Nothing in this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament or to the owners of any such undertaking without the consent of such owners, save that, if at any time during the period of two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do within a reasonable time such improvement, or extension, or alteration in the method of working as the Order may prescribe. Provided that, if the owners consider that any such requirements of the Minister are unreasonable they may appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of any undertaking situate in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator may annul the Order or allow the same with or without modification.—[ Sir W. Pearce.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
I beg to move, in substitution for this Clause, the Clause which has already been read by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks).
The hon. Member cannot do that. He could withdraw the Clause which appears on the Paper and then move it as an Amendment. He could not move the other Clause without having given notice.
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
I beg to second the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
As the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham have already told the House, this Clause formed the subject of discussion last night and this morning between the Government and those representing a large block of Members of the House. The Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham read has been agreed between us, and is now submitted to the House. In order to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move it in the form of six Amendments to the Clause which the hon. Member for Limehouse has just moved. I need not repeat what has already been said by the Leader of the House, but it will be seen that in regard to matters which would ordinarily affect the working -of these undertakings, provision is made for the issue by the Minister of orders, unless the owners of the dock, harbour, or pier consider that it is really a matter which is seriously prejudicial to their undertaking. In that event they have a power of appeal to an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as the case may be, and he only appoints an arbitrator and allows a hearing if a primâ facie case is made out that the order will be seriously prejudicial.Accordingly, I beg to move, after the word "in" ["Nothing in this Act"], to insert "Section 3 of."
On a point of Order. I have an Amendment, of which I have given notice, to make an insertion on the first page of the typed copy of the Clause
The only Amendment now before the House is to insert the words "Section 3 of."
I do not think that this is a very satisfactory way of conducting the business of Parliament. It is exceedingly difficult to follow. The Government have come to an agreement with three hon. Members of this House. Those Gentlemen enjoy a great deal of confidence, but they have no title to pledge the House in a matter of this kind. I know that really the procedure is perfectly regular, but still it is a very unusual use of the forms of the House to move a new Clause in the form of an Amendment instead of putting it on the Order Paper. I think it is very liable to abuse, because it destroys the value of the rule in regard to new Clauses. I think it would have been far more satisfactory to re-commit the Bill in respect of these new Clauses, and let the matter be properly discussed in Committee. To take advantage of the new Standing Order to allow ex parte speeches in this way is really a most outrageous abuse of the forms of the House. I venture to think that we ought to have more time to consider this Clause, and I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I cannot accept that. I should consider it an abuse of the Rules of the House. There has been nothing whatever unusual in regard to the Clause to which the Noble Lord takes exception. What the Government have done is to suggest certain Amendments to it. This one certainly seems to be in a very unobjectionable form. It is only to insert the words "Section 3 of" after the word "in."
But it is virtually a new Clause.
If the Amendments of the Government are accepted I shall have to put the Question that the Clause as Amended be added to the Bill and if any exception is taken to the Government having accepted this Clause as amended that will be the proper time to raise the question.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words
"including the Manchester Ship Canal but not including a harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking."
On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Clause as a whole, it would be in order for us now to make remarks on the Clause as a whole, or whether we should wait until you put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
I think it would be obviously the better course to wait until then. We cannot yet say whether the House will or will not accept the Amendment.
It is difficult to deal with these Amendments unless we do deal with the Clause as a, whole, because we have only just seen them and it is almost impossible to see what their effect will be until we decide whether or not we agree with the Clause as a whole.
The question here is whether a statutory dock or pier undertaking includes the Manchester Ship Canal.
I have nothing to say on that, but I may ask why railway companies are left out? The Bill, as it originally stood, dealt with these undertakings as a whole, and the same justice, or whatever it may be called, should be meted out to all the undertakings. A different course is now being pursued in regard to certain of these undertakings, but surely the railways have just as much right to an appeal as the docks.
The Port of London Authority is a statutory railway company.
I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have found it necessary to bring in an Amendment of this kind. Upon reading the Press one was astounded to find that the Government had capitulated to private interests who had been endeavouring to work up that opposition which they desired the Government to think there was but which in reality there was not.If we are to have a Transport Bill I submit that it should be a Transport Bill and not half a Transport Bill. I should have preferred, at any rate, if the Government had been sufficiently courageous, without introducing Amendments of this kind, to have stood by the Bill as it passed through the Grand Committee stage, and left the decision of the House to be given for or against the Government. The Government is courageous sometimes when particular interests are to be conserved. If they had been courageous on this occasion I am convinced, in my own mind that the country would have been at their back. We were told at the last election that the Government had a policy of reconstruction. This Transport Bill is part and parcel of that policy I regret very much that the Minister-designate and his colleagues should weaken the position, notwithstanding all that has been said about him in the country, by Amendments of this kind. It has been said that the proposal put forward in the Bill is of a burean- cratic nature. We have heard that— much of it— both in the Grand Committee and in the country. I want to submit that it is not so bureaucratic as many hon. Members of this House imagine. This Amendment, I believe, will destroy the advantages accruing from the proper co-ordination of the system of transport in the country. If we can control the railways, why not the ports, canals, piers, and liar-hours, and not a part of them?
The hon. Gentleman is discussing the Clause as a whole. The only question now is as to whether an exception is to be made in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal, or whether that is to be included as a dock, harbour, or pier. The question he is discussing does not arise on this Amendment.
I should like to remove the impression apparent in the last speech, as to the reason it is proposed to differentiate between the public dock undertakings managed wholly by popularly-elected authorities, like the Port of London, the Mersey Board, and other large dock centres and trusts already in the hands of popularly-elected Boards.
By the people is that?
Selected by public authorities elected by the people— in the case of London and Liverpool by the payers of dock dues. Why is it desired to differentiate between, those and the docks held by railway companies is that the railway companies are to be left under the control that they have been under for the last few years of a joint committee responsible to the Minister. These docks form part of the railway system: therefore they are obviously part and parcel of the undertakings to be subjected to the control of the Minister as part of the railway system to which they belong. That is a very different thing from going in and interfering with large bodies of independently-managed concerns. The Clause here is, I am very glad to say, to be accepted by the Government. It was only resisted in the Grand Committee for the time being, because I do not believe it was fully understood or appreciated. We have had the Leader of the House making it perfectly clear that it never entered the minds of the Government to manage the docks from Whitehall, or to concede anything more than the power of coordination. This Amendment is a thing which, if carried out, will remove popular anxiety in a way that perhaps some Members can appreciate, but will go to the saving of the London docks themselves. It is impossible to suppose that the trade of this country, the trade even of this large port, can be continued if it is to be hampered by interference in every small detail. The Amendment to the Clause prescribes the limits tinder which that control should be exercised. I do not think there is anybody affected in this House who would not, therefore, accept any proposal which makes for the coordination of the traffic of this country and the transport of that traffic which will not be readily and cheerfully accepted by those who direct these large undertakings. This Clause I trust will be adopted.
I confess to being grievously disappointed at the humiliating climb-down of the representatives of the Government on this Bill. I will try to keep within the Order of Procedure that you, Mr. Speaker, have just laid down. I hope I shall not be accused of going outside if I point out that we were sitting for eight weeks upstairs on this Committee from eleven in the morning and we had all these arguments put before us. Time after time, in the Divisions, it was only the vote of the Labour Members of that Committee that saved the face of the Government.
Now they have thrown us over.
