SUPPLY (Hansard, 15 April 1946)

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Order because my attention has been drawn to the ex parte statement which you gave from the Chair to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett)—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has no right to say that I made an ex parte statement.

§ Mr. Hale
I withdraw that expression. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you misunderstood me. I meant ex parte in the sense that the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow properly and rightly asked for the information because he had a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper following mine. It was ex parte in the sense that he had no opportunity of letting me know. I should not for a moment say that the reply you gave, Mr. Speaker, was not given without consideration; but you were good enough to say you would hear representations from me today on whether or not the Motion of which I gave notice was in Order, and whether it was permissible to discuss the subject matter on the Amendment to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," which is to be taken today. It might, therefore, be permissible for me to say that the question which I am seeking to discuss refers to the payment of pensions and allowances to parents who lost their sons or daughters during the last war. I do not think it will be necessary for me to submit to the Chair that the question of the payment of pay, allowances or pensions to members of the Armed Forces of the Crown has been from time immemorial part of the prerogative of the Crown, subject to any statutory limitations which may have been made in recent years. That was reasserted by Statute on the restoration of King Charles II, subject to 2366 the limitations imposed subsequently by the Declaration of Rights Act, 1688. That has been the position up to this day. The only statutory limitation that has been made upon that power is contained in the two Acts of Parliament referring to the functions of the Ministry of Pensions. They were passed during the war of 1914–18, and during the recent war. The Act of 1916 transferred to the Ministry of Pensions the rights and powers of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea in dealing with pensions. That is done under Section 2 of that Act. It is material to mention that Section 1 of that Act expressly referred to the Minister the right of consultation with the Financial Secretary to the War Office. That is a particularly valuable right, in view of the present Financial Secretary's known experience of these matters.
The Act reserved the rights of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea with reference to in-patients. The question of what are the powers of the Commissioners with regard to in-patients at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, has been the subject of Royal Commissions appointed by this House on several occasions. The Act of 1916 was virtually repealed by the Act of 192o which re-transferred to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, the rights that had been taken away from them by the Act of 1916 except in so far as has reference to disability occasioned during the period of the war of 1914–18. There is an exceedingly important matter that arises upon the Act of 1939. The same procedure was not adopted there. In 1939 an omnibus Act was passed giving the Crown power, by Order in Council, to transfer certain matters to the Ministry of Pensions. The transfer was made by Statutory Rule and Order No. 1194 of 1939. That Statutory Rule and Order again reserved the rights of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea in dealing with in-patients at the Royal Hospital. Now I would say at once, with all respect to the Chair, that the Order in Council cannot preclude the rights of a Member of this House to raise by a Motion on the Order Paper a matter affecting the Royal prerogative to the Minister who is charged with the discharge of that prerogative. In any event, it is my respectful submission that the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have 2367 the right, in dealing with this matter, to make payments of pensions.
The Royal Hospital at Chelsea was established in the reign of King Charles II —I believe on the recommendation of a Miss Gwyn—but the theory that it was built up out of profits from the orange business, is not founded on fact. It was built up by compulsory levies, made under Royal Warrant, of 1s. in the £from the pay of all serving soldiers. It was made up of Army prize money—a matter upon which certain observations might well be made at this moment—and it was also made up of the legacies of charitably disposed persons, who left substantial sums for the enlargement of the hospital and make provision for the relatives and dependants of soldiers. I refer in particular to the Drouly legacy, which made provision for the widows of inmates of the Royal Hospital of Chelsea. The powers that were previously exercised under Royal Warrant, and the statutory authority and the power of dealing with all pensions, were transferred to the Royal Hospital at Chelsea by the Act of 1826. By a later Act the administration of Army prize money was also transferred to them. In 1838, under the Drouly Act, the moneys then standing to the credit of the trustees of the Drouly Bequest, which had been left for the purpose of providing pensions for widows of members serving in the Army, was transferred to the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea.
