PREMIUM BONDS. (Hansard, 13 November 1917)

§ Sir G. TOULMIN
Can I make any remarks upon this Motion?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If they are relevant.

§ Sir G. TOULMIN
This Motion was being passed last night in a very thin House, and it seemed to me—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member, I believe, wishes to make a speech upon the first Order of the Day ["Premium Bonds; Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November"].We have not yet reached that.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Which Orders does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to-day?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
We shall take as many as we can. We certainly expect—and I hope the House will allow us—to get the first four—

1. Premium Bonds; Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November].

2. Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Bill; Second Reading.

3. Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Local Committees) Bill; Committee.

4. Supply; Committee. [Civil Services Supplementary Estimate, 1917-18.]

§ Sir G. TOULMIN
This Resolution was being discussed last night in a very thin House, probably not more than half a dozen Members being present, in addition to those on the Ministerial Bench. It is fitting that at least a quorum should decide this preliminary step to the House possibly adopting a financial device to which there 238 would be, in my opinion, a great deal of opposition. The Leader of the House has been most successful both in the measures he has taken to provide what is necessary for the conduct of the War in regard to, Loans and in regard to taxation. In fact, he has had the entire support of the House in regard to the whole of his financial policy. Personally, I do not doubt that the House will support him, however drastic his proposals may be in regard to those things which are necessary to provide for the conduct of the War. The, House showed no desire to oppose him when he foreshadowed the strongest measures, and this afternoon, when he himself said that he was prepared to take money wherever he could find it, he was not greeted in a way that disappointed him. I desire to express the opinion that the step suggested by the appointment of this Committee is a debasing of our finance which will have most regrettable results. No primâa facie case has been made out to justify us in even appointing a Committee to inquire into the matter. There is no suggestion that any large amount of new money would be found by such a device. Some of the arguments used in favour of the proposal into which this Committee is to inquire involve a gross insult to the working classes. It is suggested that unless this device is carried into effect, whereby they may be bribed by a lottery to invest their money, there is a large number of people who would be in favour of repudiation. I do not for a moment think that that is the case, and that argument is most degrading. I was prepared to suggest another name for the purpose of argument, but as it is invidious to do so, I content myself with opposing this Resolution.

§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There was so much discussion in this part of the House that we did not observe whether you said the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had it. Will you kindly tell us whether the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The "Noes" ceased their challenge, and I said the "Ayes" had it.

§ Mr. KING
May I move that two of the names be omitted?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
To which names does the hon Member object?

§ Mr. KING
To that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry) and to that of the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams).
Motion made, and Question, "That Sir Edward Coates, Sir John Fleming, and Mr. Laurence Hardy be members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Charles Henry be a member of the said Committee."

§ Mr. KING
I think that this Committee ought to be impartial and I object to any names being placed upon it which are names of those gentlemen who have been identified with a propaganda, continued now for over a year, in favour of this proposal. Personally, if this Committee reports in favour of the scheme of premium bonds, I shall cease any further opposition, provided that the Committee is fairly nominated and does not consist more of partisans than of open-minded men. There are two hon. Members in this House for whom I have the greatest respect and from whose opinion I only differ with great regret. I mean the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire (Sir C Henry) and the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams). They have been for a long time rolling this log up the hill with great difficulty, and I propose that now they should cease from their labours by having no labours in connection with it upon this Committee. I, therefore, strongly object to the names of these two hon. Gentlemen being added to the Committee. Without their names the Committee would be stronger, because it would be impartial, and without their names there are quite sufficient to provide a quorum of three and to arrive at a fair judgment. We may all say that we are all very busy in these times of pressure, and to suggest that these two hon. Members should not sit on the Committee is, in one way, a kindness to them.

§ Mr. KING
I make the same remarks on this question. I need not repeat them, but I feel just as strongly in one case as in the other. I have no ill-feeling against either of these Gentlemen, but I most earn- 240 estly believe that the Committee would be stronger and more authoritative without them.