Yes, they have thrown us over now to meet the wishes of a very narrow vested interest. Base ingratitude is displayed in the fact that all our services are to be thrown to the wolves. I, for one, vehemently protest against what I consider is a base betrayal of confidence. The hon. And learned Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Nield) put the case in a nutshell. Why should the Manchester Ship Canal receive a preference over any other establishment that owns docks? To-day in Liverpool, as in other ports in the country, the cry has gone forth that there is congestion at the docks. Those whose interest it serves are endeavouring to put the blame on the back of the dock labourer, who, they say, is "ca'ing canny." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] That is a deliberate lie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] Whoever fathers the lie, I want to say here; it is a deliberate lie. If the dockers worked any harder than they do now the quays would be more congested than ever before, because the stuff is there and it cannot be taken away. I am no advocate of the policy of "ca'canny." I detest the word, but I do say that the blame ought to be placed in the right quarter. The blame is solely due to the chaotic condition of the transport that plies to-day between the railways and the docks.Dealing with the Manchester Ship Canal, why should it be singled out for preference? The statement was in the Press to-day, and yesterday, and all last week, that owing to the congested nature of the docks at Liverpool ships were being diverted to Manchester. It has been said that Manchester soon will claim to be the staple port of Lancashire, and Liverpool will be a port on the Manchester Ship Canal. If this is going to be allowed, then I admit there are some grounds for that view, and now that ships are to be diverted from Liverpool to Manchester, which is a terminal port. If the principle is admitted for Manchester, we will have London dock authorities coming next day and saying: "A precedent has been established by the House of Commons. Why shut us up?" and away goes the whole thing. I want, shortly, to say, so far as I am concerned— and I think I speak for my colleagues— that we shall vigorously resist every Amendment that is moved in the direction of even weakening the position that was strengthened, carried, and fought for in the Committee upstairs.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, as we know, has been right through the War, is at the present time one of the most patriotic Members of this House. But I think that I can claim to know not only the position of the Liverpool docks, but also the character and present attitude of the Liverpool docker quite as well as he does, and I know the present position probably bettor than he does.
I do not think you do.
I say this deliberately, and I know; I have been amongst them. I say that at the present time one of the principal reasons for the congestion is the deliberate action of the Liverpool dockers in preventing a full day's work being done.
That is not true.
Is the hon. Member prepared to face the Liverpool dockers and make that assertion?
I repeat that the position at the Liverpool docks is entirely caused through the "ca' canny" of the Liverpool dockers. I make that assertion.
You cannot prove it.
I believe I am making a statement which is perfectly correct.
We can all say that.
:I believe the hon. Member for St. Helens would do very great service to his country if he would go amongst the Liverpool dockers and tell them that at the present time.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I only want to explain—
The hon. Member has made his speech, and now he is being answered.
On a point of Order. As one of the Members for Liver-pool, may I ask whether the hon. Member for Macclesfield is entitled to make such sweeping assertions without bringing forward any proof?
:I only rose to say briefly that I have come absolutely in contact with the Liverpool docker, and I have a very considerable appreciation of him.
I worked as a docker before you were born.
:I can only say this, that, so far as my own position is concerned, I have the greatest admiration for the Liverpool dockers, if they are appealed to by the right people. But there are certain influences at work at the present time, as the hon. Member for St. Helens knows very well —
I do not know anything about it.
I appeal to the better sense and feeling of the Members on the Labour Benches to bring a better spirit into the Liverpool dockers at the present time, because, unless the Liverpool labourer does produce a full day's work, the position of the Liverpool docks is going to be very serious indeed.
:I think it is extremely unfortunate that, in discussing the particular Amendment before us, an acrimonious discussion such as has occurred in the last two speeches should have arisen. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down claims to understand Liverpool I am a native of Liverpool I have worked around the docks in Liverpool in almost all capacities as an engineer, and I claim to speak with authority and knowledge on the state of affairs there. The hon. Member opposite is quite wrong in stating that that is the sole cause, or even the' main cause, of congestion in Liverpool.
I only said one of them.
The hon. Member said they were the cause of the "ca' canny'' policy which he alleges to exist. I hold in my hand a letter which I received referring to the congestion in Liverpool, which is most apposite to the question of the exclusion of the Manchester Ship Canal:
They go on to say:"Writing as practical dockmen, employed by a large firm of corn brokers and merchants, and whose business is confined to the docks and its environs, we are desirous of bringing to your notice the chaotic methods of working which obtain in this port. The following are a few examples:
(1) Cartage.— At least 60 per cent. of the time of both horse and motor vehicles is occupied in standing on the dock estate, dock road, railways, warehouses, etc., awaiting their turn to load or lighten. This waste of time could be avoided with a consequent reduction in the number of vehicles required. (2) Barging — Barges are kept waiting four and five days, in many cases even longer, to load directly from or discharge their cargoes into ocean steamers. (3)Railways, Warehouses, Coal Storage, etc — It is a common occurrence for carts to wait for six and seven hours waiting turn. The waste of time is inconceivable to those unacquainted with the working of these places. (4) Dock Congestion — This is caused to a great extent by the number of railway trucks, carts, etc., which encumber the dock estate, pre venting a quick exchange of vehicles. Gangs of men are kept idle in many cases for half-an- hour or more while a loaded cart or wagon is drawn away, and replaced with an empty one for them to proceed with. (5) Grain Warehouse — (a) Alexandra and Coburg. — At neither of these two magnificant granaries are there facilities for direct discharge of grain from ship to warehouse (except for small coasting steamers). (b) Waterloo Grain Warehouse — This warehouse is owned by the Dock Board, and is one of the finest in the country, but its value is reduced by there being very little water in the dock on which it stands. It is filled mainly from barges which load from ocean steamers. Deep water accommodation could be obtained by widening the entrance, and deepening the sill of the dock. (6) Coasting Berths.— All the berths allocated to the coasting trade are appropriated by the regular coasting lines, and they are situated altogether in the centre of the dock system, and cannot be entered from north or south without vessels enter the river."
Those allegations may be well founded in every detail, or they may not, but they are sufficiently strong and convincing to show that the allegation that the whole of this congestion in Liverpool, which is terrible, is caused by the unwillingness of the workers is unfounded. I do not say there is no complaint against the workers. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has complained himself, and will no doubt complain again, but to allege that the whole cause is to be laid on the back of the workers is entirely a mistake, to use an extremely mild expression. Having disposed completely of this allegation, I want to deal with the subject raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens. He has informed the House that the Committee upstairs sat for eighteen days over a period of two months. I was one of those who sat on that Committee, and I took a very painstaking part in its deliberations. I do not think there was a single Division or item of debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens and his associates did not take exactly the same side. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suffered a good deal in those discussions from the joint action of the hon. Member for St. Helens and myself and I notice that he confirms that statement. It is from that standpoint that I want to address myself to the arguments of the hon. Member for St. Helens. He is aggrieved, and says that there has been a betrayal. If he will consider the matter logically, and from its foundation, he will find that is not so. When the Bill was first introduced and received its Second Reading, it gave the Minister the widest possible powers, and ho could do practically what he pleased to harbours and docks. He could take them over and take charge of them, and although, as the Leader of the House has explained, that was not the intention of the Government, yet those powers did exist. In Committee it was pointed out that some advisory body and some coordinating method of utilising the experience of the existing members of dock boards should be provided. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens and his associates all agreed with that, and in the result the Committee added what they call advisory councils, or committees, to work with the Minister; and not only this, they agreed to a panel of experts in addition, who were to be nominated by the various interests concerned in the welfare and prosperity of the docks. That was the arrangement as it left the Committee, and it was obtained largely by the support of my hon. Friend and those associated with him. What is the arrangement to-day? It is that these advisory committees and this panel of experts shall continue in existence to this extent— that the same persons who formed the harbour boards shall remain at their present duties. That change associates with the Minister the same experienced men and individuals— in most instances in Liverpool— who would have been associated with him under the scheme of my hon. Friend and myself What is the difference? The Minister will not take over the primary possession of some of these undertakings. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens favours nationalisation, but I do not, and we differ there."The chief thing lacking is some co-ordinating authority concerning itself with transport conceived as a whole."
The proposal is to exclude the Manchester Ship Caal from the provisions of Clause 2.