Although the Army Estimates are not now published in detail, I have before me the last full Estimates—those for the year 1938–39—in which there is an item which shows that there was standing to the credit of the Secretary of State for War, or rather of the Commissioner of the Royal Hospital, under the Drouly legacy a sum of £8,876 with various other items otherwise invested under the Stewart legacy. These, with other sums, total well over £30,000 invested in respect of this and other legacies. There is a very well-known doctrine—the cy près doctrine—applied in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Judicature, that where the objects of a charity fail, the courts will have power to apply that doctrine, and try to achieve the testator's beneficent object by bringing them as closely as possible into line with the objects originally propounded. It is clear 2368 that the money left by Colonel John Drouly can be applied for the benefit of parents who lost their sons in the Forces. When one Commission had been sitting on one of these cases, they found that part of the money had been spent to provide an iron fence round the Chillianwallah memorial, and it was said that this was justifiable because it was a benefit to the inmates of the Royal Hospital. If one can build a fence with money left for widows, surely one can pay parents' pensions with it. It is thus made quite clear that the income is still derived from these same sources by the following reference of the Commission to the Drouly Legacy: A sum of £1,000 and a moiety of the residue of his property was, in the year 1918, left by Colonel John Drouly, Governor of the Cowes Castle in the isle of Wight, ' to be applied for the use and benefit of the pensioners of the Hospital, in such manner as the governors and directors for the time being shall from time to time direct.…The amount now standing to the credit of this fund and invested in Consols is £7,460 as. 7d… The expenditure from the Drouly Fund is chiefly for the payment of small allowances to pensioners … Expenditure was also incurred from this Fund for the erection of an iron fence surrounding the Chillianwallah Monument, which is a conspicuous feature in the Hospital Grounds. As it did not appear to be quite clear that such expenditure was in conformity with Colonel Drouly's will … etc. Anyhow, they made inquiries and said they were satisfied. There is also the Ranelagh legacy, which was left by the Earl of Ranelagh in 1711, and is still incorporated in the Fund, was left for the provision of surtout coats. So far as my inquiries go, these coats went out of fashion in 1809, and that money is still available for the benefit of the persons concerned. I now come to the practical point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very grateful for the indulgence of the House, and I am endeavouring to be brief. I have set down a Motion upon Vote 14 of the Army Estimates, which deals with the Funds of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. There are available very large sums for charitable purposes. I appreciate the courtesy which I have had from the Chair and also from the Clerks at the Table, but, as I understand the Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, it is based on the proposition that pensions are wholly within the control of the Minister of Pensions and that that matter cannot be raised on the Army Estimates. 2369 I respectfully desire to submit the following considerations for your notice on that matter.
The House is, at the moment, considering the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and this is an Amendment to that Motion. The House has no assurance that the Motion will be carried. Indeed, if it were the will of the House that the Army should be disbanded, or that it should not continue to be paid, the technical method to achieve that would be to vote against the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I appreciate that it is subject to the limitations laid down in Standing Order 16, but, in my submission, it is open for an hon. Member, who is raising the question of new expenditure—not an extension of existing expenditure, because there are no basic pensions provided for at the moment in any Statute, Order or Warrant—to move that on any Estimate which he considers appropriate, if he is fortunate enough to have his name drawn in the Ballot for these Motions. I appreciate the force of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I have no doubt that it would have been much better for the House to discuss this matter on the Civil Estimates, but these were not open to me. I have limited my Motion to persons serving in the Army, and, in my submission, it can be discussed on the Army Estimates, because there are funds available for this purpose.
A second point arises. The Motion originally announced by me referred to pensions only, but what is now before the House is the question of pensions or allowances. I understand that it has been suggested that this extension of the terms of the original Motion would rule it out of Order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to refer to page 232 of Erskine May on that matter. I have it before me, although I do not wish to quote it. In my submission, it is always open to the House to discuss an extended Motion on this matter if it is the will of the House that it should be done, and it is open to the Chair to take the will of the House in that matter. Erskine May quotes three authorities on this question on page 232. In these circumstances, I desire, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make these submissions:
2370 That, inasmuch as the power of the Minister of Pensions in this matter is derived by Order in Council, an Order in Council cannot preclude the right of a Member of this House to raise a question affecting the Royal Prerogative to the Minister charged with the administration of the affairs arising out of that Prerogative.
That there is nothing in the Rules of the House to preclude a Member setting down, on the consideration of any Estimates which he may consider appropriate, a new proposal for a new provision not previously authorised by the House.
That under the application of the charitable doctrine of cy près, the charitable funds invested in the Commissioners of the Royal Chelsea Hospital are available for this purpose, and that, therefore, the matter can be raised on Vote 14 of Army Estimates, 1946.
That under Section I of the Act of 1o16 establishing the Ministry of Pensions, the Minister is entitled to ask for the advice of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and this Motion raises the question of what advice should be given.
That it would be undesirable and inappropriate to set down a Motion to the Ministry of Pensions asking for differentiation in the treatment of the three Services, and that therefore this Motion, as at present drafted, can most properly and most appropriately be dealt with on the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sure the House will congratulate the hon. Member on the speech in which he raised an important point of Order, but I am afraid I cannot be as lengthy in my reply as the hon. Member was in presenting his case. Naturally, I took advice about this matter, and the plain fact of the matter is that I feel that I am bound by the Standing Orders. Standing Order 16 lays down that any question to be raised must relate to the Estimates to be taken in Committee of Supply. The Minister who answers for this particular Estimate will be the Minister of War. If the Motion is accepted, it would then be a matter concerning war pensions, and, therefore, on that account, because we are discussing the Army Estimates and not the War Pensions Estimates, I must rule this Motion out of Order.
2371 For instance, what a dangerous course that would be if we allowed this Rule to be disregarded or treated slackly. Take tomorrow's Debate on the Air Estimates. We should confine the discussion to the Royal Air Force, but, if we had this relaxation of the Rule, we might have a long discussion on the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which is analogous to the Royal Air Force, and which would be answered by another Minister, because it could not be answered by the Secretary of State for Air. We might also have a long discussion on British Overseas Airways and have the question of Prestwick all over again. I am sorry, but I do feel that there is something in the Rules laying it down that we must keep this matter fairly tight, and I regret that I have to rule the hon. Member's Motion out of Order.