§ (Considered in Committee.)
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Schedule 1.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
thought this schedule ought to be explained to the House. There would be some 300 or 400 people included in this corporation, and he would like to know if the Government could quote any precedent for setting up such a body as this. He begged to, move his Amendment.
In page 3, line 4, to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Mr.Lough.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PNETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)
said it was clear that the management of this fund must necessarily involve a numerous body, and the object of the Bill was to give power to all the local interests concerned to have their views represented on the central association, which would number altogether 215. The executive committee would be a business-like body of small dimensions. The suggestion that beneficiaries should be represented was practically impossible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
* SIR A. HAYTUR (Walsall)
moved to insert in the schedule "the lords lieutenant of counties." He said the object of the Bill was to form a central advisory council which should be in communication with the Committees for local funds in the counties. Hitherto most valuable assistance had been received from the lords lieutenant of counties, who were to a certain extent representatives of their respective counties, and at a meeting recently held at the United Service Institution they offered to continue that assistance. If the lords lieutenant were added to the body considerable sums, at present in their hands, which otherwise would remain locally in the counties, would be paid into the general fund.
In pare 3, line 8, after the word 'members' to insert the words '(b) The lords lieutenant of counties.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devoriport)
said the reason this Bill had been introduced was that the Patriotic Commissioners had lost the confidence of the public, and the cause of that loss of confidence was the unrepresentative character of the Commission. This Amendment would introduce 1714 the very element which had made the existing body so unpopular. If the new body was to succeed it was necessary that it should gain public approval at the outset, and that would be rendered impossible by the acceptance of this Amendment. He might say that he was consulted before the Measure was introduced; and in the scheme as originally drawn, the lords lieutenant were included, but after considerable discussion the Prime, Minister and his advisers came round to his way of thinking, and the lords Isieutenant were struck out. He hoped that that decision would not now be gone back upon.
§ MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham)
thought the country would not share the alarm of the hon. Member for Devonport with regard to the admission of the lords lieutenant. In the composition of this body he presumed the Government had mainly in mind the collection of funds. During the late war t he country showed its confidence in the lords lieutenant by placing in their hands enormous sums of money for distribution, and he believed the collection of funds in the present instance would be greatly assisted by the lords lieutenant being added to the authority. The body was already so large and unwieldy that the addition of another hundred members would not matter. The best beggars in the world were parsons and Peers, and if they could not get the parsons they might as well have a few of the Peers.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said the argument of the hon. Member for Fulham was in favour of placing all the Peers and all the Bishops on this body. It was already exceedingly unwieldy, and he assumed that the decision to appoint the chairmen of the County Councils had been taken as an alternative to putting on the lords lieutenant. He understood on the introduction of the Bill that a decision had been come to against this change, and he hoped that decision would be adhered to.
§ LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)
hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It would be a 1715 great improvement to the Bill, and would greatly facilitate the collection of money at critical times.
MR. STOPFORD SACRVILLE (Northamptonshire, N.)
said that if the choice were between chairmen of County Councils and the lords lieutenant of the counties, he should say that the latter were the better men for appointment on this body. The chairmen of County Councils were elected for a year, and might not have any interest in military matters, whereas he did not know a single lord lieutenant who was not greatly interested in charities and military affairs.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said it was perfectly true that this matter was considered by the hon. Member for Devonport and those who were preparing the Bill, and that, in order not to have too large a body, it was thought that the lords lieutenant should be excluded. That
§ was the arrangement then made. Of course it was open to reconsideration, and the House would agree that there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. They did not want a too unwieldy body, but, on the other hand, the lords lieutenant were those who had mainly identified themselves with the collection of subscriptions. He would, however, leave the House to decide the question for itself.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
thought they were entitled to have the views of the Government. Surely they had some predilections upon it.
§ * SIR A. HAYTER,
speaking from practical experience, commended the good work done by lords lieutenant.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 29. (Division List No. 228.)1717
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Godson, Sir Angustus Frederick||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Purvis, Robert|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Groves, James Grimble||Bandies, John S.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G. (Midx||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hayne, on. Charles Seale-||Rigg, Richard|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Heath, James (Stappds. N. W.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Bull, William James||Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Campbell J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.||Law, Andrew Bonar Glasgow||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR||Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn J.A (Worc.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.||Staidey, Edward Jas. (Sowerset)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lowe, Francis William||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Doughty, George||Lueas, Reginald, J.(Portsmouth)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Macdona, John Cumming||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Elibank, Master of||Milvain, Thomas||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wrightson, Sir Thomson|
|Faber, Edmund B.(Gamts, W.)||Morgan, David. J. (Walthamst'w||Wylie, Alexander|
|Fellowes. Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)|
|Forster, Henry William||Nicholson, William Graham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Sir Arthur Hayter and|
|Fyler, John Arthur||Partington, Oswald||Mr. Hayes Fisher.|
|Gibbs, Hn A.G.H. (City of Lond.||Percy, Earl|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Moss, Samuel||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Caldwell, James||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Toulmin, George|
|Fenwick, Charles||Price, Robert John||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Priestley, Arthur||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Russell||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Levy, Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lough, Thomas||Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Shackleton, David James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Mr. Kearley and Mr. Ellis|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Spear, John Ward||Griffith.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
moved to insert in the first schedule, line 15, after "county" the words "and municipal." He said the object was to enable the mayors of municipal boroughs to be appointed. He knew about the work in connection with the local funds, and it would be for the advantage of all concerned to have the corporations represented.
In page 4, line 15, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'and municipal.'"—(Mr. Sharldeton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said he had great sympathy with the Amendment, but he could not accept it. He did not think it was necessary to appoint the mayors of municipal boroughs. It had not been the practice in the past, and probably would not be in the future, to raise a fund in all municipal boroughs. It had been done in a few exceptional cases, but they could not legislate for exceptional cases. He thought the municipal boroughs were amply represented by the chairman of the County Council or other representatives of the county.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.