The allegation was that this proposed change amounted to a betrayal of those who supported the Government upstairs, and I want to convince my hon. Friend that the only change which has arisen on account of this new arrangenemt is that the proprietorship of these particular harbours and docks does-not change its personnel, and will be substantially the same, and they will assist the Minister; but the foundation of nationalisation which my hon. Friend desires, if it was a foundation, has been removed. That is all the change that has arisen, and is that change a fair basis for my hon. Friend opposite to allege treachery or bad faith on the part of the Government and those associated with them? I ask my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches to clear their minds of mere prejudice. They may be disappointed that the nationalisation part of it has been changed, but let them clear their minds of prejudice, and recognise that the action of the Committee upstairs has only been extended, and that this Clause, as it stands, with certain Amendments which I hope will be accepted, is well worthy of the support of the House generally, because it moves in the same direction as a great deal of the action of the Committee upstairs.
This change which has just been announced has come about so suddenly that one can scarcely grip the position, or understand all that it means. We took an active interest in the Committee stage, and for eighteen days we more or less followed the deliberations and watched as clearly as we could the development of the stages through which the Bill was passing. When we hear on the Labour benches that certain gentlemen who were vigorously opposed to certain points in the Bill suddenly change their attitude as the result of an interview with the Government, which has brought about an entirely new condition of affairs, and the first we hear of it is either a small paragraph in the newspapers; and when this is suddenly thrust into our hands this afternoon, you can understand that we are rather suspicious of these gentlemen, a certain number of whom have been prepared to wreck, the Bill from the first page to the last.5.0 P.M. Do not let us make any mistake about it. There were certain Members on that Committee who came there with a full, firm, and fixed determination to wreck this Bill by any means in their power, but they failed. We expected a very wholehearted and strong Debate in the House, but in the Bill as it left the Committee with no alterations, no variations, and sometimes a substitution of one or two words, we may not have observed as keenly as other people who are deeply interested and cleverer than we are their effect. It takes time to consider these points. These people very vigorously opposed the Bill, and the inclusion of the docks and harbours, and more particularly the inclusion of roads, and when these gentlemen who have been so vehemently declaiming and trying to destroy the principles of the Bill day after day and hour after hour are suddenly converted and try to make us believe that all is well, and are perfectly satisfied, at least it makes us suspicious of them, and suspicious of some of the alterations that have been introduced. If it had been possible to have received a copy of the proposed Amendment a day or so ago, we also could have had a consultation with the Government, and we might have been able to thrash the question out and then we might have been satisfied as well. We were robbed of that opportunity, and I say, without any apology, that, when receiving this deputation as representing the interests that were opposed to the Bill, they should at least have given us the opportunity of hearing what the discussion was all about, and they should have explained to us in the fullest detail precisely what was intended, and possibly that would have satisfied us, and would have obviated the necessity of inflicting the speeches on the House which we have heard to-day. It may be all right, but I certainly am prepared to say that the exclusion of the Manchester Ship Canal, with all its great waterways and its wharves and its great dock facilities, ought not to be treated exceptionally to any other docks in the Kingdom. Once you begin to make exceptions it is the exception that introduces the principle that will ruin the whole concern. In Committee we vigorously fought over the Bill as a whole, and in Committee we tried time after time to point out that the very success of the measure would be to include all parts of the United Kingdom. Why is the Manchester Ship Canal to be exempted? I want to admit that I am not clear of comprehension as to what it all means. I am in doubt, and I believe the majority of the Members in the House are in doubt, as to exactly all that is implied in it, and we only want fuller and more complete information. However, we are here to oppose vigorously unless, in the course of the Debate, we are satisfied that the principle has not been altered, and the principles in the Bill have not been changed, and the method of working has not been altered. I was not surprised at the statement made by the Leader of the House to-day. I think I caused a bit of a laugh on one occasion when I almost uttered The very words that the Leader of the House employed to-day as to the necessity of keeping up the machinery for the working of the great concerns to be taken over. I want to conclude my remarks by replying to a statement that has been made here to-day. I do not know what bearing it has on the question we are discussing. I do not know how it could be applied. I refer to the speech of the hon. Member opposite who so violently attacked the dockers. The dockers do not possess all the virtues of the universe; neither do they possess all the vices. There are a few of the virtues which they have a right to claim, and I dare say there is a good deal of the other thing. But it applies to the employers, and possibly the vices may be more magnified want to say, in justification of my protest against the statement here to-day, that I have worked for years among dock workers, and I pretty well know them all over the country An hon. Member has read a statement. If you do not know, let me say that the docker does not control the work. The docker does not organise the business. He has to take his instructions from somebody who superintends and supervises the work, and that statement of the carts a waiting for hours to be unloaded and the trucks waiting to be filled, or something of that kind, I say, is the most damaging and most complete condemnation of the management of our docks that I have ever heard. A man cannot do the work as he likes, where he likes, and when he likes. He has to be at his job, and if he is not there when the foreman comes along he is ordered pretty quickly to clear out. But to have this great mass of confusion as we have heard declared by the hon. Gentleman is the most complete condemnation of the method of managing our docks that I have ever heard in all my life. Let me say in conclusion that the docker is as honourable a man as you will find anywhere, taking him in the rough, which is as he is. He is nature's gentleman, and I can assure the House that he has no desire, wherever you find him, to hinder the development of the port or to hinder the quick transit of the goods of which he has charge. Sometimes he is hindered, and he does not forget to talk, in his "docksology, "of what he thinks of the people who have hindered the job. However, Mr. Speaker, I have uttered my protest. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Well, I do not know what that altogether means, but I suppose it is to indicate that I am wrong. Possibly I am, but I am wrong because you and your race mean us wrong, and if we had been fully informed perhaps we would not have had the necessity to protest against the position as it is to-day. However, Mr. Speaker, that is our position as the Labour party, and we want to be satisfied that there is no weakening of the position, that there is no getting away from the principle or the scheme which I have tried to help the Government through in the Committee stage.
I think that owing to the short time that has elapsed since this Amendment has been put down, it may assist my hon. Friends opposite if I were to say a little about the effect of this Amendment on the docks. If this Amendment had carried with it an alteration in the position of the docks it would have prevented what I have said over and over again— certainly in Committee, and I think in this House— the co-ordination under the authority of the Minister with due regard to the advice he receives, which, as far as the Government is concerned, one would welcome. The Government would never have accepted it. If my hon. Friend will look at the new Clause on which the Amendment has been moved, he will see that if "the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended, or that the methods of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order … require the owners to execute or do within a reasonable time such improvement …," etc.There is ample power there to do exactly what is provided for every other undertaking, to give an order to improve the methods of working, which would include co-ordination all over, and to alter or extend the accommodation. What this Amendment of the Clause that is now proposed does which was not done before by the Bill is this, it makes it impossible for the Minister when coming to this House— it makes it impossible for him to displace the dock boards. All my Friends on the Committee will recollect that the Government stated then— I think I said it myself or my hon. Friend did so— that we thought it would be a calamity if those boards were displaced. All the Amendment does is to make it impossible to turn out the dock boards and bring the management to London. That was never intended, and we have said so. I think that met with general approval from all parts of the Committee. The other thing it does is this— it gives' the dock boards the right, if it thinks that the orders of the Minister, the order which he is empowered to give by this very Clause, is seriously injurious to the undertaking— that is to say, if it was something really big that was going to hurt the trade of the port— it gives them the right to go to the Lord Chief Justice or to the President of the Quarter Sessions, as the case maybe, and put up a case to him and say, "This is so serious an order that we fear our undertaking or port is going to be ruined. Will you look at it and say if you agree with us. "It is true, as one of the papers with the largest circulation said this morning, "Docks have been excluded from Clause 3. They cannot now be taken possession of without consent." But, as we have explained, the words "possession of" are merely repeated from previous Acts and Orders, and it puts a mark or a rubber stamp on the particular undertaking and by that fact enables the Minister to do certain things which this fully empowers him to do. But docks are not left completely outside the scope, or I would not be standing here arguing in favour of the Amendment. They can receive orders in everything and will have to carry out the orders in everything unless they can show that it really is seriously injurious to the undertaking or trade of a port. It relieves the legitimate anxiety of those local bodies that are going to be taken over and some official put in charge. That was never the intention, and I think my hon. Friends are not fair if they say they have been betrayed. They did not have the opportunity of carefully studying the Amendment. There has really been no change on the Government's part. We have put into the Bill what we said over and over again in Committee we intended.
