whether we are to take the whole Bill and incorporate it in the other Bill, or whether he has some particular Clauses in his mind to incorporate or not. I may be ignorant, but I do not think we are justified in passing this Instruction unless we have some explanation as to how the Minister proposes that the Omnibuses Bill should be incorporated.
At least two of my hon. and learned Friends on this side have pointed out that you cannot get any good relationship between the two Bills, and that their relationships are very bad at the best. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of uniting in marriage, as one of my hon. and learned Friends says, that fine looking young man, the Transport Bill, with the ugly Omnibuses lady brought in, he will 1642 find that pair in the divorce court directly they get in Committee. They are based on two entirely different principles, and I do not believe in uniting people who are absolutely unfit for each other, in incompatibility of temper and everything else. It is an entirely wrong thing to do, and the Minister ought to withdraw this Motion unless he is satisfied that when he does unite these two, they will fit together. I do not see that my right hon. and gallant Friend was at all wrong in pointing out that, whereas we all want to help the Transport Bill, the incompatibility of temper of the other makes it impossible to unite the two. They are not fit to be united, and the hon. Member must confess that he will have very much more trouble in endeavouring to unite them.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I want to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport in having brought forward this Motion and in not having found a single Member on his own side to support him, in the course of a Debate lasting an hour and a-half. [An HON. MEMBER: "We shall support him in the Lobby!"] I quite realise that hon. Members sitting behind him do not bother to think, but just vote where they are told. I see the Attorney-General sitting on the Front Bench opposite, but even he has not stood up to support his hon. Friend. We have got two Bills of completely different natures, and I think we might have had the opinion of the learned Attorney-General in regard to this Instruction. In his opening speech, the Minister said the two Bills have each had their Second Reading and that they are very much like each other, but I would point out that the one has had the weight of the Government behind it and the weight of the whole House, but that the other Bill was put through on a Friday, on a private Member's Motion, and after a long Debate. You cannot combine these two Bills and say they are the same thing.
I am not making a threat—there will be nothing of that sort—but the overloading of the Transport Bill with this contentious Measure is bound to make things more difficult. I will not put it higher than that. The actual Clauses of the Omnibuses Bill will take two or three weeks to get through Committee, and, therefore, the whole thing is bound to 1643 take longer. We never know when this Government will go. It may be in a fortnight or in a month, and, if they are not careful, they may lose the whole of their Traffic Bill, which we want to see passed. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and withdraw his Motion. It is not wanted by his own side, because not a single Member on that side has supported him, and not a single Liberal Member either has spoken about it, whereas from these benches there have been a dozen speeches.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I hope, therefore, the Minister of Transport will withdraw his Motion.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 147.1645
|Division No. 172.]||AYES.||[5.15 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Foot, Isaac||Lowth, Thomas|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Freeman, Peter||Lunn, William|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hlilsbro')||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||McElwee, A.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gibbins, Joseph||McEntee, V. L.|
|Angell, Norman||Gill, T. H.||McKinlay, A.|
|Arnott, John||Gillett, George M.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Glassey, A. E.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Gossling, A. G.||Macpherson, Rt. Han. James I.|
|Ayles, Walter||Gould, F.||McShane, John James|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Gray, Milner||Mansfield, W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||March, S.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marcus, M.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Markham, S. F.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Groves, Thomas E.||Marley, J.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marshall, Fred|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mathers, George|
|Benson, G.||Harbord, A.||Matters, L. W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Melville, Sir James|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Haycock, A. W.||Messer, Fred|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hayday, Arthur||Mills, J. E.|
|Blindell, James||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Milner, J.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Montague, Frederick|
|Bowen, J. W.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hoffman, P. C.||Morley, Ralph|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hopkin, Daniel||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney. South)|
|Bromfield, William||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Brooke, W.||Horrabin, J. F.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Brothers, M.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Muff, G.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Isaacs, George||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Burgess, F. G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Johnston, Thomas||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Oldfield, J. R|
|Caine, Derwent Hall.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Palin, John Henry|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Palmer, E. T.|
|Chater, Daniel||Kelly, W. T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Kennedy, Thomas||Perry, S. F.|
|Cove, William G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Daggar, George||Kinley, J.||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Dallas, George||Lang, Gordon||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Price, M. P.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lathan, G.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lawrence, Susan||Raynes, W. R.|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Dickson, T.||Lawson, John James||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Dudgeon, Major C R.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Ritson, J.|
|Duncan, Charles||Leach, W.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Rowson, Guy|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lindley, Fred W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Egan, W. H.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Longbottom, A. W.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Longden, F.||Sandham, E.|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Sorensen, R.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Stamford, Thomas W.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Stephen, Campbell||West, F. R.|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||White, H. G.|
|Shield, George William||Strauss, G. R.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Sullivan, J.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Sutton, J. E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Shinwell, E.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanetly)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Simmons, C. J.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Thurtle, Ernest||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Sinkinson, George||Tillett, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Tout, W. J.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Wise, E. F.|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Turner, B.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Vaughan, D. J.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Viant, S. P.|
|Smith, W. A. (Norwich)||Wallhead, Richard C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Watkins, F. C.||Mr. J. H. Hayes and Mr. W. Paling.|
|Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Frece, Sir Walter da||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gault, Lieut.-col. Andrew Hamilton||Preston, Sir Walter Rueben|
|Atkinson, C.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Purbrick, R.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Held, David D. (County Down)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Remer, John R.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Hanbury, C.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Hartington, Marquess of||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Haslam, Henry C.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bracken, B.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Buchan, John||Hurd, Percy A.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Iveagh, Countess of||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Christie, J. A.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Train, J.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Long, Major Eric||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Macquisten, F. A.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Muirhead, A. J.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Fermoy, Lord||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||O'Neill, Sir H.||Sir F. C. Thomson and Captain E. Wallace.|
Original Question put, and agreed to.