CORRECTION. (Hansard, 31 July 1911)

§ Mr. FORSTER
I wish to raise a point which I am not sure is a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reprinted as much of the Bill as the Committee have passed. Looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th July, an Amendment appears to have been moved by my Noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (Lord Henry Bentinck). After a brief explanation the Report goes on:— Mr. Lloyd George: This is a consequential Amendment, and I agree to it. Amendment agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1911, col. 745.] The Amendment does not appear in the reprint of the Bill. I inquired at the Table as to the reason why an Amendment which appeared from the OFFICIAL REPORT to have been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not included in the reprint, and I understand from you, Sir, that you have no record of the acceptance of the Amendment. I am bound to say that I have no recollection of its acceptance either. But I think the point ought to be cleared up, because it is obviously undesirable that there should appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings a statement to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted an 151 Amendment and that Amendment should not appear in the Bill. I quite believe that the difficulties of reporting our proceedings in Committee are very considerable. A great deal of the discussion which takes place, especially on Amendments which are accepted, is in the nature of conversation, and is carried on in a conversational tone. Therefore, it may well happen occasionally that remarks made on the floor of the House do not really reach the Gallery, and proper opportunities for accurate reporting are not afforded. I am not raising this question in a captious spirit. I simply want to get the matter cleared up as to whether the Amendment was accepted or not. I do not know if the matter can be decided at once.

The CHAIRMAN
The Clerks at the Table and I are responsible for keeping the Bill correct. We have examined our papers in which we severally keep a record of the Committee's proceedings, and in all cases there is no mention of this Amendment ever having been moved. I am confident the Amendment was not moved, or, at any rate, was not accepted. I do not think it was ever moved. If I had been in the Chair I should not have allowed it to be moved, because I think it is outside the scope of the Bill, inasmuch as it proposes to give a benefit to the widow, which does not seem to me to be a benefit to an insured person. I am confident that the Bill is correct.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think I can explain the matter. I think these words refer to the next Amendment. The Report states:— Mr. Lees Smith: I beg to move … to leave out the word 'weekly' and to insert instead thereof the word 'periodic' I think I then said "This is a consequential Amendment, and I agree to it," because the same alteration had already been made a little earlier in the afternoon. I think the words had reference to this Amendment, and not to the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Is it intended to take the Committee stage to-morrow and to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I believe that that is the ease. There is no suspension to-night.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think we ought to get this question settled——

§ Mr. GULLAND
I beg to move "That this House do now Adjourn."

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what Bills will be taken on Thursday and Friday?

§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASE
Supply will be taken on Thursday; the Prime Minister will say to-morrow what Supply, and also what business will be taken on Friday.