I am one of those who were not members of the Committee, but we are able to consider the matter in. the light of the Bill presented to the House and of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Government on the Second Reading. I venture at this stage, therefore, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this quotation I am going to make from his speech on the Second Reading. It seems to be inconsistent with the position he is now taking up:
It seems to me there is a great change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Bill. In view of those words regarding the economies he hopes to effect— that they could only be effected if the docks were placed under the Transportation Ministry."But of this I am perfectly clear, that for the reasons I have given, if you do not put the docks, not under the railway control— I am not suggesting and I am not urging it— but if you do not put the docks under the Transportation Ministry, you cannot ensure these great economies without which some of the calamities I have endeavoured to forecast are inevitable."
Docs the hon. Member understand the Amendment which has just been made to give to the Minister all the powers set out with great-elaboration in Clause 3, Sub-section (I, c)? There are long lists of orders which the directors are forced to obey on the direction of the Minister. If it does, it seems to me a very curious piece of drafting. If it docs not, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House, and will explain which of these orders are taken in respect of the docks and which are not.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) tried to make out that the position now taken by the Government is inconsistent with the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill on the Second Reading. Anyone who is much interested in transport will realise that of the three great necessary things for transport— ships, docks, and railways— ships, with all their shortcomings, are very much ahead in the matter of transport than either docks or railways, and probably, if one had to say that one was more behind than the others, the answer would have to be that it is the railways. I say that as a railway director who knows something about the subject. I am one of those who believe that there is far greater economy to be made by this Bill in the working of the railways than in any other direction. Whilst the docks are, on the whole, very well managed, there is, in my opinion, very considerable room for improvement. If you handed the docks over to a new Ministry in London, to manage entirely, I feel quite certain that they would be very much worse managed than they are to-day. But I take it that the proposal now before the House is a very satisfactory solution of a very difficult problem. In the management of the docks you want not only the working assistance of merchants, but you also want the assistance of the practical ship owner whose ships use the docks, and it is also desirable, as we have in the Port of London, where I was vice-chairman for some seven years, to have the assistance on the Board of the men working in the docks. It is very fortunate for this House that the dock labourers are so ably represented here. This Bill fairly allows the Port authori- ties representing those three bodies of persons who know the requirements of the docks the ordinary powers of control, and yet it gives to the Minister the power of saying to the dock authority, "you are not as progressive as you ought to be; you ought to make better facilities for the interchange of traffic between railways and shipping. "This Bill will not affect some docks as it will others. For instance, in the case of the Port of London, only about 10 per cent, of the whole of the cargo coming into the port, or leaving the port, goes either directly to or from the railway, and, therefore, as far as the Port of London is concerned, the Government might, without the loss of any great principle, have omitted it altogether from the Bill. But, as I say, this solution is a fair solution, and I believe that after a term of years it will be found that in practical working it will greatly facilitate the flow of traffic from the producer on the one side to the consumer in foreign countries, and of raw materials and food from foreign countries to the consumer in this country.
I think I can remove the misunderstanding of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens on the question raised in regard to the Manchester Ship Canal. The Manchester Ship Canal is a port and harbour, the third in the Kingdom. It is also a statutory railway company. Hence the necessity for its being named in this Clause In the same way, I believe, the Port of London Authority— the first port in the country— is also a railway authority, and there should be, therefore, words to exclude it from the provisions of the Amendment.
I took an active part in the work of the Committee upstairs and I am bound to say that if the Government had met the Committee in the same spirit as they have met us in the House to-day by this proposed Amendment, the progress of the Bill would have been greatly facilitated in Committee. I do not minimise the change which has been made. It is fundamental. It leaves out harbours, docks, and piers, including the Manchester Ship Canal, for the reason the hon. Member has given. I sympathise with the Labour party, because they have stedfastly supported the Government, but they must not be under the impression that everyone who opposes this proposal is animated by selfish interests. I have no interest in any undertaking covered by this Bill. I have not a penny invested in. any railway or dock in this country, and yet I steadily opposed the Government in their proposal, because I felt satisfied that they were going the wrong way about. The fundamental change made by this new Clause is this— that, instead of the Government taking possession of and administering the undertakings, they are leaving the undertakings under the present management. I always had the impression that the main object of the Government in taking possession of the harbours was to control and administer them; but the change in this Bill is that the Government is going to keep them under a certain amount of supervision, and to leave the authorities to control and administer them as at present. These authorities will have certain orders given to them with a view to improving the position, and that may be an admirable situation for the Government to adopt. I heartily welcome the change made. I think the proper thing is for the Minister controlling this— Department and surveying the whole field to see where improvements can be carried out— and there is room for great improvement — and to point out to the undertakings the improvements that are required, put-ting the onus on them to make those improvements. That is an entirely different thing from taking possession of the undertakings or controlling their officers or their services. I welcome the change, and at the same time I sympathise with the Labour party, who were looking forward to administrative possession of these undertakings. I believe the change will go a long way to meet their reasonable objections. The proposal that these authorities shall administer their undertakings subject to a certain amount of supervision by the head of the Transport Authority is, of course, entirely different from a proposal to take complete possession of them.
Before the War, England possessed 66 per cent. of the world's shipping. To-day if I say we possess 40 per cent. I shall be making a generous estimate. America has taken up such a position as to constitute a menace to us in this matter. I am not unfriendly to America. I have no wish to take advantage in a patriotic sense of the better business qualities of the Americans. But our dock property and our shipping pro- perty have been minimised during the War. We paid a greater penalty in lives and in money than any other country. In practical commerce Germany has not lost a sewing machine. We have left her with all her capacities of recuperation, and she will again be a great shipping competitor. She must be that. Her still, patient manner and effort will constitute her a great menace to this country. It is an extraordinary thing for me to say as a revolutionary Socialist, but the War has saved this Empire. If Peace had continued for another ten years German shipping would have wiped us off the face of the earth. I do not apologise for that statement, but if we are to maintain the insular power we possess— a great little Island— at least we must look after our shipping.How are we going to do it? The ship owners would sell their mothers, let alone their ships, for their own interests. They have been the greatest profiteers in this War. They have been the greatest menace to our Navy and to our Army, and yet, forsooth, they will say to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards, "You dare not move in this or that direction "We forget that German shipping was built up by State aid, and the shipping fraternity also forgets that, so far as State aid is concerned, they were the greatest plunderers during this War. They were the first to go to the State. They were the first to whine for the protection of the State. They were the first to ask for the protection of our Navy. And the rich ship owners do not send their sons in their ships. I want us at least to realise this position, that to allow an exclusive financial concern sordidly tot pursue its sordid avocations at the expense of the people is a wrong done to the people. When competition comes, as it must come from Japan, from Germany, and from America, the ship owners and dock owners will come to the State to demand their security and their help, and we shall see the head of the Government representing this particular institution erected as a golden calf— I should not like to call him a calf, but we shall see him erected as a person of great importance and they will come to him for support in peace as they did in war. The docks of this country have not been developed by mere shipping enterprise; it has depended on municipal enterprise. The Port of London has demanded the State's interference and has commanded the State's finances to advance its interests. I do not want us to allow the Government to escape its responsibilities. I do not trust either dock companies or shipowners. I have had to fight them for thirty-five years. I have never known a meaner bargainer than a shipowner; I have never known a more hard-hearted person than a dock director, and I have never met a more impossible person than either of them. The shipowners and dock owners will come to the country first for assistance. They will have to come to them. With all the money they made out of the War, they will come to them with all the greater dividends they pay they will have to come to them. With all the greater value of their shares they will have to come to them. They have only acquired this fictitious value by the incidental factors of the War. I want us to come down to common sense. I want our country— the greatest mercantile marine country of the world— I want our island— the smallest island in the world that has lived On her commerce— to maintain, not a fictitious value, but an actual, commercial, material value. I have sometimes beaten the powers that be; many times they have beaten me. But I want at least that our country shall be top dog; that it shall at least be equal to any other commercial concern; and if the Government maintains its present attitude upon it is the responsibility, and if the shipowners — who are the greatest and wealthiest factor in the House of Commons— force the issue, upon them will be the very grave responsibility, and upon the dock companies, which are more or less the same. You could not scratch a shipowner without finding a dock director; you could not scratch a dock director without finding a merchant; you could not scratch a merchant without finding some manufacturer who will be a merchant, dock director, and shipowner combined. This War has left us in the lee of transport, and unless the shipowners recognise the commercial value of shipping and docking, and transport, and inland transport, and road transport, unless they give the Government the right to command these powers, they have no right to ask the Government to undertake the responsibility to compete with either Germany or America, and Germany has increased her command of the sea, her command of commerce, her command of shipping, and America has completed and increased her powers to 2,800 percent, during the War. I am very friendly to America, but I love my country a sight better than that, and I want at least that we shall protect the Government and the Government shall protect us in the fight against what I call, from the capitalistic standpoint, a suicidal policy. The capitalists, and those representing capitalists, are grasping at the shadow and losing the substance by commandeering the Government to support what I consider is a short-sighted policy.
