I am afraid the second appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no more convincing than the first. We are being seriously asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer no think that it is a mere coincidence that three of his own supporters should have their names down to an Amendment. Then we are told seriously that it is not for their convenience that we should postpone this particular Clause. It was the Chancellor, in one of his historical speeches before he joined the party to which he now belongs, who told us that the Tory party was one of great vested interests. It is of interest to know that among the three Members who have their names down in connection with this particular Clause is the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who evidently is not physically able to be here at this time in the morning. If it had been a question of silver coinage or bad coinage, on which we have often heard him, he would probably have been here. I feel sure this particular Clause has something historical about it. It caused some trouble 12 months ago. Then, there is the Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who, I understand, represents the great financial interests, and the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). I think Yarmouth is famous for bloaters, and this if apparently a red herring drawn across our track. Surely, when Members on this side of the Committee have attended to their work since 10 o'clock yesterday morning, they should not be asked to postpone this particular Clause. Members on this side, I am sure, are prepared to go on with the business. I feel sure that if the Chancellor made an appeal to the Attorney-General he would wake up.