I rise to speak upon the Amendment itself. It was my lot to take part in the deliberations of the Committee, and if some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway who were members of the Committee have not been able quite fully to understand the precise position of the Amendment, there must be a good many hon. Members who were not on the Committee in a similar plight. Among them I notice the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). I congratulate the Government upon having arrived at their decision without having sacrificed any question of principle. In order to understand the matter fully one has to go back to the Statute of 1871, the Regulation of the Forces Act, which was brought into operation during the War, and under which the Government took control, under the name of possession, of the railways of the country. In so far as there were attached to the railways docks, harbours, and piers as part of their undertaking, they also took possession of those. Clause 3 of the Bill confirms them in that possession for two years, and as it stood when it left the Grand Committee it gave them powers for a like period of two years to take possession of docks, harbours, and piers which were not integral parts of railway undertakings, and if they took possession under those powers automatically, there attached to them all the powers of Sub-section (3) of the Clause, which put upon the directors and every person concerned the obligation to be obedient to certain specific directions given by the Ministry. In the Committee, representatives of the ports and harbours, not unnaturally, were nervous about the position, not so much of the particular undertaking as of the effect upon the locality in which the undertaking was situated, and in particular upon the persons who were employed there. and any interference with those docks and har- bours might have had disastrous effects upon the locality. Under these circumstances, the change which was brought about by this series of Amendments, as I understand it, was that the Minister no longer asked for powers to take possession on the authority of the Statute of 1871. He gives that up, but in exchange-he takes powers to make Orders which may be as large in their effect as many of the powers given to him under the Statute of 1871. But he concedes to the authorities concerned a very limited method of appeal.
I am extremely obliged for the information which I have so far failed to get from the Government. Do I understand the hon. Member to say that, as he reads the Clause, the Government gets all the powers it would get under paragraph 3 of Sub-section (1) of the Clause?
I certainly so read the Clause, though I, in common with other Members, have had no opportunity of seeing it until after Question Time. But a. concession is given to these authorities, not necessarily profit-making authorities by any means—many of them publics. authorities. For instance, the Port of London Authority and the Glasgow Harbour Board and the rest, are given a limited right of appeal. First they have to satisfy one of the chief judicial officers of one of the three Kingdoms that they put forward a primâ facie case of serious interference with their wellbeing, and if they succeed in establishing that to the satisfaction of the learned judge, they have a right of arbitration. These powers and clauses are not nationalisation. Therefore I join issue with the hon. Member for Maiden and the hon. Member opposite. Nationalisation is not in Clause 3. Clause 3 gives to the Ministry a period of two years in which to make certain necessary investigations and explorations in order that the Government may at the end of that time advise the House as to what is to be the permanent policy in regard to transport.
We are grateful to the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) for the exceedingly lucid speech in which he has explained the question at issue. The Government, of course, are familiar with the discussions in Committee, and do not realise that those of us who have not had the same opportunity of knowing what transpired in Committee require explanation. The hon. Member said, and I want to find out whether his account is correct, that under the new Clause the Government cannot take possession of these docks and harbours except where they are part of a railway undertaking, yet they can give directions under the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section (1), Sub-clause (c). I want to know how the matter stands. It does not seem to me that that is the meaning of the words of the new typewritten Clause which provides that
That does not on the face of it seem to go so far as Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 which deals with a number of powers, such as rates, salaries, the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking, etc. I should be much obliged to the Minister-designate if he would tell the House exactly how the matter stands as it is exceedingly difficult for hon. Members to understand precisely the nature of the arrangement now put before the House."If at any time during the two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour, or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do, within a reasonable time, such improvement or extension or alteration in the method of working as the Order may prescribe."
It will be convenient if I intervene to tell the House the view of the Government on the point raised by the Noble Lord. The words which he has just read, namely, that "if the Minister considers it desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation of the harbour, dock, or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, he may by Order" do certain things, obviously do not cover the Rates Clause, Paragraph (1), Sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 on page 4 of the Bill. It would not cover paragraph (2) as to salaries, wages, etc., on page 4 of the Bill. As to paragraph (3) relating to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertakings for any financial reason, I hardly think it would cover that. It would cover it if it was for the improvement of the working of the traffic and not merely if it were shut down for financial reasons. That would remain with the dock company. I am advised that the new Clause includes all the relevant powers down to paragraph 8, which provides for the purchase and distribution of stores and the securing of the best use of manufacturing facilities, which in the case of a dock would not be a very large thing. The most important item in that respect would be that of a railway. Apart from these particular powers, which could, of course, be exercised by consent, if a dock company wished authority to put up its rates it would naturally come for consent. We do get in these words all the powers that are necessary, and are included in Items 1 to 8, which enable us to improve the traffic working, to get coordination and to get improved control by bringing the two transportation agencies together. As to the rates and the conditions of service they remain exactly as they were, unless there is the consent of the owners.
There is nothing in the Bill about nationalisation. There is a general impression abroad that nationalisation is in the Bill. With regard to this particular new Clause, I have only seen it to-day, but I have come to the same conclusion that all it does is to omit paragraphs 1 and 2 of Sub-clause (c) of Subsection (1). These are the only two things, and when hon. Members suggest that the Government have made such a great concession I do not think it is any concession at all. I do not think the Labour party need be anxious except on one point. The only thing which the hon. Member for Twickenham has got is that the Government shall have nothing to say as to rates, fares, tolls, dues and charges, but as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, of course the dock companies can come to the Government for consent, and if the Government think it is necessary they can give them consent to vary their rates, fares, tolls, dues and charges. Then there is the other matter as to salaries, wages, remuneration, conditions of employment of persons employed, and so on. Those are the two things which the Government have abandoned, and those are the only things they have abandoned. Of course, there is the appeal to the Lord Chief Justice. It is quite impossible to say whether the Lord Chief Justice will consider whether the proposals of the Government are reasonable or not. Practically all that has been done is that the Government have conceded an appeal to the Lord Chief Justice and to some other legal authority in Scotland—
Only in the case of serious injury.
Yes, and they have cut out these two paragraphs 1 and 2 of Sub-clause (c) referring to rates, tolls, etc., and to salaries, wages, remuneration, and conditions of employment. I started by saying that the idea that this Bill enacts nationalisation is a mistake. It did enact nationalisation when the old Clause 4 was in the Bill. The old Clause 4 enacted nationalisation, but that was taken out in Committee. Therefore, the Bill as it left the Committee did not enact nationalisation. It enabled the Ministry to give certain directions and orders, and that is what this Clause does, with the exception of an appeal on certain points. I do not think, except on the question of wages and conditions of employment, the Labour party need be very anxious.
I think this Clause does something more than my right hon. Friend thinks it does. It has rescued the House and the Committee from a very unfortunate position. The danger has been, and it has been a matter of considerable anxiety to those of us who sat on the Standing Committee, that there has been a possibility of conflict constantly arising between the docks and port authorities and the Minister-designate. I believe this Clause has removed a great deal of possible interference and almost entirely the danger of disagreement between the dock authorities and the Ministry. The dock authorities disliked that idea. Those of us in London who were concerned, not so much with the port authorities but with the interests of our constituents, were afraid that a situation might arise in which probably through a mistake of intention on the part of the Port of London Authority there would have been such a quarrel between the port authority and the Ministry that the Ministry might have taken possession of the docks. I think the new Clause satisfies the Ministry and also the port authorities. It enables the Minister to get the powers necessary and the accommodation necessary in order to make his transportation complete, and the dock authorities are relieved of their fear and are assured, in print, that there is to be no unreasonable requirement made upon them and they have a further security that if they think any requirements are unreasonable they will have the right of appeal. That has made a great difference in the feeling of the port authorities towards this Bill. It will help the Ministry to get the system of transportation which is required, and it has helped the House. I believe this Clause will enable us to solve a situation of extreme difficulty.
A question has been raised as to the position of the Port of London Authority as to whether it is a statutory railway authority and therefore excluded from the operations of this Clause. I hope that the Minister-designate will give an assurance on that point or that he will insert words to make it clear.
The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was before us this morning and I am advised that the Port of London Authority is not a statutory railway company. They have certain limited powers as a statutory railway company, but the intention is that they shall be excluded exactly as the Manchester Ship Canal is excluded.
As one who was. concerned in this matter, I would like to say a word or two. Upstairs we fought all the way through for an appeal from any order of the Minister which in the opinion of the authorities might be prejudicial or injurious to the undertaking. We were denied that, though we put up a very good fight and had a very good vote. We have persevered, and on the Report stage we get that appeal. I do not understand why so much has been made about this negotiation. All that has really happened is that the Government, after a struggle, have given us this appeal. All along the Government position has been that they were not going to be hindered at every turn by appeals. We quite admit that, but we say that it is not on trifling matters that we want to have an appeal, but when serious things are done, such as the diversion of trade from one port to another, or inequality of dues between one port and another, or preference being given to one port as against another. We want to protect ourselves against that, and that was a reasonable thing to ask. My expectation this afternoon was that my own side would rather object to our having got so little. I never expected that the opposition was going to come from the other side. The right hon. Member for the City of London and a good many of our people think that we have got nothing.
I did not say that. I said "very little."
At any rate, it is a further outlet from the very difficult position in which we were, and the great dock authorities are content with the concession that has been made. We have to prove a very serious state of affairs before we can get an arbitrator who will hear our case. We have to appeal in the first instance to the highest legal authority in England or Scotland, and we have to convince that authority that our case is not merely a trumped up case. That is a serious barrier to be placed in our way. We have agreed, because we trust to the justice and knowledge of that legal authority. Then comes the question—What are you to get the appeal upon? All through the Committee we said that it is not to be on a small matter. Who is to define whether it is a small or a large matter. We have agreed to this concession, that it is to be on a very serious matter. If a Minister came and said: "I want you to alter that bridge, or to put rails along the front of the dock, which I think would help traffic," no one could ever conceive that there would be serious objection. After thirty-two years experience of dock authorities, I do not know of any dock authority in this country that would not help a Minister in matters of that kind. But if he is going to do something serious, which is going to injure the port, such as the diversion of traffic, or keeping on unnecessary undertakings, or parts of docks or sheds which we think unnecessary then we will say to this legal authority: "We think that that is unreasonable and injurious to the port." The dock authorities who have come to their present state of efficiency, which is acknowledged even by the Ministers in charge of this Bill, have gone a long way to meet the Government. There has been nothing underhand in their action. There is no ulterior motive. I do not know what my hon. Friend on the other side all through the Committee stage meant by the position which he took up. I am afraid that that is the great hindrance to any proper co-operation—that the other side always distrusts.I am not going to follow the speaker who made a violent attack on the shipowners. I do not think that this Bill is the occasion; if it were, I would have taken the opportunity to defend my trade in a proper way. But I am not going to divert my mind from the subject under discussion to any further attack. The great aim of every properly managed dock authority is to get the traffic quickly handled and get the ships quickly turned round. I happen to be one of the much maligned shipowners, and therefore, when sitting on a Dock Board, one of its greatest critics. One of the things that have combined to produce the congestion that has been referred to is due to the railway rates on goods never having been raised since the War began. In some cases they were even reduced, while the coasting trade could not live without putting its rates up. The consequence is that the great coastal trade of our country, which carried. hundreds of thousands of tons around our coasts, is killed off at the present moment, and of course once a port begins to be congested, goods are put into a shed and axe put up in double stories, and then when a cart: comes to get its load, you cannot go to the bottom because of the enormous amount of labour required to take off the super-encumbrance. The congestion then is not directly owing to any fault of the dock authorities, but to the railway companies, which are carrying hundreds of thousands of tons, far below cost, which the coastal lines are quite prepared to carry on a commercial basis. To get back to the point. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but so much latitude has been taken that I thought that I might take some. But in conclusion, I have only to say that I believe that, owing to the united efforts of the Government and the dock undertakings, a workable arrangement has been come to, and I believe that a great many who took the view that the docks ought to be excluded altogether will be content with this as a compromise. We live in an age of compromise, and when all is said and done the Minister has got a great deal of power which I do not believe any Minister would ever have got except at the present time. I hope that the compromise will prove to be satisfactory.
"That those words be there inserted."
(seated and covered) On a point of Order. Is it competent for an hon. Member to be smoking in the House of Commons, as the hon. Member at the end of the Opposition Bench is doing?
It is competent for him to smoke, but it would be distinctly disorderly.
Division No. 50.]
|Adair, Rear-Admiral||Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Crott, Brig.-Gen. Henry page||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Ainsworth, Captain C.||Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)||Johnson, L. S.|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin||Davidson, major-Gen. Sir John H.||Johnstone, J.|
|Armitage, Robert||Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)|
|Astor, major Hon. Waldorf||Davies, T. (Cirencester)||Jones, G. W H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Atkey, A. R.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)|
|Austin, Sir H.||Denison-Pender, John C.||Joynson-Hicks, William|
|Bagley, Captain E. A.||Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Dockrell, Sir M.||Kidd, James|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Doyle, N. Grattan||Kiley, James Daniel|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Duncannon, Viscount||King, Com, Douglas|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.||Du Pre, Colonel W. B.||Knight, Capt. E. A.|
|Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-||Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)||Knights, Capt. H.|
|Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)||Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)||Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)||Lane-Fox, Major G. R.|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Eyres-Monsell, Commander||Larmor, Sir J.|
|Barnett, Captain Richard W.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Law, A. J. (Rochdale)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Barrand, A. R.||Fell, Sir Arthur||Lewis, Rt Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Lister, Sir R. Ashton|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Lorden, John William|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Foreman, H.||Lort-Williams, J.|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Forestier-Walker, L.||Lowe, Sir F. w.|
|Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)||Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.||Lowther, Major c. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)||Foxcroft, Captain C.||M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)|
|Bennett, T. J.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Gange, E. S.||M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)|
|Birchall, Major J. D.||Ganzoni, Captain F. C.||Macleod, John Mackintosh|
|Bird, Alfred||Gardiner, J. (Perth)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Blades, Sir George R||Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)||McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)|
|Blair, Major Reginald||Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Mallalieu, Frederick William|
|Blane, T. A.||Gilbert, James Daniel||Marriott, John Arthur R.|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Martin, A. E.|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Gould, J. C.||Mason, Robert|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-||Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.||Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.|
|Bowles, Col. H. F.||Grant, James Augustus||Mitchell, William Lane-|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Greame, Major p. Lloyd-||Molson, Major John Elsdale|
|Boyd Carpenter, Major A.||Green, A. (Derby)||Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.|
|Brackenbury, Col. H. L.||Greer, Harry||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.|
|Brassey, H. L. C.||Greig, Colonel James William||Morrison, H. (Salisbury)|
|Breese, Major C. E.||Gretton, Colonel John||Mosley, Oswald|
|Brittain, Sir Harry E.||Griggs, Sir Peter||Mount, William Arthur|
|Britton, G. B.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Murchison, C. K.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hacking, Captain D. H.||Murray, Lt. Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)|
|Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)||Hailwood, A.||Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Murray, John (Leeds, W.)|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)||Murray, William (Dumfries)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)||Haslam, Lewis||Nall, Major Joseph|
|Campbell, J. G. D.||Henderson, Major V. L.||Neal, Arthur|
|Campion, Colonel W. R.||Hennessy, Major G.||Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)|
|Carr, W. T.||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon||Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)||Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.||Nicholson, w. (Petersfield)|
|Casey, T. W.||Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Cayzer, Major H. R.||Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hinds, John||O'Connor, T. P.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir- Samuel J. G.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hope, Harry (Stirling)||Parker, James|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)||Parry, Major Thomas Henry|
|Cheyne, Sir William Watson||Hope, John Deans (Berwick)||Pearce, Sir William|
|Clyde, James Avon||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Cohen, Major J. B. B.||Howard, Major S. G.||Perring, William George|
|Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.||Hudson, R. M.||Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)|
|Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)||Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)||Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)||Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A, G.||Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray|
|Courthope, Major George Loyd||Hurd, P. A.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)||Hurst, Major G. B.||Pratt, John William|
The House divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 62.
|Prescott, Major W. H.||Seddon, J. A.||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Purchase, H, G.||Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Rae, H. Norman||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Raeburn, Sir William||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Raffan, peter Wilson||Simm, Colonel M. T.||Wardie, George J.|
|Ramsden, G. T.||Smith, Harold (Warrington)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander||Watson, Captain John Bertrand|
|Raper, A. Baldwin||Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville||Weston, Col. John W.|
|Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.||Starkey, Capt. John Ralph||Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.|
|Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)||Steel, Major S. Strang||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Remer, J. B.||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.||Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson|
|Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson||Stevens, Marshall||Wild, Sir Ernest Edward|
|Renwick, G.||Stewart, Gershom||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Richardson, Alex, (Gravesend)||Strauss, Edward Anthony||Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)|
|Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Sugden, W. H.||Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald|
|Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)||Sutherland, Sir William||Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Rodger, A. K.||Sykes, Col Sir A. J. (Knutsford)||Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.|
|Rothchild, Lionel de||Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)||Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)|
|Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)||Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)|
|Rowlands, James||Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Royden, Sir Thomas||Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund||Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)|
|Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)||Thomas-Stanford, Charles||Woolcock, W. J. U.|
|Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)||Tickler, Thomas George||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)||Tryon, Major George Clement||Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)|
|Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur||Turton, Edmund Russborough||Young, William (Perth and Kinross)|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.||Vickers, D.||Younger, Sir George|
|Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)||Waddington, R.|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E
|Seager, Sir William||Wallace, J.||Talbot and Captain F. Guest.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Hartshorn, V.||Sitch, C. H.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hayday, A.||Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hayward, Major Evan||Smith, W. (Wellingborough)|
|Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.||Hogge, J. M.||Spencer, George A.|
|Bramsdon, Sir T.||Holmes, J. S.||Spoor, B. G.|
|Briant, F.||Jones, J. (Silvertown)||Sturrock, J. Leng-|
|Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander||Swan, J. E. C.|
|Cape, Tom||Kenyon, Barnet||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Carter, W. (Mansfield)||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lunn, William||Tootill, Robert|
|Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)||Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)||Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Waterson, A. E.|
|Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)||Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)||Wignall, James|
|Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)||Newbould, A. E.||Williams, J (Gower, Glam.)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||O'Grady, James||Williams, Col P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Rendall, Athelstan||Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Green, J. F. (Leicester)||Richardson, R. (Houghton)||Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)||Sexton, James|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lt.-Col
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Short, A. (Wednesbury)||W. Thorne and Mr T. Griffiths.|
I beg to move to leave out the words,
and to insert instead thereof the words,"Provided that, if the owners consider that any such requirements of the Minister are unreasonable, they may appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of any undertaking situate in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator may annul the order or allow the same with or without modification,"
"and may for that purpose confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of that Section.
Provided that if the owners of such undertaking consider that any such requirements of the Minister are likely to be seriously injurious to the undertaking, or to the trade of the port, they may appeal, in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales to the Lord Chief Justice of England, or in the case of an under taking situate in Scotland, to the Lord President of the Court of Session, or, in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and if it appears to such Lord Chief Justice or Lord President that a promâ facie case made out that the requirements of the Minister would be so injurious as aforesaid he shall forth with appoint an arbitrator to hold an immediate inquiry, and if the arbitrator reports that the carrying out of the requirements of the Minister will be so injurious as aforesaid the Minister shall revoke his requirements, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to issue a new order."
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause,"
put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
I have a small Amendment, but it is of considerable importance in its results. I beg to move, after the word "may" ["Trade of the port, they may appeal"], to insert the words,
The object of this Amendment is to limit the length of time that the owners of docks and harbours will have in which they might lodge their appeal. The whole purpose of this Bill is limited to two years. One of the great points which the Committee had in their mind upstairs was to avoid any obstruction which could absorb any large portion of two years, and so prevent the working experimentally and otherwise of the Bill. If these words are not inserted in the Clause, an indefinite time might elapse before the harbour authority had made up its mind whether or not it should appeal, and then having made up its mind to appeal, and having lodged notice with all the necessary details entailed, a very considerable time might elapse so as to paralyse and stagnate the action which the Minister had in his mind in making the Order in the first instance. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who is very much associated with me in endeavouring to make the most perfect provision in this Clause, is likely to agree with the purpose of the Amendment. I beg leave to move that those words be there inserted."within seven days of receiving notice of such requirement from the Minister."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Do I understand that the Under-Secretary to the Minister-designate seconds the Amendment? This is an agreed Clause between the Minister and myself and other Members, and here is an Amendment seconded by the Under-Secretary to the Minister when no other Member rose in his place to do so. Of course, the hon. Member has a right, as has every Member, to second any Amendment he likes, but I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should think it right to do so. I hope my hon. Friend who moved will not press this Amendment. He did mention it to me, but if you make the dock authorities accept or reject within seven days, the result would be that the common form of the dock trustees and authorities who cannot get together in that time to order an appeal in every case. The much better plan is that of the Clause, trust the Minister and the dock and harbour authorities to come to terms. We do not want arbitration and legal proceedings, and the best way to avoid that is for the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the port and dock authorities and not put them to the necessity of accepting his suggestion in seven days. The Under-Secretary who has seconded was present at the consultation when the works of the Clause were agreed upon.
I would remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member who seconded is not a member of the Government.
He is an Under-Secretary.
He is not a member of the Government. It did seem, I confess, to me that this is a matter that ought to be discussed and if seven days is insufficient we can amend it to a month. It is a matter which we overlooked and does not. go to the root or affect the principle of the Bill.
Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest a month?
I think we should be obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) for the remarks he has just made in which he has given away the whole show. Apparently Amendments approved by that hon. Gentleman and his friends are to be let through. I would like to take the opportunity of protesting, and to use this Amendment as the peg to hang that protest against most unconstitutional proceedings. I am not very adept in the constitution, but I do know this, that you have certain members who make arrangements and agreements that certain things are to be done, and we have a House which is more or less pledged to support the Government right or wrong, thick or thin. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I fought at the General Election, and I know something about it. I know the speeches that were made on that occasion. I am in support of the Amendment, but I think it is a deliberate affront, using the words without any disrespect, to our intelligence that these arrangements should be made in this way. Here is a Bill on which a tremendous lot of work was done in Committee, and now certain conversations. take place not on the floor of the House, and we do not know what arguments were used. As I have said, I think the Amendment is most reasonable. Time is a most important factor in connection with the Bill, and I think seven days is sufficiently long for business men for any protest to be made, and if my hon. Friend divides I shall certainly support him.
By leave of the House, I would desire to insert "thirty" instead of "seven."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, after the word "may" ["may appeal"], to insert the words
"within thirty days of receiving notice of such requirements from the Minister."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The "Noes" have it.
I ask hon. Members who challenge my statement to rise in their places.
A number of hon. Members having risen,
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
I desire to oppose this Clause because it cuts down the power of the Minister of
Division No. 51.]
|Adair, Rear-Admiral||Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Bird, Alfred|
|Adkins, Sir W, Ryland D.||Barnett, Captain Richard W.||Blair, Major Reginald|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Barnston, Major Harry||Blake, Sir Francis Douglas|
|Ainsworth, Captain C.||Barrand, A. R.||Blane, T. A.|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col, Martin||Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.|
|Armitage, Robert||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Borwick, Major G. O.|
|Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.||Beck, Arthur Cecil||Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-|
|Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf||Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Bowles, Col. H. F.|
|Atkey, A. R.||Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.|
|Austin, Sir H.||Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)||Brackenbury, Col. H. L.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)||Brassey, H. L. C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bentinck, Lt.-John. Lord H. Cavendish-||Breese, Major C. E.|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.||Bethell, Sir John Henry||Brittain, Sir Harry E.|
|Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-||Bigland, Alfred||Broad, Thomas Tucker|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)||Birchall, Major J. D.||Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)|
Ways and Communications. I think it is necessary to give special powers in order to get the transport question fully dealt with. This proposal must limit the powers of the Minister as otherwise it would not be acceptable to the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and those associated with him. I consider it necessary that the Minister should have strong powers, particularly with regard to harbours and docks. I am speaking for the fourth port in the United Kingdom and which is much neglected. Those very important harbours and docks are now used to the full at present, while other ports are congested. Therefore it is most necessary that there should be some central authority to arrange these matters, and therefore I object to any weakening of the powers of the Minister-designate with regard to ports and docks, although that may be an obstacle in the way of eventual nationalisation which I suppose is the real object of some hon. Gentlemen. I think the Minister should have power to act at once and quickly, and on a large scale. I believe he is capable of doing so. Although I am opposed to this Government, I saw some of the right hon. Gentleman's work at the Board of Admiralty when he was First Lord, and I believe he can be trusted to do this work efficiently. I consider this Amendment most mischievous and one which should be opposed.
I think it is as well that hon. Members should understand that the docks and port of Hull are railway-owned.
There is no good of taking one dock under the Ministry and not another.
"That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 55.
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.||Henderson, Major V. L.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Bull Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hennessy, Major G.||Palmer, Major G.M. (Jarrow)|
|Buruon, Colonel Rowland||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)||Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon||Parker, James|
|Campbell, J. G. D.||Hickman, Brig,-Gen. Thomas E.||Pearce, Sir William|
|Campion, Colonel W. R.||Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Carr W. T.||Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)||Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)||Hinds, John||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Casey, T. W.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.||Percy, Charles|
|Cayzer, Major H, R.||Hope, Harry (Stirling)||Perkins, Waiter Frank|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Perring, William George|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Ft. (Hitchin)||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)||Philipps, Gen. Sir l. (Southampton)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Cheyne, Sir William Watson||Houston, Robert Paterson||Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Howard, Major S. G.||Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray|
|Cohen, Major J. B. B.||Hudson, R. M.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Pratt, John William|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis||Prescott, Major W. H.|
|Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)||Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)||Purchase, H. G.|
|Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.||Rae, H. Norman|
|Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)||Hurst, Major G. B.||Raeburn, Sir William|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Courthope, Major George Loyd||Jephcott, A. R.||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)||Johnson, L. S.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Johnstone, J.||Raper, A. Baldwin|
|Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.|
|Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Crocks, Rt. Hon. William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)||Reid, D. D.|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Remer, J. B.|
|Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)||Renwick, G.|
|Davies, T. (Cirencester)||King, Com. Douglas||Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Denison-Pender, John C.||Knight, Capt. E. A.||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.||Knights, Capt. H.||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Dixon, Captain H.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)|
|Dockrell, Sir M.||Lane-Fox, Major G. R-||Rodger, A. K.|
|Donald, T.||Larmor, Sir J.||Rothchild, Lionel de|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Law, A. J. (Rochdale)||Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.|
|Duncannon, Viscount||Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)||Rowlands, James|
|Du Pre, Colonel W. B.||Lewis, Rt. Hen. J. H. (Univ. Wales)||Royden, Sir Thomas|
|Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)||Lister, Sir R. Ashton||Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund|
|Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)|
|Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)||Lonsdale, James R||Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)|
|Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)||Lorden, John William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander||Lort-Williams, J.||Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)|
|Farquharson, Major A. C.||Lowe, Sir F. W.||Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur|
|fell, Sir Arthur||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||M 'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)||Seager, Sir William|
|Foreman, H||McMicking, Major Gilbert||Seddon, J. A.|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)||Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)|
|Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.||Macquisten, F, A.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C.||Mallalieu, Frederick William||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)|
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Marriott, John Arthur R.||Simm, Colonel M. T.|
|Gange, E. S.||Martin, A. E.||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Ganzoni, Captain F. C.||Mason, Robert||Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander|
|Gardiner, J. (Perth)||Middlebrook, Sir William||Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville|
|Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)||Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.||Starkey, Capt. John Ralph|
|Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)||Mitchell, William Lane-||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Molson, Major John Elsdale||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.||Stevens, Marshall|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Gould, J. C.||Morrison, H. (Salisbury)||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.||Mosley, Oswald||Sugden, W. H.|
|Gray, Major E.||Mount, William Arthur||Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.|
|Greame, Major P. Lloyd-||Murchison, C. K.||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Green, A. (Derby)||Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)||Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)|
|Green, J. F. (Leicester)||Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Greer, Harry||Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)||Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)|
|Gregory, Holman||Murray, John (Leeds, W.)||Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Murray, William (Dumfries)||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Nall, Major Joseph||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Griggs, Sir Peter||Neal, Arthur||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)||Tickler, Thomas George|
|Hacking, Captain D. H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Hailwood, A.||Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)||Vickers, D.|
|Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Nield, Sir Herbert||Waddington, R.|
|Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)||O'Connor, T. P.||Wallace, J.|
|Haslam, Lewis||O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.||Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)|
|Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)||Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)|
|Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)||Wood. Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)|
|Wardle, George J.||Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Watson, Captain John Bertrand||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald||Woolcock, W. J. U.|
|Weigail, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.||Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Weston, Col. John W.||Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.||Yea, Sir Alfred William|
|Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.||Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)||Young, William (Perth and Kinross)|
|White, Col. G.D. (Southport)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)||Younger, Sir George|
|Whitla, Sir William||Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)|
|Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.
|Wild, Sir Ernest Edward||Wilson-Fox. Henry||F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.|
|Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Hay day, A.||Sitch, C. H.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hayward, Major Evan||Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Smith, W. (Wellingborough)|
|Bramsdon, Sir T.||Holmes, J. s.||Spencer, George A.|
|Briant, F.||Jones, J. (Silvertown)||Spoor, B. G.|
|Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander||Swan, J. E C.|
|Cape, Tom||Kenyon, Barnet||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Carter, W. (Mansfield)||Lunn, William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Tootill, Robert|
|Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Newbould, A. E.||Wignall, James|
|Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)||O'Grady, James||Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Rendall, Atheistan||Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Richardson, R. (Houghton)||Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)||Sexton, James|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lt.-Col.
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Short, A. (Wednesbury)||W. Thorne and Mr- T. Griffiths.|
The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of Sir F. Banbury: