§ 7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £340,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, on account of Compensation to Army Officers and others."
Mr. NICKOLI beg to move to leave out "£750,000," and to insert instead thereof "£749,900."
We are being asked to pass a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of making the further provision required owing to the necessity of withdrawing silver coin which has become surplus and issuing a smaller number of coins than was originally anticipated. It seems rather curious that while a profit can be made by coining silver, even with silver at a higher price in the market that it has now, an extra £750,000 should be required for the purposes indicated. A large number of coins are to be withdrawn and a smaller number is to be issued, and yet we are asked to face this extra cost. Is it the case that the coins which are being thus rather surreptitiously withdrawn are coins which, according to the hon. Member who represents Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), are coins which never had any real circulation, coins which were so defective both in their substance and their manufacture that they became wholly useless? We were told the other evening that the hon. Member had presented the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a specimen lot of these scandalously inadequate coins, and we were led to believe that the coins contained a very large proportion of base 2695 metal. We have had this happening previously in the history of England. I do not know whether or not it happened in Scotland. For our sins, we in the Scottish schools are forced to learn rather more about English history than we are ever allowed to see of Scottish history.
I am rather in the position of being a zealous reader and pupil of the hon. Member for Oxford University. I remember spending two sessions in Glasgow University, when I was forced to read some of the hon. Gentleman's books— which were very much less appreciated than the speech he made the other evening—so that on points of English history I am quite prepared to bow to his authority. So far as I recollect, when that famous and rather impecunious monarch Henry VIII., who had a penchant for matrimonial adventures, shuffled off this mortal coil, his daughter managed to make a profit out of redeeming the base coinage. In the 20th century our Government does not seem to be as clever as their historical predecessors. They cannot emulate the Chancellor of Queen Elizabeth's time and make a profit out of bringing back this base coinage, because I notice on the Estimate that we are asked to pay £750,000 for the purpose. I am not so much interested in the historical side of the question, and it certainly does not impinge on the chief purpose for which I was elected to the House—to maintain that national production is rather better than private enterprise—because on this particular subject national enterprise has held the field so long that the only national concern of those who attempt private enterprise in the coinage industry is that they are provided with national homes if they happen to be caught.
I have seen a number of the coins which were issued, and they may not all have been quite so bad as some of the specimens handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I was told not so long ago that certain mistakes were made in the adding of the base metals to the silver when the price of silver became rather high. I am told, though I have no personal experience in the matter, that if one of the new florins were put down on the bar of a public house on which beer had been spilt, it became almost indistinguishable from a penny after having lain in the stale beer for 2696 half an hour. I do not know whether there is something wrong with the amount of acidity in the beer, or whether there is something wrong with the metal, but I suggest when these coins are withdrawn we might have some statement on the matter from the chemical standpoint, and an explanation of what happened in many of these curious cases. I do not know whether the metal used to make the coins baser was the metal which happens to be my own namesake. I understand that metal does enter into the composition, and that the compound known as nickel sulphide may have been formed in the process I have described on the bar or counter of a public house. I should also like to ask, are we in the near future going to get rid not merely of these base coins but of the abominable nuisance of the threepenny bits. In these days of increased prices—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that this is not the original and main Estimate for the Mint, on which all these matters can be raised and properly discussed. This is only a Supplementary Vote, supplementing the Vote which was passed earlier in the year, and any Debate on it must be limited to the purpose for which the supplementary sum is asked.
§ Mr. NICHOLI bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall confine myself to the point set out in the footnote to the Supplementary Estimate. We are told that the further provision is required owing to the necessity of withdrawing such silver coins as have become surplus and the re-coinage of less silver coin than was originally anticipated. I wish to know how it comes about that we are being asked to provide £750,000 for this purpose? Where does that money disappear to, if more coins are going to be withdrawn than are going to be issued, and if there is going to be a less silver issue than was anticipated. The House is also due some information on the chemical aspect of the matter—an explanation of what went wrong in the Mint and what metals were used. I find it very difficult to get information on that subject and on other points connected with the coinage. In the past, as I have shown, profits were made out of an exactly similar situation. I am not against the withdrawal of the base coins if that be the nature of the proposal—though it is 2697 not explicitly stated in this Supplementary Estimate—but I think the House is justified in asking the Chancellor for more information than has been vouchsafed to us so far.
Mr. MUJRI beg to second the Amendment.
It seems strange that in the original Estimate for 1922–23 the sum required was only £10, and now when a sum of £750,000 is being asked for, we are not allowed to raise all matters affecting the coinage. I may be wrong, and if I am I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put me right, but it looks as if the small sum were put into the original Estimate, not because it was the whole amount required, but in order to avoid all these items being raised then and that the supplementary sum of £750,000 is to be allowed to go through without any serious discussion. The sum of £750,000 seems very large merely for the withdrawal of surplus coinage and the recoinage of a smaller quantity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th December said it was due to the large amount of surplus coins and he might have added to the surplus of spurious coins. From the point of view of the man who is unemployed at the moment, there does not seem to be a surplus of coins. If this expenditure of money was going to provide any further employment or do anything which even indirectly increased employment, we might consider it as already passed, but on the points raised by the Mover of the Amendment we are entitled to, and we expect, an answer, I do not know if I am in order in raising any question further than the item specifically dealt with in the Estimate. There are, however, other matters apart from currency, which would seem to come under this Vote including expenses of coinage, expenses of the preparation of medals, dyes for postage and other stamps and His Majesty's seals.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI presume the hon. Member is referring to the heading of the Vote. The heading of a Supplementary Vote must be the same as the heading of the main Vote in the Estimates of the year. That does not open the right to discuss those subjects unless reference is made to them in the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Sir CHARLES OMANAt a late hour on last Thursday night—how far after 2698 midnight I cannot say—I made what I am afraid was a rather clamorous appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, and asked that he should use the money now being granted entirely with the object of withdrawing from currency the horrible coinage of 1920–22. The right hon. Gentleman very unobtrusively went away before I had quite completed my oration.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin) indicated dissent.
§ Sir C. OMANI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He left just after I had completed my oration. I, at first, hoped this was a sign of grace; that my argument had been so convincing and that the coinage of which he had been speaking was such a source of scandal to him, that he would not stand up to defend it. I thought the little collection of coins which I left with him last week might possibly have struck terror to his soul. As he has brought forward the Estimates to-night, without making any preliminary statement to the effect that he had been moved to sorrow by the arguments addressed to him last Thursday night, I am constrained to accept the alternative explanation of his departure, namely, that he thought there was little or nothing to answer in the arguments I put before him. I am bound, therefore, to state them once more in the shortest terms, but I hope not to detain the House more than seven minutes. The coinage of 1920–21–22 is, as I said last Thursday, an absolutely shameless production, for two reasons. The first is that it is inartistic to a degree. It is far the most ugly coinage, hardly, perhaps, excluding the Victorian coinage of 1887, that has ever been issued from the English Mint. It should be withdrawn at once, because it is produced by the wrong method, the King's head having been copied by that curious instrument the reducer, instead of being cut properly by a die-sinker as in the old days. The result of using a mechanical reproduction, on a small scale, of the original model has been that His Majesty's hair is barely visible on the larger coins, and rubs away in a few weeks' circulation. It is a most inartistic and inappropriate thing to use the reducer where the old die-cutter was supreme, in the great days of Wyon and of Pistrucchi. Therefore, from the mere artistic point 2699 of view, I think these coins should be withdrawn.
The second thing is, that I hope to see them withdrawn from the point of view of mere shameful fragility. Of the specimens that I had the honour to leave the right hon. Gentleman last week, all had begun to flake off in various points, some in larger and some in smaller parts: some off the rims, in others large parts of the King's head coming off. You cannot handle the worst pieces of this coinage but they come to pieces in your hands, like the housemaid and the milk jug. It really is not a credit to the mechanical art of England in the twentieth century that its coinage dissociates itself into fragments, and, when placed in a large bag, always leaves some small residuary dust and scraps at the bottom. I have noted that at the banks. Hon. Members may not all have seen coins of the worst kind, but if they will study them, they will understand how bad they are. There is, therefore, every reason to get rid of this abominable currency, and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will not rule I am out of order if I spend one minute more in arguing that the right hon. Gentleman will have a wonderful opportunity next year of clearing away entirely this horrible stuff. I should be ready to grant him a good deal more money if he would do that, and give us a new coinage with a new type entirely. And, if I may suggest a type to him, I would say that when, copying the example of the Americans, we celebrate the great inter-Empire exhibition by a new coinage, he might place on it, not any of the devices that occur in the too complicated coats of arms nor the badly designed lion (badly copied from the George IV lion) on the shilling. But rather let him put on the new coinage a figure of Peace. "Give peace in our time, O Lord," for that is what we all desire. Let us clear away this dreadful stuff and replace it with honest white currency that will be a pleasure to us all to see and handle.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am not at all certain that the speech to which we have just listened does not amount to lèese-majesté. If it had been delivered in the Prussian Reichstag, there would have been trouble, but I do not wish to comment on the King's head so much as to ask the Government how it is that this 2700 change in the currency has not paid. In previous years, when we had good silver coin, the coinage of that good silver coin produced profits, which appeared under Miscellaneous Revenue in the annual Budget, and ran sometimes into millions. As I understand it, we have recalled all the good silver coins, we have re-minted those silver coins, we have mixed the silver with other stuff, and we have reproduced an inferior set of silver coins such as we know to-day. How is it that that change has not resulted in more profits, instead of resulting in less profits? If, when we were coining good silver coin, we made a handsome thing out of it, because the amount of silver in the coin was not as much as the coin itself was worth as a token coin, how is it that now, when there is only about half that amount of silver, we make a loss on it?
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt depends on the price of silver.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODExactly. That has fallen to less than one-half what it was when this experiment in coinage was undertaken; why, then, has not this deal been a more profitable one? As far as I can understand it, the recoining has cost six and a half millions, and what we have got from the sale of the coin has amounted to six millions roughly, so that in our revised Estimate there is a loss of some three-quarters of a million. How has that come about? Silver has been going down in price all the time. Are we to understand from this foot-note that the loss of £750,000, instead of the profit of £200,000, is due to there not having been sufficient demand for the new coin? How is it that, whereas in previous years we made a profit on coining good silver coin, we are now making a loss on coining bad silver coin? It is not a question of the artistic merits of the coinage that really interests or is of importance. The real curse of this debasement of the coinage is that in all our Crown Colonies, particularly in Africa, the natives now find themselves receiving not good coins, but coins that they know are bad coins. They lose faith in British honour and in British prestige, and the whole reputation of this country suffers. Let us, therefore, go back to good silver coinage as soon as possible, to the coining of good silver money out of which we make profits instead of the coining of bad silver coins from which we make only losses.
§ Mr. GERSHOM STEWARTMy hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of retiring as soon as he had finished his speech the other night, and I think I can bring this accusation against the right hon. Gentleman, that I asked him the same question as did the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol), who opened this Debate, and got no reply. That question was, How on earth is it, after having reduced the fineness of our silver money and issued it broadcast, we show a loss on it? We know quite well that this debasement was brought about in a moment of panic. When the silver market was in an inflated condition in 1920. We could coin silver at 66d. an ounce of 925 fineness, without any loss at all, and we never bought any silver at any time over 52d., and the price of silver is now somewhere about 32d. It is incomprehensible how this loss has been brought about. I support the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) about the fact of our silver not being a local matter, not being a matter between Englishman and Englishman, where we can stand a good deal if the coins are not very good, but this money is now metal with 50 per cent. of base metal in it, the King's head is very badly cut, and it is scattered broadcast throughout the Empire as full legal tender for all purposes; and what has been said about the feeling of injustice of the natives in the West Indies and in Africa, owing to this bad money being forced upon them, is, I think, worthy of more attention than it has been given at the hands of our coinage authorities. We have made a bad experiment. We have never succeeded in doing anything good in this country when we have debased our money. Henry VIII made a great mess of it, and when James II used brass money in Ireland it was one of the most unwise things and produced the most terrible turmoil there. If what has been said to-night can in any way bring about the disappearance of this debased money from which we have been suffering, I think a very good thing will have been done. If they want to use it in any particular way, they can call it all in, and put it in the bank as a reserve against the issue of paper currency notes. The profits which we must have made at the start have now brought a just 2702 judgment on us, and the best we can do is to turn our attention to issuing, the good old English money we used to issue in the days gone by.
§ Mr. BALDWINThe Supplementary Estimate, on which I said a few words on the Committee stage, shows that an additional sum of £750,000 is required, but when I come to explain once more why that sum is necessary, I think the House will realise that the new coinage is no more responsible for the fact than Henry VIII himself, and I propose to leave Henry VIII out of this Debate. The hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol)—I do not know why—used the epithet "surreptitious" as applied to this Estimate. There is nothing surreptitious about it, unless one can use the word in a form which would make it mean that the Estimate is cast in such a way that it is very difficult to understand. If the hon. Member meant that by the word "surreptitious," I quite agree with him. I was at the Treasury nearly five years as Financial Secretary, and I used to explain to the House that I thought the Estimates were very often presented in a form which made them very difficult for the ordinary business man to understand. It is owing to that fact that so acute an intelligence as that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has been wrong in every point he has raised on this Estimate so far, which is a matter of the rarest occurrence with him. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) scented something surreptitious, and that was in the use of the word "token." I do not know whether he really put that forward as a device to prolong the Debate, which is a very worthy object, or whether he really wanted information, but, in all seriousness, if the Token Vote is puzzling, as it often is to new Members, I shall be only too pleased some time to explain to him the whole system of Token Votes privately, and not take up the time of the House by doing it now.
To come directly to the Vote, it consists of two sub-heads and a net total—two sub-heads only of the large number of subheads that appear in the original Vote as presented in the early summer. They are "L" and "M," "Redemption of silver coin," and "Appropriations-in-Aid." The redemption of silver coin is a process that is always going on, and the sum that is 2703 put down under that sub-head consists of the face value of the coin as it is purchased, less the value of the bullion upon being recoined. In the same way the Appropriations-in-Aid consist of the face value of the coinage that is sold to the banks and issued, less the bullion therein, plus the cost of coinage, and also any surplus bullion that may be sold in the course of the year. It is very difficult at the beginning of the financial year to make an accurate forecast, either of the amount of coin which it may be necessary to purchase in that year or of the amount which may be issued. Both depend on general market conditions. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, and as another hon. Member said, that there have in the past been large profits. That has nothing to do with the quality of the coinage. It simply has been that normally the issue of coinage and the sale of surplus bullion more than pays for the redemption of silver coinage.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat is to say, the silver in the coin is of less value than the coin itself?
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BALDWINCertainly. The hon. and gallant Member knows that, and now so less than ever. Before the War the average return made by this Vote to the Exchequer was something over £750,000. During the War all the normal procedure was upset, and owing to the enormous rise in values that led to the increased demand for silver coin, the coining of silver increased in this country so much that at first the amount of profit during the four years of the War showed a figure of something like £12,000,000, and after the War the country finds itself with a vastly larger currency than is required for the conduct of the business of the country. That is the real reason why we are, and shall probably for a short time to come yet, be in this difficulty. When any hon. Member may say that at the moment we may be showing a loss on this Vote, we ought really to look over the term of years, including the War years, when we shall see that the amount on the credit side is incomparably greater than that on the debit side.
In the course of the current year the issue of new coinage has been considerably less than has been expected, and in the 2704 same way there has been a larger amount of coin to be redeemed than was expected at the beginning of the year. When I speak about coin being redeemed, what exactly do I mean? When coins go out they are purchased by the banks for use, and the general demand for currency in the country regulates the demand and supply of silver coins in exactly the same way that it regulates the demand and supply of any other article of commerce in the country. When these coins are not in circulation, when there comes a large quantity of silver coinage that is not wanted in the currencies of the country, it is really a drug in the hands of the banks, and though there is no statutory liability on the Government to redeem that coinage, there is, I think, a kind of moral liability. Here arises a point put by the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Muir). He said he could not see that in any way the expenditure of this money would touch unemployment. Well, directly, perhaps not; but it does touch it in this way. If silver coins which are not wanted for circulation are left in the hands of the banks, it locks up a certain amount of the banks' assets which might be used for the provision of the trade of the country. Therefore, when the Government takes £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000, or whatever it: may be, of the currency that is not required for the business of the country, then, instead of having this stock which is perfectly useless for trade purposes, the banks get paid for it. The credit the banks get for it they can employ in the ordinary way of business to help raise fresh credits and stimulate trade.
So, in that way, it is a quite obvious fact that it is far better for the trade of the country that these surplus coins should be redeemed than that it should be left doing nothing and perfectly useless in the hands of the bank. I hope that has made the point clear as to how the figures in the Estimate have arisen. If I may say so, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), I have studied his examples of the coinage with very great interest. I have not found that any of the new coins I have been fortunate enough to possess myself have ever broken to pieces or crumbled in my pocket. Probably that is because I have not been able to keep them long enough. I do admit, however, as everyone must admit, and as the Mint has been the first to admit, that 2705 many of the coins struck in 1920– that is the crucial date in regard to all these bad coins—
§ Sir C. OMAN1921, as well.
§ Mr. BALDWINI did not know that, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I admit that the coins struck before the Mint had mastered this rather difficult alloy were faulty, bad in colour, and not well struck. I think, however, that the 1922 issues are a very good colour. The question is, of course, how long they will remain good. If my hon. Friends opposite keep them at the bottom of a pint pot, say, for half an hour, I do not think that anyone will guarantee they will remain a good colour. They would not if they were Treasury notes. The coins are of good colour, and they are now well struck. I agree with my hon. Friend in this, that I should like to see, as much as ever he would, a really beautiful issue of English coins. It is many years since we have had one. I do not think that that arises on this Vote, but I hope what I have said has made clear the figures of the two Sub-heads under discussion.
§ Mr. MUIRWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the one or two points I put to him with regard to the alloys?
§ Mr. BALDWINI do not know that that strictly arises, and in fact I have not got them in my head. If the hon. Gentleman cares to come round to the Mint at some time, he shall be given the information he desires.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to show that the surplus amount of coinage is due largely to there being so many unemployed in the country, who have not that money in circulation as they would have if they had been at work. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman added that another reason for withdrawing the silver coinage was to accommodate the banks. Therefore, we see on these two points exactly where the Government stands so far as unemployment is concerned.
§ Mr. BALDWINI am sorry to interrupt; the hon. Gentleman. I am very reluctant to interfere in Debate, but as we hope now to sell a very large quantity of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should not like 2706 that statement to go uncorrected. If the money were fully employed it would not make very much difference to the silver that would have to be redeemed, because the enormous amount of silver that had to be struck during the War was not only due to the fact of very widespread employment, but also to an enormous rise in prices, which it is very improbable we shall see again.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe right hon. Gentleman says he will take my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) to the Mint. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to Glasgow, and show him by experiment, if he eared to stay for three weeks exactly, what takes place in an industrial centre, such as that, when the works shut down for three weeks. If you take the banks operating in that district, you will find that what I said is absolutely true. I have made a special study of the circulation of coins. I have even marked the coins on the first Friday in a month, and have got those coins back again at the end of four weeks. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), referring to the coins that were bad, said they broke up in his pocket. They do not break up in ours. We shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what was the alloy which went wrong; whether it was due to overheating in the pots, or whether the metal was too cold when rolled. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is important. This is where we want to save money by having practical men who can make the coins better. In the production of a coin you ought not, because it is done by the nation, to consider it as something which should not be done correctly. The production of a coin should be a highly artistic business. It should be a very cheap business, and when the nation gets sufficient sense introduced into the business of the production of coins, it will not go on spending money uselessly in order to make something for the banks and other people to live by. That is really what happens to-day in regard to the coinage, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what was the proportion of silver and alloy in the new coinage? I want to know the temperature at which it was struck. That is of importance, if I am to know about the Mint.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese are rather matters for the main Vote of the year and are not relevant on the Supplementary Vote. Next year the hon. Member can know all about them.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf the cost is going up, am I not in order in pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Supplementary Estimate the facts of the case?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that would lead to re-opening the whole of the main Vote for the year. We discussed those general principles when we were dealing with the whole Vote, and we cannot take them on the Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. HARDIEI should like an answer to the questions I have put because they are really very important. Apart altogether from the coins themselves as currency, I should like to see the work done in the proper way. As far as I am concerned the right hon. Gentleman, after five years at the Treasury, has been able to explain very little with regard to the defects in the coins, where they occur, and how they can be prevented.
§ Mr. R. MURRAYI do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at all explained the points that have been raised in the course of this discussion. We have had the point repeatedly brought to our notice that the reduction in the cost of silver has brought about a loss entailing a further demand on the nation. We have not had a real explanation with regard to that matter. Apart from that, an essential and important matter, on which I gladly take my stand with the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), is that we ought to have honest coinage. It has been the strength of this nation in the past that we have had an honest coinage. If the Government have taken a step that has led us to a dishonest coinage, and which has caused them to come to the House to ask for an increased Vote, surely the moral of that is that we ought, as speedily as possible, to reverse the process, and to make the British silver coin what it has been in the past, a token and an emblem of wealth that can go to any part of the world and receive its due and just face value. Apart from that, we have had it stated recently in the Press—and this seems to me to be an important point in connection with this matter—that during 2708 this year, and included, therefore, in the amount of extra money which is being asked for to-day, we have had a very considerable increase in the copper coinage, or, at all events, there has been no effort to make the copper coinage in circulation equivalent to the needs of the country, with the result that all over the country to-day there are masses of copper coinage with which the holders do not know what to do. I suggest that that is one of the points upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have satisfied us.
There is one more point. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), that if we had had an increase of employment, there would have been an increased demand upon the coinage. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to that, said it would make very little difference, and then, in contradiction of his own statement, he reminded us that the great amount of employment during the War cause a great demand upon the coinage. Surely the two things do not stand together. If an increase of employment during the War caused an increased demand for coinage, it follows that increased employment to-day would also cause an increased demand for coinage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to make an offer to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) to let him know something with regard to the question of the token vote and other secrets of that kind. I can fancy the hon. Member for Springburn being interested in finding out something more on that subject, and I think there are plenty more in this House who are intensely interested in the business of the country which we are sent here to consider and understand. I suggest it is not a matter of taking the hon. Member for Maryhill under his wing and telling him about the token vote, but now is the appropriate time to explain to us what that token vote means, so that we shall understand it, and be quite able to explain to our constituents why there are not enough threepenny bits, florins and half-crowns. We have not had sufficient explanation to warrant us in voting this additional sum, and I shall therefore vote against it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. The reason for this comparatively large sum of money is that the coinage in circulation has been 2709 found to be excessive, and we are having to pay for its redemption, but unless foresight has been exercised, which, so far, the Government have not been conspicuous for exercising, there will be another surplus very shortly. I want to know what stops have been taken to withdraw, or to prepare to withdraw, enough silver coinage to allow for the loss of territory through the setting up of the Irish Free State. I understand that, just as the Irish Free State is issuing its own postage stamps, it is shortly going to commence issuing its own coinage, and that means that there will be less demand for coinage from the Royal Mint in London, and we shall find a fresh surplus for which we shall have to pay in redemption next year. Has this matter been foreseen? Will this be the only redemption that can humanly be prophesied as necessary in the next few years? Is the Irish Free State going to start its own coinage; if so, when; how will that affect the coinage of this country, and, in particular, are we taking steps to see that we do not strike a surplus of coins, owing, probably, to the Mint officials not having heard of the mint in Southern Ireland having been set up? The £750,000 embodied in this Vote might have been used to build a couple of torpedo-boat destroyers, and so given employment on the Clyde, which is not to get any battleship, although the last Government were going to give them two battleships. That is an example of how these mistakes cost the country dearly, and I think we should have some assurance that this matter of the Irish Free State coinage has been foreseen.
§ Mr. DARBISHIREIt seems to me that there are one or two statements which have been made from the Labour benches which need a little correction. There was the statement that the banks should return this silver coinage to the Government at its bullion value, and not at its face value, and I understood the hon. Member suggested that the banks were making a profit by getting the face value of the coinage. I suggest that, if that be their argument, the banks, when they get the silver from the Government, should purchase it at its bullion value instead of its face value, otherwise it would be an unfair bargain on the part of the Government.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat would be quite irrelevant to the question before us.
§ Mr. DARBISHIREThe other point was that we should make our silver coins not a token, but something which was really worth its silver value. I do submit that, if that were done, and these coins went to the four corners of the earth, as has been suggested, should the price of silver rise, as it often does, these coins would never come back to this country. Therefore, they should be a token, and not a coin to represent its real silver value.
§ Mr. STEPHENI was rather interested in the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Vote, particularly in what he had to say with regard to the moral obligation which there was upon the Government to redeem the coinage which the banks had taken. On that point, I think we would be agreed with regard to the Government fulfilling all its moral obligations. At the same time, I would not like to see the Government of this country being more scrupulous in fulfilling its moral obligations with regard to banks than, say, with regard to unemployment in the country. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this redemption means that he is going to carry a stage further the process of the deflation of money in this country which many people are prone to regard as being one of the real underlying causes of so much of the unemployment to-day? He tells us that this silver is lying at the banks, is not circulating and, therefore, is useless, and that by taking it back from the banks, the banks somehow or other will be able to do something to encourage trade.
If these silver coins are left in the banks there is then in the banks something which will allow the banks to give credit to the various customers who may want credit. The unwillingness on the part of the banking community to give credit to enterprise is a great drawback, and yet we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us that it would be a good thing to carry this process of deflation further. No doubt, it might help the pound as against the dollar, but if it means, on the other hand, that we are increasing the volume of unemployment in this country, then I say that we should not allow this Vote to pass. There is also the statement that because of the 2711 rise in prices during the years of War, there was ever so much silver circulated, and that it is never likely there will be such prices again. I think he is unduly optimistic with regard to this matter of prices. So far as some of us on these benches can see, if the private enterprisers have their way, we will have to face greatly increases prices again, and, after all, another great war is not without the bounds of possibility. Indeed, the foreign situation to-day suggests that this—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a very long way from the subject before us.
§ Mr. STEPHENI bow to your ruling, but I was trying to develop the argument suggested to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is one other point I wish to make. I have a certain measure of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman
§ opposite, who spoke about the nature of the silver coins circulating at the present time. I sympathise with him to some extent, but, to my mind, even though the coinage is so poor, we on these benches would be delighted if there were a greater circulation of that coinage among the members of the community whom we represent. The whole trouble is that we in this House in this matter are not willing to take the wide view, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been serving the interests of our country better if he had suggested to the Minister of Labour that he could have this £750,000 in order to help the unemployed in the country.
§ Question put, "That '£750,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
§ The House divided; Ayes, 222; Noes, 131.
2713| Division No. 32.] | AYES. | [7.30 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leytan, East) | Collison, Levi | Hewett, Sir J. P. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Cope, Major William | Hinds, John |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Darbishire, C. W. | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Banks, Mitchell | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Becker, Harry | Ednam, Viscount | Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Elveden, Viscount | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Jarrett, G. W. S. |
| Berry, Sir George | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Johnson, Sir L (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel |
| Blundell, F. N. | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Bonwick, A. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Flanagan, W. H. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir p. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lorden, John William |
| Brown, Major D. C.(Hexham) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Lorimer, H. D |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Furness, G. J. | Lougher, L. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lumley, L R. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Gilbert, James Daniel | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Goff, Sir R. Park | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Gretton, Colonel John | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.) | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Halstead, Major D. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Harvey, Major S. E. | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hawke, John Anthony | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Morris, Harold |
| Cohen, Major J Brunel | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Nail, Major Joseph | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. o. L. (Exeter) | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Rounded, Colonel R. F. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Tubbs, S. W. |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Russell, William (Bolton) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Nield, Sir Herbert | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Paget, T. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Pattinson, R, (Grantham) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., withington) |
| Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | Sandon, Lord | Wells, S. R. |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Shakespeare, G. H. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Shepperson, E. W. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Sinclair, Sir A. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Skelton, A. N. | Winterton, Earl |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree) | Wise, Frederick |
| Phillipps, Vivian | Sparkes, H. W. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pielou, D. P. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Raine, W. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Sutcliffe, T. | |
| Reynolds, W. G. W. | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| NOES | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Ritson, J. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayday, Arthur | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Herriotts, J. | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Barnes, A. | Hillary, A. E. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Batey, Joseph Broad, F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Saklatvala, S. |
| Broad, F. A. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Bromfield, William | Hogge, James Myles | Sexton, James |
| Brotherton, J. | Irving, Dan | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Buckle, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Burgess, S. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Cairns, John | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Chapple, W. A. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Snowden, Philip |
| Charlcton, H. C. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Clarke, Sir E. C. | Kenyon, Barnet | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Leach, W. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Duncan, C. | Lee, F. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Dunnico, H. | Lowth, T. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweltty) | Lunn, William | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Warne, G. H. |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | M'Entee, V. L. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Falconer, J. | McLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Foot, Isaac | March, S. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Maxton, James | Weir, L. M. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Middleton, G. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Morel, E. D. | Westwood, J. |
| Greenall, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wheatley, J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Muir, John W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Murnin, H. | Wignall, James |
| Groves, T. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Nichol, Robert | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | O'Grady, Captain James | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hancock, John George | Paling, W. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C) |
| Hardie, George D. | Parker, H. (Hanley) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Harney, E. A. | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Harris, Percy A. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Richards, R. | Mr. Amnion and Mr. T. Griffiths. |
| Hastings, Patrick | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Second Resolution read a Second time.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI beg to move to leave out "£5,860,000," and to insert instead thereof "£5,865,900."
2714 I move this Amendment for the purpose of extracting from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade some other information than has been so far furnished to the House. In the Estimate before us there are items which are far 2715 from clear, and which, in my judgment, require to be satisfactorily explained. I have had the opportunity of reading the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary the other night and contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I do not see that the items to which I have referred have been explained to the satisfaction of Members on these benches. I am far from imputing blame to the hon. Gentleman, for he has a formidable and thankless task—if I may say so—and one that is aggravated by the difficulty which exists in explaining why this Shipping Liquidation Department should continue. No information of a satisfactory character has been afforded which justifies us in accepting this Estimate. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is very little hope of recovering the amounts which he has mentioned as being due, first of all from shipowners in this country, to whom, I presume, the ex-enemy vessels and other ships at the disposal of the Ministry of Shipping were sold, or of a settlement of the accounts which have been in negotiation between the Shipping Liquidation Department and the United States Government?
In his speech I observed that he referred to a settlement with the United States Government which involves a very big figure, resulting, as he terms it, in a gross payment by this country to the United States of more than £3,000,000. As a result of my investigation into this matter, I have failed to find any detailed information which can guide me as to the desirability or otherwise of a transaction of this knid. For what purpose, might I ask, was this very large sum expended? Did we undertake transactions of a shipping character with the United States Government resulting in the purchase of a largo number of ships constructed in the yards of the States during the War, ships which, as we all know, were most unsatisfactory? By whom were these ships purchased? Were they purchased through an intermediary or directly from the Department iself? We ought to know something in regard to these ships. We ought to know whether any of the ships so purchased are still in commission, and, those that have been disposed of by the Shipping Liquidation Board, to whom have they been sold, at what price, and who were the buyers? I should like to say that, although my knowledge of 2716 shipping affairs is not perhaps so considerable as that of the Parliamentary Secretary or those connected with his Department, it does enable me to speak with some authority on the question of the transactions with regard to the sale of ships and the purchase of ships, as between the United States Government and the Ministry of Shipping, which, in my judgment, reflects very seriously on the business capacity of those associated with the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. Now I turn to the transactions between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the shipowners in the United Kingdom. Here, I think, I shall have hon. Members with me, and in particular the ship-owning interest in this House. Now I turn to the Noble Lord's speech on this subject, in which he said:
The last item in the Estimate is for money which is owing to the Government by shipowners arid other private firms. It was anticipated that a sum of £2,850,000 would be collected from them in the current financial year and it is now thought likely that we shall succeed in collecting only £2,685,000. That does not mean that we shall not collect all the money, but we do not anticipate that we shall be able to come to a settlement during the current financial year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2198, Vol. 159.]I want to ask what ships were sold in this connection, and were any of the ships so sold those ships which were handed over to this country and to this Department by way of reparation payments?
§ Viscount WOLMERThis Estimate has nothing to do with those ships at all.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe Noble Lord says this Vote has nothing to do with the sale of those ships. I must confess to being very much surprised at that observation, because if hon. Members care to read the speech delivered by the Noble Lord last week in the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find sentence after sentence conclusive that in his judgment and in his mind transactions involving the sale of ships were under review. I go for proof of that to the Estimate itself. We have in the Estimate an item, "Purchasing and Building of Vessels." Purchased from whom? I think we are entitled to ask, in face of that item embodied in the Estimate, the question which I have just put to the Noble Lord. At all events, the purpose of the Shipping Liquidation Department was to liquidate the monetary and financial transactions of the Ministry of 2717 Shipping, and surely there must be transactions between that Department and those with whom agreements were effected. Therefore I submit that my reference to the sale of ships and to the firms to whom ships were sold is relevant to this Estimate.
I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade yesterday in which I asked for information respecting the sale of ships, to whom they were sold, the prices received and other relevant questions. The Noble Lord did not give me the information I asked for, but he informed the House and myself that he would at his own discretion provide such information as seemed to him to be expedient. There must be some inexplicable and u n explainable reason why the President of the Board of Trade and the Department with which he is connected are not anxious to divulge the names of those firms who purchased the ships from his Department, and we can obtain no information at all, however persistent we may be in our requests.
The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) has directed my attention to other items which seem to bear out my contention that the purchase and disposal of vessels is part of the work of this Department. I pass from that in the hope that my observations will be replied to by the Noble Lord. The quotation which I have made from the Noble Lord's speech refers to money which is owing to the Government by shipowners and other private firms. That is precisely the point upon which I am endeavouring to get some information. Who are the private firms who owe money to the Government? It has been stated outside this House that such firms as the White Star Line, and, if I mistake not, the Cunard Line and other large companies have in their possession enemy vessels which have not been fully paid for so far as the Noble Lord's Department is concerned. Either those statements are true or untrue. I repeat that this is merely information which has been furnished to me, and perhaps the Noble Lord will say a word or two in that connection. Now I come to what is undoubtedly a relevant consideration with regard to this Estimate. A large number of ships were handed over to the Government by way of reparation payments. These ships were sent to the various harbours of the United Kingdom, 2718 to the Thames, the Bristol Channel, the Mersey and the Clyde, many of them being quartered in Gairloch.
§ Viscount WOLMERI can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in this Vote concerning the disposal of reparation ships.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI found myself in a little difficulty in regard to this matter, but, on examining the Estimates more closely, I think what the Noble Lord has said is the case.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThere is one item marked "Purchase of Vessels," and a subsequent item, "Appropriations-in-Aid." They amount to nearly £3,000,000, and obviously these items are for the sale of something or other. If you turn to the main Estimate it will be seen that the reduction in the anticipated Appropriations-in-Aid is due to the retardation of the rate of selection of the sums due. Therefore we must assume that they are for services rendered or goods sold in connection with shipping liquidation. What else can that be but the sale of ships? Can the Noble Lord explain this item?
§ Viscount WOLMERI should like to give the information as to what it deals with. What I say at the moment is that it does not deal with the sale of reparation ships.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is quite clear that the sale of reparation ships is not open for discussion at this point. It arises on the main Estimates, and not on this Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI contend that in submitting Estimates a little more clarity might be observed so that hon. Members can see what Vote is under review. I pass on now to what I think is a perfectly relevant consideration. A large number of ships were constructed by the Ministry of Shipping, and a great many were purchased by that Ministry from the United States Shipbuilding Yard. Many of them were not disposed of at the Armistice, and I understand—perhaps the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that many of these are still in possession of the Shipping Liquidation Department. At any rate, the financial transactions are still within the scope of the Noble Lord's Department, and I want information with regard to the expense involved in laying up such vessels. I want to know 2719 whether expenditure in this connection might not have been curtailed by adopting such methods of laying up as would have been just as effective, but involving much less expense. I think information with regard to that point might prove valuable to the House, and it would enable hon. Members to form some opinion of the business capacity of those employed in the Noble Lord's Department.
I also want to put another point. Many of the ships which have been disposed of were constructed during the War, standard ships they were called, and they have been sold at certain prices, but it is rumoured that many of those vessels were disposed of at rock-bottom prices at a time when the market showed that the average price of shipbuilding construction was £30 per ton, while the price obtained in the market was only about £3 per ton. That is a point which is extremely important, because obviously, if the Department disposed of its ships at £3 per ton, or a smaller approximate price, it was obviously unfair to the British shipbuilding yards, and to a very large extent aggravated the unemployment prevalent in the country. I am rather taken from the main considerations in my mind by the ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given, with regard to reparation ships, which I understand arise on the main Estimates. I shall content myself with submitting the considerations which I have put forward in the hope that a more satisfactory explanation will be furnished.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay I call attention to the original Vote in the Estimates for the Civil Service. Under unclassified services the Appropriations-in-Aid include ex-enemy and other vessels, and the miscellaneous sale of ships, tonnage, etc. Surely it would be within the bounds of order to discuss these ships?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is wrong in thinking that the whole of the subjects under an original Estimate are necessarily carried forward in a Supplementary Estimate, because that is not so. Although the heading must be the same in the Supplementary Vote, we are now dealing only with the items for which money is asked, and it is clear 2720 that there is no money represented in the Supplementary Vote dealing with the sale of reparation ships.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SHINWELLOn a point of Order. I do not propose to pursue the matter, but I would like to direct attention to the speech of the Noble Lord in which he referred to an item of £250,000, prize money in respect of ships condemned in the Prize Courts during the War. That obviously related to ex-enemy vessels, and if the reference was relevant in the speech of the Noble Lord, surely it is equally relevant in my case?
§ Viscount WOLMERIt had nothing to do with the sale of vessels.
§ Mr. JOWETTI beg to Second the Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERWhen introducing this Supplementary Estimate the other night I dealt with the subject rather exhaustively, as I thought, and I do not need to make any further remarks upon it at this stage, beyond replying to those points on which information has been asked. I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member who has spoken in all the points he has raised, but I ask him to take my assurance that a great many of the matters on which he spoke dealt with items which are not raised in this Vote at all. I should therefore be out of order if I tried to argue with him on the merits of the purchase of American ships by this country, as no part of the cost of purchasing those ships falls in this Supplementary Estimate. The £3,100,000 which we have had to pay to the American Government was entirely for earnings by American vessels for goods carried to this country, goods purchased by this country in America and shipped to this country in American vessels during the War. I told the House last week that another £100,000 was provided for under an exactly similar arrangement with the Canadian Government. My hon. Friend asked for information with regard to the sale of ships. I cannot follow him in detail there, because the matter does not really arise on this Vote, but I should like to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that they have no objection to giving full details of these sales. The hon. Member asked, supposing the Appropriations-in-Aid did not refer to the 2721 sale of ships, what did they refer to? The answer is very simple. They refer to freightage which was earned by Government-owned ships during the War. They were part of the earnings of the Ministry of Shipping.
§ Mr. SHINWELLBut the item Appropriations-in-Aid includes an item for the sale of ships.
§ Viscount WOLMERThat is true of the original Estimate, but it is not true of the Supplementary Estimate. The same headings have to be used for Treasury purposes and for reference in this House, but it is not in respect of those transactions that there is any anticipated addition this year. I think I have answered all the questions of the hon. Member which were relevant to the Vote.
§ Mr. SEXTONI must confess I find it somewhat difficult to follow the discussion on this question owing to the ruling that the question of reparation ships cannot be discussed. There is this peculiar circumstance, that for "running expenses and repair of ex-enemy and other vessels" and "outstanding liabilities in respect of requisitioned and other vessels" there is an item here. Now the running expenses and repairs of ex-enemy and other ships indicates that those ships are not sold and I am very much concerned to know where they are now and what they are doing.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not know if the hon. Member was in the House when I tried to explain just now that, for the purpose of accurate bookkeeping, it is always necessary in a Supplementary Estimate—however small the sum with which we are dealing, even if it be only one single item in a sub-head of the original Estimate—that the whole sub-heads should be repeated. But that does not entitle hon. Members to refer to those sub-heads, unless money is actually asked from the House in respect of them.
§ Mr. SEXTONI must confess, looking at the explanation of this particular sub-head, I am inclined to think that the Board of Trade is rather an understudy of the "Flying Dutchman." They do not know where the ships are themselves, and it appears to me, from what I read here—of course, I am not a Cabinet Minister or even an Under-Secretary that the whole thing is drifting into the doldrums. Lower down we find an item, 2722 "Purchasing and building of vessels." If we have not sold the enemy ships, why has it been necessary to purchase other ships at an expenditure of £123,000? I really should like to get some information on this question. The original Estimate for 1922–23 for Shipping Liquidation is £2,885,900. An additional sum is now asked for of £5,866,000. I am at a loss to understand why, if we have taken over ex-enemy ships and paid money for repairing them, we have spent £423,000 on the purchase and building of other vessels. If these ships are in use, why should there be any liquidation? I should like to know where we are on this question. I am very anxious to help the Board of Trade. As a humble representative of part of the shipping trade, I feel anxious to do all I can to assist the Department, but surely we are entitled to some explanation of what appears on this Paper before we can conscientiously give a vote. It is unfortunate that no explanation is given on the Estimate. We have only the bare headings and the amounts. It appears to me that the Noble Lord is sailing very close to the wind, and that his weather hearing is very dangerously shaken.
§ Mr. R. MURRAYI have been following very closely the discussion with regard to this Estimate. We on these benches are taking a very keen interest in these Votes. The other evening it was pointed out to us that we had permitted a number of Votes to go through without due inquiry. That appealed to me so strongly that I have made a big effort to understand this Estimate, and to know what it is we are asked to vote money for tonight. After the Noble Lord's explanation I feel considerable difficulty in understanding the position, and I certainly am still not conscious of the real reasons upon which this new claim is based. It is suggested that the item for the repairs of ex-enemy ships is part of the original Estimate, but surely some portion of this £5,000,000 odd now asked for must arise in connection with the ex-enemy ships. I am anxious as a new Member, who is keen to do his duty, to ascertain the precise grounds upon which we are asked to sanction such an immense additional amount of expenditure. The original Estimate amounted to £2,800,000. This new demand brings the total up to £8,750,000 in round figures and we have 2723 had no real explanation given us of the reasons for requiring the additional £6,000,000. It is all very well to tell us that the Government has had to face certain contingencies and that it is in duty bound to find this money, but we on these benches are as much custodians of the public purse as those sitting on the benches opposite, and we have a right to know on what grounds we are asked to sanction the payment of this additional sum. We think, in regard to the sale of ships which were in the hands of the Government, whether standard ships or ex-enemy ships, that it was a gamble based on the hideous fallacy that the rewards and profits are for the few and the payments only for the many. We feel that those ships were sold without due regard and care, and if we lightly and easily agree to the payment of this amount, we are condoning that stupidity and that wrong, and making it possible for it to be continued in the future. We want to feel that in these matters there will be no want of care, and no gambling with the nation's money. I am sure that I speak, not only for hon. Members on this side of the House, but for the very few faithful souls who have remained on the other side, when I say that not one of us has been satisfied that the explanation of the Noble Lord has in any way touched the point on which we seek information. We want to have these points cleared up in a way in which they have not been cleared up, and if the Noble Lord will make an effort to make it clear to us why this £5,000,000 is asked for now, he will set an example which we sincerely hope the other Departments will follow, so that we shall not be left in this state of mystification, about which the only thing that is clear is that the country has to pay an additional £5,000,000 without any explanation as to why it is wanted.
Mr. T. HENDERSONI want to elicit some information with regard to Item J.— Purchase and Building of Vessels. From inquiries which I have made, I understand that this item has some connection with the national shipyards, and has also some connection with the housing of operatives at the national shipyards.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer)It has nothing to with housing.
Mr. HENDERSONI have been rather diligently looking up the necessary information, and if I have made a mistake it is strange to me. I read here:
Outstanding liabilities in respect of national shipyard scheme, including housing and shipyard extension scheme.Has it nothing to do with that?
§ Viscount WOLMERThis Supplementary Estimate has not.
Mr. HENDERSONIs the purpose of these Estimates to mystify the Members of the House? Are we not to get information that will make it possible for us to follow a real discussion of the Estimates which have been presented?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame)Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I might intervene for a moment to explain that. Mr. Speaker has already stated, with regard to this Estimate, after my Noble Friend had explained to what it relates, that it is necessary for accounting purposes to follow the Sub-head which appears in the original Estimate, but that that does not mean that every item referred to in the Sub-head is dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate. My Noble Friend has explained in detail what are the particular items dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat is what he has not done. If we had had from the Noble Lord an explanation in detail of what this Estimate is for, we should not be making the mistake of referring to the original Estimate and assuming that the Supplementary Estimate deals with the whole of the original Estimate. We have had no such explanation.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that I gave a most detailed explanation when I introduced the Estimate.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat was at 2 o'clock in the morning!
Mr. HENDERSONI want to find out if the increased sum asked for represents £358,000 above the original Estimate for the same item. We are entitled to that information. It is not fair for the Government to come forward with a demand like this and expect us to agree to it without some proper information. The Government have to account for £358,000. What does it mean?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am almost sorry that the Noble Lord made his speech, which, if I may say so, was a very admirable speech, the other night, because we should have so much enjoyed it to-night, when there would be hon. Members present to listen to it, instead of his having to make it to empty benches. The Noble Lord will realise that, in a new House of Commons, it is essential that these Votes should be explained to Members, even when they are the Opposition. I defy any Member of Parliament, whether he be an old or a new Member, to read this Estimate through and have any but the very foggiest idea of what it is all about. All that we know at the end—and I speak for myself as much as for any other Member—is that somehow or other £5,000,000 is wanted from the taxpayers of this country. I do think, therefore, that before we vote this £5,000,000, we ought, even if it involves a repetition of the Noble Lord's speech the other day, to have some sort of explanation as to why this £5,000,000 more is wanted.
Apart altogether from that, and even if we had all heard that speech and could remember it now, the Noble Lord has not dealt quite fairly by the House in giving no sort of reply to the question which I asked him on that occasion, and that was, how much longer is this liquidation going on—whether it is to become a hardy annual, or whether we are to have some time limit set, after which we should be dear of the Shipping Department and the shipping liquidation. The tendency of all these Departments is, somehow or other, to perpetuate themselves—to postpone the payment of instalments or the payment of their own just debts. I do hope that the Noble Lord, in this new Government, which is pledged to economy at all costs, will see that he himself and his Department commit hari-kari at the earliest possible moment. The other criticism which was put forward the other night, and to which we have had no reply, was with reference to the astounding mistakes made about the settlement with America. We asked why it was that, when they must have known that the payment of that sum to America would come into this financial year instead of next, they did not make the necessary correction for the Estimate which we are considering now. Why is it that now we have to vote £3,100,000 more, when it 2726 must have been known long before this Estimate was put before the House and adopted by the House?
§ Viscount WOLMERIn response to what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, I must thank him for the kind remarks that he made about my speech when I introduced this Estimate, although I am afraid he does not appear to remember very much of it. I notice that he has a much better recollection of his own speech, which was also a very interesting one on that occasion. If hon. Members who were not able to be present on the previous occasion, and who now take such a keen interest in the Estimate, would do me the honour of reading my speech, they would save a good deal of Parliamentary time, but I will summarise very shortly, because I do not want to take up the time of the House, what I said on that occasion. I pointed out that this was merely a settlement of old accounts, and that the whole necessity for the Supplementary Estimate arises from the fact that certain items have come into this financial year in the liquidation which we expected to come either into the last financial year or into the next. Not a single penny of it is for new expenditure. It is merely clearing up the vast accounts of the Ministry of Shipping There have been 114,000 accounts already settled, and the work is nearly complete Hon. Members will find that I went into all these items in the greatest detail when I introduced this Estimate. Let me say, for instance, with regard to Item J, to which reference has been made, that it is merely the final settlement in respect of the construction of vessels in national shipyards—a matter on which there were negotiations and, I think, arbitration, and there was some dispute as to what the final amount to be paid should be. It was not paid in the last financial year, and consequently the money voted for it in the last financial year had to be surrendered to the Treasury, and has to be re-voted in this financial year. If money which has been voted by Parliament in one financial year is not spent in that year, it has to be surrendered to the Treasury, and, when the expenditure has to be met, the Government have to come to Parliament again for a re-vote. That is simply what has happened on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Member asked a number of questions, but I will 2727 not trouble the House by repeating the answers that I gave to him on the previous occasion. I will merely say that it is impossible to know absolutely when the Government will have to meet certain liabilities in regard to shipping expenditure during the War, and whether it will be able to collect certain assets, because a great many of these items are the subject of litigation or negotiation or arbitration. The process of liquidation is being pursued as rapidly as possible. The care with which these accounts have been examined by the Shipping Liquidation Department has already saved the country over £4,000,000 above the cost of the Department, and when the Geddes Committee came to examine the Department, they said the cost of administration in their opinion was small in comparison with the sums involved, and they made no recommendation in regard to a reduction of staff there.
§ Mr. WIGNALLI am sure we are entitled to all the information that can possibly be given on such a Supplementary Estimate as this, and the difficulty of understanding things in the small hours of the morning is not very helpful to us or to you, Sir, either. No doubt the explanations of the representative of the Ministry are made with every desire to give information, but they are given at the wrong time. Altogether the very small amount of information conveyed to us makes us wonder what it all means. I am wondering how much of this money under Item J has been spent in the building of the vessels in the experimental process at Chepstow, for instance. If this £358,000–I do not know where the vessels were built, because it does not tell us—is part of the woeful experiment of the people who are fit to govern, when we look at the terrible waste of money at Chepstow and Beachley we do not wonder that there are millions more required to make up the wastage and the loss. However, there was such reckless extravagance during the War period in the purchase and building of vessels and all the experiments that were entered upon that we are not very much surprised at this Supplementary Estimate of nearly £6,000,000. However, it is refreshing to us to see that all the right hon. Gentlemen who have been preaching about economy and trying to save expenditure are now in their 2728 places trying to defend the expenditure that is before us. I should like to know if any of the money included in Item J went towards the building of the ships which are now being sold to a private company. I know the Government has capital invested in it.
§ Viscount WOLMERI have had inquiries made and not a single penny of this money was spent at Chepstow or had anything to do with Chepstow.
§ Viscount WOLMERIt is not in regard to national shipyards, it is in regard to ships. If I said national shipyards, it was a slip. It was in regard to the payment for ships built by the Government, I think in the national shipyards. This is the final settlement in respect of those vessels which were built by the Government during the War.
§ Mr. PALINGI believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer when referring to the last Estimate mentioned that he was in some office, I believe, about five years before he got a conception of these things, and I am beginning to wonder, if we are given these Estimates with no more detail than is here before us, whether some of us will not be here for five years before we get to know. It is our intention by these questions to get to know as soon as possible, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it in that spirit. It appears to me that the difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate is large. I should like to know if it is the custom of the Government to make Estimates of this description and then have to revise them with a large increase. Item J is increased nearly seven times. I should like to ask if that is usual in regard to these Estimates. In another case the Government, evidently expecting something coming in, overestimated again. Is that the custom of the Government? Would the Government find it equally possible to increase the Estimate they have given for the unemployed seven times as they have in regard to Item J?
§ Question put, "That '£5,866,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 198: Noes, 131.
2731| Division No. 33.] | AYES. | [8.35 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Furness, G. J. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W, | Gilbert, James Daniel | Paget, T. G, |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Pattinson, R. (Grantham) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Banks, Mitchell | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Hall, Rr-Admi Sir (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Becker, Harry | Halstead, Major D. | Pielou, D. P. |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hancock, John George | Raine, W, |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Harrison, F. C. | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Berry, Sir George | Harvey, Major S. E. | Remer, J. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hawke, John Anthony | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hopkins, John W. W. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Houfton, John Plowright | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hudson, Capt. A. | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Hume, G. H. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hurd, Percy A. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) |
| Churchman, sir Arthur | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jephcott, A. R. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Cope, Major William | Kenyon, Barnet | Sykes, Major-Gen. sir Frederick H. |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Lamb, J. Q. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Tubbs, S. W. |
| Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Lorden, John William | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lorimer, H, D. | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel) Hempstead) | Lort-Williams, J. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lougher, L, | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Wells, S. R. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lumley, L. R. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Winterton, Earl |
| Ednam, Viscount | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Wise, Frederick |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Margesson, H. D. R. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Fawkes, Major F. H. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Flanagan, W. H. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Morris, Harold | |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Murchison, C. K. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Nall, Major Joseph | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Buckle, J. | Duncan, C. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Burgess, S. | Dunnico, H. |
| Attlee, C. R. | Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) |
| Barnes, A. | Cairns, John | Entwistle, Major C. F. |
| Batey, Joseph | Charleton, H. C. | Fairbairn, R. R. |
| Bonwick, A. | Clarke, Sir E. C. | Foot, Isaac |
| Broad, F. A. | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) |
| Bromfield, William | Collison, Levi | Gray, Frank (Oxford) |
| Brotherton, J. | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Greenall, T. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Duffy, T. Gavan | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | M'Entee, V. L. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Groves, T. | McLaren, Andrew | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Grundy, T. W. | March, S. | Snell, Harry |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Hardie, George D. | Maxton, James | Stephen, Campbell |
| Harney, E. A. | Middleton, G. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morel, E. D. | Sullivan, J. |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Hastings, Patrick | Muir, John W. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Murnin, H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Newbold, J. T. W. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Herriotts, J. | Nichol, Robert | Warne, G. H. |
| Hillary, A. E. | O'Grady, Captain James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hinds, John | Oliver, George Harold | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hirst, G. H. | Paling, W. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Parker, H. (Hanley) | Weir, L. M. |
| Hogge, James Myles | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | Welsh, J. C. |
| Irving, Dan | Phillipps, Vivian | Westwood, J. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wheatley, J. |
| Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Potts, John S. | Whiteley, W. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Richards, R. | Wignall, James |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Ritson, J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Lansbury, George | Royce, William Stapleton | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Lawson, John James | Scrymgeour, E. | |
| Leach, W. | Sexton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lee, F. | Shinwell, Emanuel | Mr. Lunn and Mr. Amnion. |
| Lowth, T. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
2732§ The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 130.
2733| Division No. 34.] | AYES. | [8.44 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Harvey, Major S. E. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Cope, Major William | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com Frederick W. | Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Hewett, Sir J. P. |
| Baird, Rt. Hen. Sir John Lawrence | Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Darbishire, C. W. | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. |
| Banks, Mitchell | Davidson, J.C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Becker, Harry | Dawson, Sir Philip | Houlton, John Plowright |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes) | Edge, Captain Sir William | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Ednam, Viscount | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Berry, Sir George | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hume, G. H. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Flanagan, W. H. | Jarrett, G. W. S. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Forestier-Walker, L. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Jones, G. W. H, (Stoke Newington) |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Furness, G. J. | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel |
| Bruton, Sir James | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Ganzoni, Sir John | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Gilbert, James Daniel | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Lloyd Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Lorden, John William |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Lorimer, H. D. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Lougher, L. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) | Lumley, L. R |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Halstead, Major D. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hancock, John George | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Makins, Brigadier-General H. | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Margesson, H. D. R. | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Morris, Harold | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Murchison, C. K. | Russell, William (Bolton) | Tubbs, S. W. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Rutherford, sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Nield, Sir Herbert | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Paget, T. G. | Sandon, Lord | Wells, S. R. |
| Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Shepperson, E. W. | Winterton, Earl |
| Pattinson, R. (Grantham) | Sinclair, Sir A. | Wise, Frederick |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Skelton, A. N. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F, L. (Ripon) |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Sparkes, H. W. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Pielou, D. P. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Maine, W. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| Remer, J. R. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. |
| Attlee, c R. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Richards, R. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Herriotts, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barnes, A. | Hillary, A. E. | Ritson, J. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hinds, John | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bonwick, A. | Hirst, G. H. | Robertson, I. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Bromfield, William | Hogge, James Myles | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Brotherton, J. | Irving, Dan | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sexton, James |
| Burgess, S. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Cairns, John | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Clarke, Sir E. C. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Snell, Harry |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John B. | Kirkwood, D. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Collison, Levi | Lansbury, George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Leach, W. | Sullivan, J. |
| Duncan, C. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Dunnico, H. | Lowth, T. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | M'Entee, V. L. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | McLaren, Andrew | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | March, S. | Warne, G. H. |
| Foot, Isaac | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Maxton, James | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Greenall, T. | Middleton, G | Weir, L. M. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morel, E. D. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Muir, John W. | Wheatley, J. |
| Groves, T. | Murnin, H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Wignall, James |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Norman ton) | Newbold, J. T. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nichol, Robert | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | O'Grady, Captain James | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hardie, George D. | Oliver, George Harold | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Harney, E. A. | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Harris, Percy A. | Parker, H. (Hanley) | |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hastings, Patrick | Phillipps, Vivian | Mr. Lunn and Mr. Amnion. |
Third Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. SULLIVANI am sorry that we are compelled to take action of this kind, 2734 but hon. Members who have preached economy all over the country only try to practise it when claims are made on behalf of the unemployed. In this case we have an Estimate of £2,340,266, and there is a deficit of £933,841. We cannot agree to this Vote unless it is made 2735 clearer than it has been. Why an Estimate should be so far short of the money spent it is difficult to know. I notice on page 7 that there is an item of £20,000 for further provision required owing to expenditure being greater than was originally expected, and there is a sum of £470 included in respect of extra statutory gratuity in respect to an Inspector-General in addition to £4,000 provided in the original Estimate. Who got that £4,000, and why is it necessary to give an extra £470? It may be that, following the principle that the money had to be spent, he might as well get it as anybody else. But we think that money has been spent lavishly and recklessly and we would like hon. Members opposite to take this a little move seriously.
I know that for some time they will be able to save their faces in the country by blaming everything on the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But that will only last for a time. Next year they will be face to face with their own handiwork, and it is just as well for them to realise that if they want £2,000,000 they should spend within that amount, and should not come before the House and ask for another £2,000,000 without giving sufficient explanation. I do not think that anything which can be said can justify some of the increases which we have here. You have sums advanced for the Royal Irish Constabulary, for the conveyance of prisoners prior to committal, which sums could not be recovered from the county councils of Southern Ireland. I noticed in the Debate earlier that the Irish people had come together with their minds made up that the British taxpayer was to meet all the claims. That probably also maybe the Government explanation in connection with this extravagance, but if that be so, it is just as well to think it over. You have on page 6 arms, ammunition and accoutrements, provision to meet claims which were not furnished by the 31st March, a small sum of £22,000. Members on this side of the House have not been used to spending money in millions, and our training probably has made us more careful in dealing with money than are hon. Members who have never worked in the mines for 30s. a week. I notice that in the Paper explaining the Estimates it is stated that part of the deficit has to 2736 be met because it was expected that the force would be disbanded on 31st March, but that it continued to 31st August. It happens that I was a miner before coming to this House, and I look back to the time when the Government decontrolled the mines in violation of the recommendation of Mr. Justice Sankey which the Government had previously accepted.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)How does the hon. Member connect that subject with the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
§ Mr. SULLIVANI am using it as an illustration. If you rule it out of order I must accept the ruling. It is unfortunate for me that the Government deliberately broke their pledge to the mining community.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is making a reference to a controversial statement which is not relevant to the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI am sorry if you take up that position. The Force was not disbanded on 31st March, and whether it was maintained till 31st August or not the expense was kept up to the later date. The sum involved was roughly £1,000,000, and, seeing that the Government have so much difficulty in getting money for houses, for pensions, for ex-service men and for the unemployed, they ought to have been more careful.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWe oppose this Vote, in order to protest against the Government's action towards the unemployed. I look at the Paper with which Members have been supplied and I find that the same Government which has be haved so shamefully to the unemployed is prepared cooly and calmly, with a brass face, to ask us who are the representatives of the unemployed outside—they are starving at the moment, and I saw quite a number of them to-night abused in the Lobby of the House—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Royal Irish Constabulary has nothing to do with that subject.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI know perfectly well that I shall have great difficulty in keeping to the subject matter of the 2737 Resolution, the reason being that where the heart is, the foot or tongue is apt to wander, and my heart and life are with the unemployed. Let me turn to the subject under discussion. I come from the Clyde and represent Dumbarton. That is to say, I represent a great shipbuilding and engineering centre, where we have been told time and again by the learned fraternity who now sit on the Government benches that they had all the brains, and that they only were fit to govern. Yet that same team produced this paper, which proves conclusively to the ordinary man in the street that they are not fit to govern, for in a very small part of an Estimate they are "out" in their calculations by £1,000,000. Of course, this is not the first time that the lords and earls and dukes of Britain, who have at their backs the brains, which they buy, have made a great mistake. If my memory serves me right—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERAll mankind must occasionally make mistakes, but I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is involved in the Estimate.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe Royal Irish Constabulary is the item which I am trying to discuss. I told you at the outset that I would not take you at a disadvantage. I told you that I was using this only as a means to an end, to protest against the brass-faced men who abandoned my class in the manner they have done. Now to the Irish Constabulary. Time and again we have put forward legitimate claims. They did not amount to £1,000,000, to be handed to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which here includes the Dublin Metropolitan Police. We, coming as we do from Scotland, the land of the brave and free, understood that the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force was like the civil police force in Glasgow and that the expense would be met by the civil authorities. If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will consult this Paper, you will find that the Front Bench gentlemen have it down here that we are to support the Metropolitan Police in Dublin. I want to know what part of that expense has to be met or has been met by the civil authorities of Dublin? I think that is getting back to the ques- 2738 tion of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I would like also to know from you, Sir, if there is any power in your hands to make hon. and right hon. and right hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and Noble Lords attend here on those benches?` Is there no power which can command them, instead of dining and wining to sit on those benches?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment, or I shall have to direct him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOf course, Sir, I quite expected that. Nevertheless there are one or two suggestions which I might make to the British Government—to those who are in power at the moment, though I hope it will not be very long until they are out of power. This relates to what is called the Royal Irish Constabulary. With your kind attention, Sir, I would say that I think the Government ought to be here at the moment to hear what we have to say regarding the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am doing my very utmost to keep in strict line with the constitution of Great Britain, France and Ireland at the moment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member has disregarded my warning, and I must direct him to resume his seat.
Mr. AMNIONThere are a few points which I wish to put before the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate before he replies. I am sure he will appreciate, and you also, Sir, the difficulties of new Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) in endeavouring to put their point of view before the House on a subject of this sort. Probably they are influenced by the fact that it is a new experience for them and that they have never before handled Estimates of the kind which we have to consider. I understand that the increase in this Estimate arises mainly because a force which it was intended to disband on 31st March, was kept in being until 31st August. That being so, I am at a loss to understand whether the arms and ammunitions dealt with in Item E 1 were supplied after the 31st March to enable the Royal Irish Constabulary to carry on, or whether this material was actually supplied prior to the 31st March, and an inaccurate estimate made of the cost which had to be 2739 supplemented subsequently. I notice also in Item H 1 there are charges for postal services, including telegraphs and telephones. I am not sure whether up to the 31st March that charge was borne on the Post Office establishment, or whether it is an entirely new Vote dealing with the period from 31st March on to 31st August. If so, it might be useful if we had some comparative figures showing what the Post Office was allowed as compared with what we are now asked to vote directly. That would be interesting, as showing whether Estimates remain the same when a civil establishment has got to carry them, as compared with those cases in which they are carried on some other arm of the Government service. There is an item for compensation for damage or injury amounting to £14,000. Did this damage arise between 31st March and 31st August? Are we to understand that there was an increase in cases of arson, and perhaps attacks on life and property, after it had been decided to disband this force, or was it, again, because there was a failure to estimate with any degree of accuracy what was likely to be charged?
Under Item I 3 I observe compensation for steamship requisition amounting to £1,511. By whom was this steamship requisitioned? Was it by forces in arms against this Government or the Provisional Government, or was it by the Crown for some purpose such as transporting Royal Irish Constabulary from one point to another? Under I 5 provision is made to meet losses arising mainly from sums advanced by the Royal Irish Constabulary for the conveyance of prisoners prior to committal, which sums could not be recovered from the county councils of Southern Ireland, and there is also an item for losses of cash in ambushes, etc. Still keeping in mind the fact that the whole of this Estimate has to do with the continuance in being of the Royal Irish Constabulary between March and August, are we to understand that this cost of £11,500 for the conveyance of prisoners and loss of cash was all entailed during those six months? These items should be made clear to us before we decide whether we can support the hon. and gallant Member in this Estimate. For pensions and gratuities a sum of £20,000 is indicated. How does that arise, and does it arise between March 2740 and August? Are we to understand that a great number of people became entitled to sums during these six months to the tune of £20,000, or is it another case of inaccurately estimated charges which arose prior to the 31st March. It is not quite fair to suggest that all these increases are due to the maintenance in being of the Royal Irish Constabulary during those months, and we should know clearly if these are being carried forward from the period prior to the 31st March, instead of having them put to us as something entirely new. Did the revenue go on from 31st March to the 31st August, and if not, has all this expense been thrown on to us as an extra charge over and above anything we have claimed from Ireland in respect of the claims now being presented to us.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) such information as I have at my disposal on the point he has raised. Before doing so, may I say, in reply to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan), that nobody regrets more than I do having to present this Supplementary Estimate. One of the first things which met me when I went for the first time into the Government of this country three weeks last Saturday was to be presented with these accounts, which I think in all cases were money which had been spent on the authority of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and as there is no Chief Secretary now, I am informed that it is my duty to represent him in the winding-up of the Irish Office. I sincerely hope that this is the last Supplementary Estimate, but I am net quite sure.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell was wrong in gathering from the explanations given that the items from E to J are to do with the carrying on of the Royal Irish Constabulary from 31st March to 31st August last. The only three items that go together are the first three, Pay, Allowances, and Subsistence Allowances, owing to the fact that the Provisional Government were not in a position on the 1st April last to take over from the Royal Irish Constabulary various barracks up and down the country, or the Constabulary Depots at Phoenix Park, or the large Constabulary Camp and Workshop at Gormanstown. They had only been in 2741 existence since the Treaty, signed the previous December, and by the 31st March we had hoped they would have Free State buildings ready to take over from the Royal Irish Constabulary. Unfortunately, they were not ready, and until they were ready and gradually took over these various depots during the course of the summer it was necessary to keep the Royal Irish Constabulary on longer than was originally intended. In the North of Ireland the date was the 31st May, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary took over then. The remaining items are different, and I will deal with the questions put to me by the hon. Member seriatim. In regard to E.1, Arms, Ammunition, and Accoutrements, the provision on this account for the year 1921 was no less than £351,000. No provision was made when this year's Estimate was framed, but claims have now been received from the War Office, the Air Ministry, and other Departments in respect of arms and ammunition supplied by them in the earlier period, 1920–21. No fresh expenditure has been made under this head in the current financial year.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORENo. These are bills that have come in from the Departments in respect of arms and ammunition not paid for in 1920–21. The next question was in regard to the Post Office. The arrangement was this, that before 31st March this year the Royal Irish Constabulary, on official duties, used the Post Office free, without paying for stamps, and so on, the same as every Government Department in this country.
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs the hon. Gentle-mar, sure the police use the Post Office free in this country?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREOn official correspondence the police have a considerable amount of free postage, but not, of course, in their private affairs.
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs the hon. Gentleman sure of that?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI am talking of the Metropolitan Police, and the Royal Irish Constabulary were a central force, directly under the Central Government. There were no local police forces, except in Dublin, and there is nothing in this 2742 Supplementary Estimate whatever for Dublin Metropolitan Police. That is only put in at the top, because it was part of the heading under which all these Votes have to be covered. On the 1st April this year, the Post Office was handed over to the Provisional Government, and therefore ever since the remnant of the Royal Irish Constabulary had to pay, whereas they did not have to pay before.
Mr. AMNIONAre we to understand then that actually there was no revenue from the Post Office and that this is now thrown on to the Imperial Exchequer?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREYes; I think I can explain it. Before the 1st April last the Irish Post Office was part of the Imperial Post Office; after the 1st April it was handed over to the Provisional Government. Here were Imperial servants, the Royal Irish Constabulary, paid by this House, carrying on in Ireland for a few months more. Therefore they had to begin to do what they had not done before, namely, to pay for their postage.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWere they continuing there at the request of the Provisional Government?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREYes.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThen why should not the Provisional Government pay?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThey had not got the men to take over.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODBut they might have paid the postage.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREMy hon. and gallant Friend knows that the conditions in Ireland were such that it was absolutely impossible to expect anything of that kind.
§ Mr. F. GRAYWere there any Free State police in the country when the Royal Irish Constabulary were disbanded?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThey certainly have got their own police forces now.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREVery few, and they gradually took over as they increased their police. As a matter of fact, from the date of the Treaty they did begin to establish police and to take over barracks 2743 up and down the country, and they gradually assumed the responsibility for law and order in the 26 counties. These are all accounts for that interim period.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREIt was a gradual process. We had hoped it would be completed between the 6th December, 1921, when the Treaty was signed, and the 31st March this year, but, as a matter of fact, it was not completed till the 31st August, hence the larger part of this Supplementary Estimate. Let me get on to the specific questions put about Damage and Injury, Item I. The £1,000 put in the original Estimate was, confessedly, what is called a Token Vote. This Token Vote was put down because it was absolutely impossible to estimate what claims would be required to be settled or the amount of money involved. As a matter of fact, we feared that considerably larger number of claims might be made under that head, but, luckily, those claims, which cover a period of 18 months up to August of this year, have only come to £15,000. They are largely claims in respect of personal injuries sustained in collision with police vehicles, or of damage to vehicles, cattle, and small items of that kind. That explains the reason why the Token Vote has not had to be very largely increased. The next question, which the hon. Member for Camberwell asked, was with regard to the Compensation for Steamship Requisitioned. I admit that there is a certain element of humour in this particular case. This was a small steamer, called the "John Somers," which was requisitioned by the Royal Irish Constabulary from Jeremiah Collins, of Cork, on 6th June, 1921. The steamer made journeys for the police backward and forward from Queenstown to Cork. When the ship was handed back to him, on the 3rd October, 1921, Captain Collins put in a very large claim, because apparently the original contract for this vessel was not very carefully worded. He put in a claim for £3,608 10s. 4d., made up of hiring, and a large sum for reconditioning. Ever since then, until quite recently, the Treasury 2744 have, through the Chief Crown Solicitor, been endeavouring to negotiate for a settlement of Mr. Jeremiah Collins' claim, with considerable difficulty. At last they have got him to accept, instead of his claim, the sum of £1,500, plus ten guineas cost. That explains why this item is £1,511. The next item of" £400, extra-Statutory Grants to Dependents of Deceased Constabulary, deals with three particular constables. There was Constable Duffy, who was accidentally shot by a member of another party of police who mistook him for a rebel, on the 19th August, 1920. All these cases go back to 1920, except one, which is in April, 1921. My hon. Friend asked about losses. I remember, when I was a free Member, that I always objected to the heading of Losses in any Supplementary Estimate. The main item is for the debts due by county councils for the conveyance of prisoners and the expenses in connection with food and drugs. Responsibility for the conveyance of Sinn Fein prisoners taken during the troubles in Ireland fell statutorily on the Irish county councils. As a good many of the Irish county councils were not in sympathy with the people who were opposing the police than with those who were supporting the police, it was found absolutely impossible to recover from them the sums for this purpose. Therefore they must be charged under the heading of Losses.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORESpread over the whole of the year 1921–22. There is another small item, "Contingencies," including provision for possible deficiencies which may be shown on wind-up of amalgamated county accounts. That is practically, as far as I can make out, the only Estimate here, and it is money so far accounted for by merely winding-up and finishing. One hopes that possible deficiencies in winding-up will not be as bad as it was feared.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREWe hope so. The next question was that of Pensions and Gratuities. This, confessedly, in the main, was a faulty Estimate. There is a very large sum of money involved, how- 2745 ever, and the difference of £20,000 on a total of £2,000,000, considering the conditions under which the Constabulary in Ireland were working, was not a very serious one in estimating the pensions which would be required in connection with the winding-up of the Royal Irish Constabulary. One item, however, which is controversial, has been put in, so that we may make a perfectly clean breast of it, namely, the extra pension of £470 granted to Sir Joseph Byrne, the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who terminated his appointment on 7th March, 1920. Under this contract as Inspector-General, he was entitled to full pay until found another post. Hon. Members will remember that there was a suggestion of his going to Scotland Yard, which did not materialise. He has since become Governor of Seychelles, and this £470 is required to make up the amount due to him under his contract with the Treasury during that interval.
With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, that is shown, of course, as an accounting item. I hope that the deficiency of these Appropriations-in-Aid may not be as much as is put down in this Vote, but for technical reasons we have to show it. Legal proceedings are now going on, and we hope that that sum will be actually saved and not required to be spent. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised on this Estimate. I apologise for keeping the House so long. I had not an opportunity of giving an explanation, to the best of my ability, in Committee, owing to the kindness of the Opposition in not moving on that Stage.
§ Mr. HASTINGSI have not the slightest intention of unnecessarily delaying the House by asking questions on matters which do not seem to be relevant to the subject before us. I really have, however, a desire to get some information upon these accounts, and a great many hon. Members on these benches are in a similar position. I approach these accounts in complete ignorance of the way in which they are usually put before the House. I will assume, and no doubt rightly, that this is the ordinary manner, and the only information which hon. Members can get when they seek an opportunity of questioning. I say, without hesitation, that personally I am 2746 shocked by the method of presenting accounts to the House, if this is the only method. I propose, with the permission of the House, to quote as an example one or two of the things which seem to me to be an amazing way of treating hon. Members who really desire to get some information on the matters in hand. I am told, and I accept it for the moment as being correct, because it comes from a source which I certainly would accept, that these accounts were framed in March of last year. Just let us examine four of them to see what a remarkable state of affairs they seem to disclose.
First, I would call attention to Items F and H. They seem to me to bear a very close analogy to the position of B, which is pay. If I look at F, I find that the rent of barracks, for which apparently our whole Estimate is required for the purposes of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was estimated in March of this year at £11,450. Now, according to these accounts, they have increased. There is a deficit of £18,350, which, from a cursory glance, would lead one to think that they were multiplied three times. That, is not the fact. If one looks at such explanation as is afforded us on the other side, we find that £18,000 is in respect of "Provision for final settlement of claims for rent in respect of commandeered premises." If one looked to see who occupied those barracks, one would naturally, and, I think, normally expect that they would represent about three times the amount of the Estimates for the pay, because even if we give to the amount of the barracks three times the amount of the preliminary expenses, which is far more than we should give under this figure, we then look to see what is the increase of pay, and we find that the original Estimate was £24,000. If we multiply that by three to correspond with the increased amount for barracks, we get a figure in the neighbourhood of £72,000. Instead of that, when I look at this account, I find that the figure is £406,000, and there is no explanation at all given to us—and, so far as I know, to anyone in the House— how it was that in March the Government estimated that the pay for the Constabulary would be £24,000 at the end of that month, and were so far wrong that that is now swollen to £406,000. So far as I know, there is no explanation, or any possible explanation, of the difference between the pay paid to these men and 2747 such accounts as the rent of barracks and many others. If I look at item H and try to compare that with the rate of pay, I find incidental expenses put down at £5,000, and a deficit now of £43,000. If I look over the page to see what that represents, I find that the delay in disbandment accounts for a deficit of £10,000, so that if you take the original Estimate at D, and you double it to get the incidental expenses, you find not the slightest resemblance between the discrepancies and the pay, which has jumped from £24,000 to £406,000.
It may be that these matters are capable of simple explanation, but no one in the House at this moment has had any explanation at all, or any means of explanation, and although I do not want to appear to be at all hypercritical when, as the hon. Gentleman told us, he is representing the winding-up of the Irish Office, and is in the position of what, I suppose, would be known in my profession as more in the nature of an official receiver, and one does not expect him to be too accurate, or to have too great a knowledge, it certainly does seem, with respectful submission to the hon. Gentleman, that it is treating the Members of the House, who really do take an interest in these accounts, and really do want to know, with a considerable amount of contempt to give us no more information. We are asked to sanction an increased allowance from £24,000 to £406,000 without the slightest idea of what it is for—whether for increased pay to privates in the Royal Irish Constabulary, or whether it is that some highly paid officials in the Constabulary have had very largely increased sums, because they have been kept for a longer time than they anticipated. We know that one gentleman was kept on full pay until he got another appointment, and received £470. I am not in the least prepared to criticise that, or question it, because I have not the slightest idea whether he deserved it or not, but, so far as I know, there may have been 400,000 persons in the same position. What I wish to point out is, that it seems a little hard that there should be any suggestion that we on these benches are at all endeavouring to obstruct the business of the House in asking these questions, if we are not given any information at all. Again, I 2748 do not want to complain of the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help thinking that if he had not been in quite such a hurry to rise, and had given us an opportunity of asking him these questions, he might have given us the information in a few sentences, which would have prevented it being necessary that I, at any rate, should ask these questions again.
It is not as though it stopped there. Looking further down at Miscellaneous Services, we find an original Estimate of £300,000, which has now grown to £370,000. That is comparatively a small increase, because in this House, of course, we are in the proud position of being able to talk about £70,000 in a way which outside the House we should talk in the neighbourhood of 1s. or 6d. Although this figure is comparatively small, we find that it is
Further provision required owing to the expenditure arising out of disbandment being greater than was originally anticipated.[An HON. MEMBER: "What does it mean?"] Instead of asking me, I wish the hon. Member would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I have not the faintest notion; but I would point out that if one really tries to examine these accounts, not idly from a critical point of view, but really with a desire to know, again he is bound to be struck by the appalling discrepancy between an increase of £70,000 on £300,000 under Miscellaneous Services, and an increase from £24,000 to £406,000 on pay, which, apparently, is accounted for by the same set of circumstances. Whereas it was anticipated that the Royal Irish Constabulary would have, left us by the end of March, they are still, at the end of August, with us, and are getting a sum of £406,000 over and above what we had anticipated. It surely cannot be suggested that questions of this sort-are in any way obstructive. They are really asked, so far at least as I am concerned, with the object of obtaining some sort of information. Although we are dealing here with comparatively a small sum—under £1,000,000–if anyone looks at any of these Estimates, or, so far as I have been able, at any Estimates presented to the House, the information is very meagre on all occasions. I speak now, not only as a new Member, but, I am sure, with the sympathy of a great many other Members, who really want to know, who really feel that if we are dealing with 2749 these financial matters, either we ought to be asked by the Government simply to vote for them without knowing what they are—and if we are told that is what we are expected to do, and. we are merely adopting obstructionist methods, then let us know. We can then say whether we will accept them or not as the case may be—but if, on the other hand, the Government really desire that Members who represent, after all, very large constituencies, should be told to go back to their constituencies and say, "We have done our best to see that your money has been fruitfully and properly expended," I should have thought that we were at least entitled to know what it was being expended for, because I speak quite frankly when I say that at the moment, if I were asked to go into the Lobby to support these accounts without knowing what they wore, I think I should be dishonest, because I should be lending the sanction of my constituents to these accounts without having the slightest idea what they were for.I know it is a very undesirable and an unwise thing to let hon. Members know that one speaks, as a lawyer, but, of course, that one cannot help. But I have frequently, in the course of my career, been compelled to say to very distinguished gentlemen, and gentlemen of great integrity in the witness box, "Do you mean to tell me you supported these accounts, being in the position of a trustee, without having the slightest idea what they represented?" And if the gentleman in the witness box had said "Yes," a learned Judge, in the full exercise of his discretion, would turn round and say, "Are you not ashamed of yourself? "or words to that effect, and I feel myself in about exactly the same unenviable position as the gentleman in the witness box. So far as I know at this moment, I have not committeed any breach of trust, but I say quite frankly to any hon. Member of this House who goes into the Lobby tonight and votes in favour of these. Estimates, unless he has a great deal more information than I have got, I should like to have an opportunity of cross-examining him, and would undertake to say that when I had finished, he would say that lawyers were a pest both in the House and out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am quite sure my -right hon. Friend the Attorney-General 2750 will join in the universal applause. I say I do not wish to weary the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on!"]—in case I should earn that solemn opprobrium which has properly been awarded to other Members who, on both sides of the House, have spoken in matters not absolutely relevant. The only object of my few observations is really to know, before I go into the Lobby, if I have to go in order to support these Estimates—somebody should give me the information— what they represent. If they do not, then I respectfully suggest to Members of the House upon this side and the other that if they do go into the Lobby to support accounts such as these without greater information they are committing a breach of duty to their constituents.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThe first thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the difference in treatment meted out to the unemployed policemen and the unemployed industrial worker. I do not know how the Government manage to change their policy according to the class of people with whom they are dealing, but had these policemen been miners or shipyard workers I submit that there would not have been any Supplementary Estimates submitted at all, but that they would have been dealt with in the same shocking way as the industrial workers are being dealt with at the present time. There is, to my mind, no great difficulty in discovering the difference. In the one case you are dealing with a body of men who are the defenders of the property for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on which they place considerable value, and in the other case you are dealing with the defenders of human lives, on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite place very little value. It is because of that, and of this different outlook on the relative values of material property and of human life that we get a conservative policy of this kind for the police and a conservative policy of the other kind for the industrial workers.
When we turn to these Estimates we are not encouraged to place a great deal of confidence in any future Estimates that may come before the House. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite conducted their businesses in the same way as they evidently conduct the public business I think private enterprise would come to 2751 an untimely decease. Here we have in a comparatively small sum an error of £1,000,000. When I saw this, I was reminded of an article written some years ago by the hon. Gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition in a Glasgow Labour paper, the "Forward." In that article the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the present Prime Minister, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a mistake that cost the nation £32,000 per minute. Now the right hon. Gentleman, with that experience of national finance, is just the sort of right hon. Gentleman that we would expect to put forward an Estimate such as is submitted to us, because here we have an error of £1,000,000 in these Estimates. This goes to show that no interest at all was taken in the preparation of the original Estimate, and that the Government come forward in a slipshod way and throw it at the head of the House' of Commons, and said: "There you are; that is what we intended to spend, knowing that our Estimates are out of it often by £1,000,000, but we have only to go back and, in the exercise of our majority obtained from a foolish electorate in the country, get the extra, money." If they dealt with their own business in that way, I think we would quite soon be able to demonstrate that they wore as incapable of governing industry as they are demonstrably incapable of government in the financial affairs of the country. When you come, to deal with these questions, if you take these items, you again get questions naturally rising in your minds showing how incapable the present people are of governing.
I notice that under Item E—Travelling Expenses—it is said, on page
Further provision due to delay in disbandment and issue of free travelling warrants to the homes of all ranks on disbandment, or to Great Britain.There are two points I want to raise on this Estimate. The first is, what was the cause of the delay in disbandment? Could not the authorities, or the Government, exercise reasonable foresight and have anticipated the delay when the original Estimate was being prepared? That lack of foresight is again displayed in the preparation of this Estimate. It does not encourage us to have a great deal of confidence in the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen 2752 who are now responsible for His Majesty's Government. The second point I would like to raise on this item is this: Have these people homes to which to return? I notice that they have been given free travelling warrants to the homes of all ranks on disbandment. Are right hon. Friends quite sure that they have homes? I have experience of men who have been disbanded, men who have served the country just as faithfully as the men whose position we are now considering. These were disbanded workers. They were demobilised. They were sent home, and they had free travelling warrants, but they had no homes and have not yet. They have been promised these homes since 1918. If the police in Ireland, who are your immediate protectors, have been provided with homes, then they are very much more fortunate than those who defended the Empire in its hour of need.Another thing that occurs to me in reading these Estimates is the amount of "copy" that might be got out of them by a novelist of, say, the calibre of George A. Birmingham. Those who have read Mr. Birmingham's sketches of Irish life and character will remember how the superior Irish people, in the exercise of their political intelligence, have been always able to rob the British purse, which was under the protection of the competent class who are responsible for the Government of this country. I have a very shrewd suspicion, Mr. Speaker, that we are witnessing here just one of those things which might provide a chapter for George A. Birmingham. It looks as if this were one of the last opportunities which this sagacious people would have to rob the British taxpayer, and that our poor, simple Government, as represented by the other side, are sitting silently and hopelessly, and allowing the Irish people to have their own way. I should like to know something about Item E 1– "Arms, Ammunition and Accoutrements—provision to meet the claims which were not furnished by 31st March, 1922." The amount is £22,000. How many of these were really genuine claims 1 I should like to ask whether they were not claims organised between the people who were serving you, and probably others who, for the price of a drink, entered into an agreement with the people who defended law and order in Ireland, and were handed over these arms, 2753 ammunitions and equipment for which we, the British taxpayers, are now asked to pay £22,000. I would also draw attention to Item F, which is "provision for the final settlement of claims for the rent of commandeered premises." This is not rent for ordinary barracks, but it is a sort of Irish arrangement which I think we are bound to view with the utmost suspicion. No doubt it is in respect of commandeered premises which were handed over to the British Government to strengthen the claims of the Irish nation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we are entitled to much more information in regard to this item than is submitted in the two-line paragraph, upon the strength of which we are expected to vote over £18,000. We cannot afford even £10,000 as a Christmas contribution to our own unemployed for the maintenance of little infants who have been in a state of semi-starvation for the last two years. Under these circumstance, I think we are the last people in the world who should vote away money to this extent upon the information which has been supplied to us.
Take the next item, which is "Incidental expenses on account of delay in disbandment, £10,000." It is not £9,999 19s. 11d., but by a most remarkable arithmetical calculation it is exactly £10,000. Supposing the hon. Member had had to disband a number of industrial workers. Would he have reckoned it up in that way? No, he would not, for he would have said, "We do not require your services, out you go." They would not have had travelling warrants or inquiries made whether they had homes or not. You would say to them, "Out you go, you are scrapped for the period of the duration of unemployment." When you are dealing with these men in this Estimate you make the most generous provision, and this delay in disbandment is costing the country £10,000.
Then there is another item, "Claims for wireless and other supplies not furnished by the 31st March, 1922." I do not know who is the draftsman of these paragraphs, but if he is in the House I should like him to give us an explanation of these two lines, "Claims for wireless and other supplies not furnished by the 31st March, 1922." Who do these claims come from?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThese claims are from other Government Departments, 2754 including the Admiralty, the Air Force, and the War Office, and they are repayments for things that happened last year.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYWhat the hon. Member has just said only arouses greater suspicion as to the efficiency of the Government Department for which he is responsible. If these expenses were incurred last year, can we have any reasonable explanation why these Government Departments did not submit these claims by the 31st March, 1922. I think this displays a lack of supervision on the part of the Government and its chief officials, which increases the suspicion with which we regard the manner in which the finances of the country are conducted. The next item is for postal services, including telephones and telegrams. This is an additional expense, and it is not the total for the year, but the amount by which the Government was out of it in estimating the expenditure of the year.
10. P.M.
Even in Ireland one would get a lot of stamps and telephone calls for £10,000. The Government always seem to be looking for a scapegoat in these matters. Again, this item is said to be due to the postponement of disbandment which has necessitated the payment to the Provisional Government in Southern Ireland of this sum for postal services. It seems to me that the Provisional Government in Southern Ireland has succeeded in pulling the leg of His Majesty's Government for stamps alone to the extent of £10,000. In previous years the cost of this service was borne on the Post Office Vote, but the £10,000 is extra in order to satisfy the people who to their credit in the South of Ireland are acting more intelligently on behalf of their constituents than the Government are doing on behalf of the people of this country.
Another sum is required as compensation for damages and injuries owing to the expenditure being greater in this respect than was anticipated. No doubt this is for something which happened in the course of the rather vigorous political campaign that was conducted in Ireland prior to the settlement, and probably there has been a few more black eyes than were anticipated under the original Estimate, and for these additional injuries the provision of a further sum of £14,000 had to be provided. Then, 2755 probably in order to cover up something for which no explanation at all could be given, we get an item for miscellaneous services, being further provision required owing to expenditure again arising out of the disbandment being greater than was originally anticipated. His Majesty's Government seem to be almost as short of English as they are of political ideas, because if you examine these paragraphs you find that there is a remarkable redundancy of words which one would not expect from benches in a position to display so many professors and people who have adorned the sources of British knowledge and education.
If you were submitting, in the case of an ordinary private enterprise, the annual balance-sheet, and you were asked to pass under miscellaneous services the sum of £70,000, what would you do? You would put on your chartered accountant to discover why your servants had covered up a number of items amounting to such a huge sum without giving a detailed examination, because £70,000 is an enormous sum, and that amount as a Christmas gift to the unemployed might save the face of the House of Commons and help to allay the suspicion and distrust of Parliamentary government which are undoubtedly growing, with much justification, amongst the British working classes.
Here we have the Government coming to Parliament, which, it is assumed, has some business knowledge, and submitting an item of £70,000 without giving us a single word of explanation as to how that huge sum has been spent. I am amazed that the British taxpayer is able to stand it at all, If he is to be asked to fork out money in that way, Heaven help him if the present Government is to survive the full statutory period of its existence. 'There are one or two items as to which I should like to ask a question, and the first is on item (J)—"Pensions and Gratuities." Here you have "further provision required owing to the expenditure having been greater than was originally estimated." The same old word-redundancy! There is a sum of £470 included in that in respect of" extra statutory gratuities." Before passing on to the remainder of that paragraph, as my English is not of that perfect character which one acquires at Oxford, 2756 but is of that limited character which one gains in a colliery village, I would like to ask what is the real meaning of the words "extra statutory gratuity." With my limited knowledge I cannot understand it, but it seems to me as if it were not a legal thing. I think it must be something which has not been sanctioned by Parliament and is outside the law. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Estimate may be able to afford some explanation. I know right hon. Gentlemen opposite can very often give a reasonable explanation for taking money in a manner they are not morally entitled to take it.
I say if "Extra Statutory Gratuities" mean anything they mean something illegal: something that the Government has handed over without the authority of the British Parliament, and as I do not sec any indication that my reading of these words is questioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I want to protest against it in the name of that control which this House by immemorial practice and by its constitutional position should have over the finances of this country. It is a shocking shame that the finances of the country should be used in this way outside any Parliamentary control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank (Mr. Kirkwood) would say, it is "brass-facedness." I see the gratuity is for an Inspector-General. I wonder how many Inspector-Generals there are in Ireland? I know we have had a wonderful number of inspectors as well as of generals, but I should like to know how many there are of the hybrid class. This Inspector-General, as I read the Estimate, has already had a sum of £4,000 which was provided in the original Estimate. That in itself surely has a decent pension value. The other day I saw the Prime Minister hold up his hands in holy horror at the idea of increasing the old age pension from 10s. to 20s. a week, or, indeed, at the idea of making any addition to it at all. I remember, too, a statement made by the late Prime Minister in which he asked the workers to be audacious in their demands. If their demands had been framed on the standard evidently in the mind of the right hon Gentleman when he gave that gratuitous advice to the working classes of Great Britain, and if they had said, "We want to have pen- 2757 sions provided for us, because, after all, a miner, or a steel worker, or a shipbuilder, in the terms of useful employment, renders as much service to the country as any Irish police official," if any of these had come forward and said that they wanted a pension of the value of £4,000, and if, on the top of that, they had said they were not satisfied and desired an additional sum of £470, I wonder what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said. I want to know whether any pension has been granted to this Inspector-General. This item refers here only to his retiring allowance, with an "extra statutory gratuity," totalling in all £4,470. Why, I would almost retire from Parliament for that amount! I am submitting these questions in all sincerity, There is one other item which I should like to deal with, although I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. May I say, in passing, I am afraid that the statement which has been submitted here would not be passed by any juvenile football club in Scotland as a properly prepared statement of its financial position? When you come to the item "Appropriations-in-Aid" it is stated here that, "It is anticipated that it will not be possible to recover within the current financial year sums due from certain local authorities in Northern Ireland in respect of extra police expenditure." There is one part of Ireland you have kept for yourselves—Northern Ireland. You have said to Southern Ireland, "You can go. This is the last you will get from us." But Northern Ireland, with that shrewdness which comes from an admixture of British industrialism with the original Irish character has stuck leech-like to Great Britain, and is going to make us pay for the honours of having its representatives in the British Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen from Ulster would be the first to complain if we submitted that their Parliament in Ireland was anything but a subordinate Parliament. I have heard those hon. Gentlemen in the last few days talk about their loyalty to Great Britain. I wonder what it is worth. Evidently in this case it is not worth paying their debts. Hon. Members are, of course, familiar with the story of the man who saw a person knocked down in the street and injured. A sympathetic 2758 crowd had gathered around the injured person, and this good Samaritan came along and said, "My sympathy is worth 2s., how much is yours worth? "I want to know how much the loyalty of Northern Ireland is worth. Surely it should be worth paying for their police. What a confession of almost imbecility we have from the British Government here, when they say that, with all the money we have paid for the Army, with all the money we have paid for the Navy, even with two battleships being laid down to strengthen the naval armament of the British Empire, we are not in a position to obtain from the local authorities in Northern Ireland the extra money we have spent on police services. It is a humiliating confession on the one side; it is evidence of dishonesty on the other. I protest again most emphatically, as a representative of the British taxpayer, that I should be asked to vote this sum of £71,000, merely because His Majesty's Government has not the courage to face up to the wild men of the North of Ireland.
There is a claim here on the Belfast Corporation which has been disputed. Of course, men of that character would always dispute a claim, no matter how reasonable or how well-founded in law it was, particularly when they are dealing with such backboneless Gentlemen as occupy the Government Bench. There is a dispute by that authority as to the amount, and the matter is the subject of litigation. Where is the litigation taking place? That is very important. If we are to estimate what prospect we have of getting what we claim, a great deal depends upon where the Court is held. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a case like this, would be quite agreeable that there should be a right of appeal to one of the various Courts that officiate in Southern Ireland at the present moment, or were officiating until quite recently. If one were to put any estimate on the value of this, one would require to know whether the litigation was to take place in Britain, or in Belfast, or in Southern Ireland. On all these points I hope the hon. Gentleman—who, I noticed, was giving careful attention to my remarks—will be able to give us some further information, because, until I am further enlightened, I shall refuse to go into the Lobby in support of these Estimates.
§ Mr. F. GRAYThere is one point on which I should be glad of assistance in clearing up the discrepancy between the Estimate or imagination of the Government in regard to Item B, on the one hand, and the actual fact of the figures as they are worked out on the other. The hon Gentleman in charge of the Estimate sought to explain the discrepancy by the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary remained in charge of Southern Ireland until such time as the Free State had established an efficient police force. In point of fact, had the British Government been under any obligation under the Treaty to do that—which they were not, so far as I know—they might well, until this moment, have maintained an efficient Royal Irish Constabulary Force in Ireland; but, from the Treaty to the present time, there has not only been no efficient police force in the greater part of Southern Ireland under the Free State, but no police force at all. I say there was no obligation. The complaint made to me, both in Southern and in Northern Ireland, by individual members of the Royal Irish Constabulary—not a public complaint, because that they dared not make, having regard to Item J, under which they hope to get pensions and gratuities out of the British Government—the complaint that they privately and personally made was that the British Government, after the Treaty, first withdrew the Army, upon which those gallant men of the Royal Irish Constabulary had relied for support, and allowed, in a large number of cases, the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to struggle to the coast, there to be taken off, if they could by gunboats sent out by the British Government. I believe the explanation to be that, as in all other measures, the Government, half-way through, entirely changed their policy. Their first policy, after the Treaty, was hastily to withdraw the Army and to disband the Royal Irish Constabulary. When they had pursued that policy for a time, a moment of doubt arose as to whether they had been wise in what they had already done, and they changed their policy then as to part of Ireland, and maintained the Army, which they had promised the Free State under the Treaty they would withdraw at once; and they continued to maintain, where they maintained the Army, the Royal Irish Constabulary, not 2760 in pursuance of an obligation, but in defiance of the compact into which they had entered with the Free State.
§ Mr. G. SPENCERIt is singularly unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman, on the presentation of his first Estimates, should have to submit Estimates which are supplementary, because I know of no Member of the House who has been so critical of expenditure which has not received the sanction of the House before the money has been spent. On more than one occasion he has raised the old constitutional issue about Government spending money which has not been authorised. If there ever was a case where we have a right to protest against expenditure without the authorisation of the House it is the first three items the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If the assumption of the last speaker is correct, we acted in defiance of the Treaty obligations. I do not want to argue from that point of view. I want to take the line the hon. Gentleman has presented because he made it perfectly clear that when the time arrived when the Irish Constabulary should be withdrawn from Ireland, Ireland was not then in a position to undertake the duty which would devolve upon her. At that moment, Ireland said to the Department that had the oversight of the Irish Constabulary, "Let a part of the Constabulary remain in Ireland until we are in a position to supplement them with our own men." If that be correct, I want to ask is this expenditure going to fall upon Ireland or upon Great Britain? I can understand Ireland making an appeal to Great Britain, and saying, "We have not the men at the moment: we have not a place to put our men; we cannot undertake this duty all at once, but if you will continue to perform this task for a period, we will he responsible for the expenditure." But I gather that instead of that being the case, the Department has gratuitously undertaken the duty which should have fallen upon the Free State.
Is that assumption correct or are we to understand that Ireland in due time will pay us for the services which have been rendered? If my assumption is correct, that Ireland is not going to pay for the service Great Britain has rendered, I am justified in raising the constitutional issue. Every hon. Member who has had experi- 2761 ence of the Committee where these Estimates will be finally presented, knows that ever and anon when questions are asked the answer is, "We have a covering letter from the Treasury for this expenditure." It is not enough to get a covering letter from the Treasury for expenditure of this character, expenditure which was originally estimated at £24,000 and has been raised to £430,000. The House is entitled to know whether the Free State is going to discharge her financial obligations, and if she is not, those who have incurred this debt have incurred it not only without receiving the sanction of the House, but, I am certain, without in any way expecting to receive the support of this side of the House.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI will only reply on those points with which I did not deal in my original statement.
§ Mr. SPENCERIs the Free State going to pay this money?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORENo. The disbandment was postponed. It was done by agreement with the Free State. In view of the situation in Ireland, and the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary was an Imperial Force recruited by us, it was thought inadvisable to proceed with the disbandment. In regard to item H, "Incidental expenses," only £10,000 of the £38,530 is due to delay of disbandment, the rest being outstanding claims belonging to the years 1920–21 from other Departments, such as wireless apparatus, search-lights, etc., provided for the Admiralty during the disturbed times in Ireland, which have only come in this year. The £70,000 for the creation of disturbance allowances was due to the fact that, under pressure of this House, a great many of the Royal Irish Constabulary men who, on disbandment, were in danger of their lives, were given a special allowance to enable them to remove their wives and children to this country for safety. The disbanded men could not return to their own homes in Ireland. These men had been carrying on at the peril of their lives, upholding British authority in troublous times in Ireland. When disbandment came, a great many of the men went to their homes, but many of them were shot at, and some of them were actually killed. Quite rightly, this House determined that those who wished to come for asylum 2762 to Great Britain could do so, and that they would be granted a special allowance if their wives and families were brought out of the danger zone to this country. The £70,000 is a sum which could not have been foreseen beforehand, and we now ask for a Supplementary Estimate to defray the allowance.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI should be glad if my hon. Friend, or someone else, would answer a question in regard to the disturbance allowance. That allowance was made because members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, upon disbandment, were driven out of their homes by threats of violence, had to come over to this country, or had to go to Northern Ireland, and leave their homes in which they had hoped to spend the rest of their days. In doing so, they were obliged to incur the cost of removal for themselves and their families. The allowances were from one month to three months' pay, but in most cases the men have spent more than that sum, owing to their removal to a place of safety.
Only three days ago a circular was issued from the Irish Office to all the men who had got these disbandment allowances, calling on them to furnish a strict account of every item of expenditure to which they had been put by being driven out of their homes, and telling them that if they did not furnish that account by the 1st of January next the disbandment allowances, which they had already received and spent, would be deducted from their pay. I would ask the House to say that this is not a fair way to treat these men. They served the British Government faithfully and well, and many of them served it at the cost of their lives. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the unemployed?"] I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had more sympathy for men who, in circumstances of great difficulty and danger, faithfully served the State, and earned what they got for their pay and compensation for their dismissal through no fault of their own.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODSo did the unemployed.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERThe point is that these men were disbanded, not because they wanted to be, but because it was your policy. Your policy was their forced retirement or dismissal from their 2763 position. They got this compensation for being driven out of their homes, and they have spent it, and it is not fair to these men to tell them now that, unless they give an account of every farthing of this expenditure, the money will be deducted.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI know nothing of this circular. I have not seen it. If it is brought to my attention I will study it.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIf I have not got it in my pocket at the moment I will give it to my hon. Friend to-morrow. I am sure that he will put the matter right, because we must treat these men fairly and generously. I notice in this Estimate an item for postal services, including telegrams, owing to postponement of disbandment, necessitating the payment to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland of some £10,000 which is charged to the British Exchequer. Why are we paying to the Provisional Government out of the pocket of the British taxpayer for postal (service caused by the postponement of disbandment? Does
§ it mean that the Government sent free letters about the country in consequence of the postponement of disbandment, and did not put on the letters the 2d. stamps which the Irish Government require?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI explained this very fully to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) in my original statement. The Irish Post Office was handed over to the Provisional Government on the 1st of April, and full disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary did not take place until the 31st of August, and we had to pay the cost of postage to the Provisional Government.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI must apologise to my hon. Friend. I was not present at the time.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man)rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 139.
2765| Division No. 35.] | AYES. | [10.37 pm. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Furness, G. J. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Galbralth, J. F. W. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Garland, C. S. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Gates, Percy |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Clayton, G. C. | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent. Dover) | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Greenwood, William (Stockport) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cope, Major William | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Banks, Mitchell | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Gretton. Colonel John |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Guthrie, Thomas Maule |
| Becker, Harry | Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Crook, C. W, (East Ham, North) | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W. D'by) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Halstead, Major D. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) |
| Berry, Sir George | Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Harrison, F. C. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Harvey, Major S. E. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Blundell, F. N. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Edge, Captain Sir William | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) |
| Brass, Captain W, | Ednam, Viscount | Henn, Sir Sydney H |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Elveden, Viscount | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Hewett, Sir J. P. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Bruton, Sir James | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hinds, John |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Fawkes, Major F. H, | Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Fildes, Henry | Hohler. Gerald Fitzroy |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Flanagan, W. H. | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Foreman, Sir Henry | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Cassels, J. D. | Forestler-Walker, L. | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Cautley, Henry strother | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Hume, G. H. |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Singleton, J. E. |
| Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Nield, Sir Herbert | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) |
| Jarrett, G. W. S. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Paget, T. G. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Jophcott, A. R, | Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Sutcliffe, T. |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Penny, Frederick George | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Lamb, J. O. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Lane Fox, Lieut,-Colonel G. R. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Pielou, D. p. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Raine, W. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Lorden, John William | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. c | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Lorimer, H. D. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Renter, J. R. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Lougher, L. | Rentoul, G. S. | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Wells, S. R. |
| McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Rothschild, Lionel de | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Winterton, Earl |
| Manville, Edward | Russell, William (Bolton) | Wise, Frederick |
| Margesson, H. D. R. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mercer, Colonel H, | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C. | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Sandon, Lord | |
| Murchison, C. K. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Nail, Major Joseph | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Shepperson, E. W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murnln, H. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Westarn) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hancock, John George | Newbold, J. T. W. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hardle, George D. | Nichol, Robert |
| Barnes, A. | Harney, E. A. | O'Grady, Captain James |
| Batey, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. | Oliver, George Harold |
| Bonwick, A. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Paling, W. |
| Bowdler, W. A. | Hastings, Patrick | Parker, H. (Hanley) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Pattinson, R. (Grantham) |
| Bromfield, William | Hayday, Arthur | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) |
| Brotherton, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Herriotts, J. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Buchanan, G. | Hirst, G. H. | Potts, John S. |
| Buckle, J. | Hngge, James Myles | Richards, R. |
| Burgess, S. | Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Burnle, Major J. (Bootle) | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Ritson, J. |
| Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Cairns, John | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Chapple, W. A. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Saklatvala, S. |
| Collison, Levl | Kenyon, Barnet | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Kirkwood, D. | Sexton, James |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lansbury, George | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lawson, John James | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Duncan, C. | Leach, W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Dunnico, H. | Lee, F. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Edmonds, G. | Linfield, F. C. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lowth, T. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Lunn, William | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Snell, Harry |
| Fairbalrn, R. R. | M'Entee, V. L. | Snowden, Philip |
| Foot, Isaac | McLaren, Andrew | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | March, S. | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Marshall, Sir Arthur K. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Greenall, T. | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Maxton, James | Sullivan, J. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Middleton, G. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, Weal) |
| Groves, T. | Morel, E. D. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thornton, M. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Muir, John W. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) | Westwood, J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Warne, G. H. | Wheatley, J. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Whiteley, w. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wignall, James | |
| Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Weir, L. M. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Amnion. |
| Welsh, J. C. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
2768§ The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 140.
2769| Division No. 36.] | AYES. | [10.46 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Erskine-Boist, Captain C. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Lorden, John William |
| Ateher-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Fildes, Henry | Lorimer, H. D. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Aslbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Flanagan, W. H. | Lougher, L. |
| Astor, J. J. {Kent Dover) | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Foreman, Sir Henry | Lumley, L. R. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, L. | McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. |
| Banks, Mitchell | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Becker, Harry | Furness, G. J. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Manville, Edward |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Ganzonl, Sir John | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Garland, C. S. | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Berry, Sir George | Gates, Percy | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Goff, Sir R. Park | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. i. T. C. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Nall, Major Joseph |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive | Gretton, Colonel John | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by) | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Halstead, Major D. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Harrison, F. C. | Paget, T. G. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Harvey, Major S. E. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hawke, John Anthony | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Hay, Major T. w. (Norfolk, South) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H | Penny, Frederick George | |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hcnnessy, Major J. R. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Herbert, Dennis (Hertlord, Watford) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Phillpson, H. H. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Pielou, D. P. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton | Hinds, John | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Raine, W. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Rawson, Lieut-Com. A. C. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Remer, J. R. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Houfton, John Plowright | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Conway, Sir w. Martin | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Cope, Major William | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hudson, Capt. A. | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. |
| Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Hume, G. H. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Roundell, Colonel R. F, |
| Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Hurd, Percy A. | Ruggles-Brise. Major E. |
| Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Jephcott, A. R. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow. E.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton) | Sandon, Lord |
| Ednam, Viscount | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | King, Capt. Henry Douglas | Shaw, Hon Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Elveden, Viscount | Lamb, J. Q. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Sinclair, Sir A. | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Singleton, J. E. | Titchfield, Marquess of | Windsor, Viscount |
| Skelton, A. N. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Winterton, Earl |
| Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Turton, Edmund Russborough | Wise, Frederick |
| Somerville, Daniel (Sarrow-ln-Furn'ss) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Sparkes, H. W. | Wallace, Captain E. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingiton-upon-Hull) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Waring, Major Walter | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Sutcliffe, T. | Wells, S. R. | |
| Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Harris, Percy A. | Richards, R. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hartshorn, Vernon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hastings, Patrick | Ritson, J. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Barnes A. | Hayday, Arthur | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Bonwick, A. | Herrlotts, J. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Bowdier. W. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Broad, F. A. | Hogge, James Myles | Saklatvala, S. |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Brotherton, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Sexton, James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buckle, J. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Burgess, S. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Kenyon, Barnet | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Butler, J. R. m. (Cambridge Univ.) | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Lansbury, George | Snell, Harry |
| Cairns, John | Lawson, John James | Snowden, Philip |
| Chapple, W. A. | Leach, W. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Charleton, H. C | Lee, F. | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Collison, Levi | Linfield, F. C. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lowth, T. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck) | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | M'Entee, V. L. | Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.J |
| Duncan, C. | McLaren, Andrew | Thornton, M. |
| Dunnico, H. | March, S. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Edmonds, G. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Warne, G. H. |
| Emlyn-Jones. J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Maxton, James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Entwistte, Major C. F. | Middleton, G. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Morel, E. D. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Foot, Isaac | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Weir, L. M. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Muir, John W. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Murnin, H. | Westwood, J. |
| Greenall, T. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Wheatley, J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Newbold, J. T. W. | Whlteley, W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Nichol, Robert | Wignall, James |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | O'Grady, Captain James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, T. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Atterclifle) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Parker, H. (Haniey) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pattinson, R. (Grantham) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | |
| Hancock, John George | Phillipps, Vivian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hardle, George D. | Ponsonby, Arthur | Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan Jones. |
| Harney, E. A. | Potts, John S. |
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYIf I may, I would like to open by entering my protest against the action of H.M. Government in applying the Closure.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow that. Any hon. Member is entitled to move the Closure at any period. But it becomes the action of the House if the House approve it, and the hon. Member is not entitled to criticise the action of the House.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI regret sincerely that my lack of familiarity with the rules of the House has led me into making an error of that description. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the lesson will not be lost on me, because I am sure there is no one more anxious to comply with the rules of the House. I feel rather timid in getting up again so shortly after my recent attack on the Irish Estimates, again to bear the responsibility of refusing money to the hon. Gentleman on the other side, because I do feel that there may yet have to be provision made in 2771 some Supplementary Estimate to meet the cost of ensuring the lives of Members of this House who have the temerity to refuse to hand over the British taxpayers' hard-earned money to gentlemen from Ireland who find it so easy to get money by putting in claims on H.M. Government. The Supplementary Estimate before us is required for the year ending 31st March, 1923, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I want again to enter my protest against this manner of carrying on the financial business of the House, that we should first of all have Estimates submitted which proclaim to be a reasonable Estimate of the expenditure for carrying on certain departments, and then the Government should, without notice, and with very little information, throw Supplementary Estimates of this description at our heads, and leave us only a few hours in which to examine the accounts. There is a good deal about which I should like information. First, I would like to know whether the house is still occupied by the Lord Lieutenant. I notice that the expenses are for the year ending 31st March, 1923. I understand that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been scrapped—and that the gentleman who was once a familiar figure in this House, Mr. Tim Healy, had been appointed to the position which is called, I believe, the Governor-Generalship of Ireland. Is the Lord Lieutenant still in existence I Does he still occupy the house? Is he still spending money on it; Why have the Government the nerve to come forward and ask for money to meet the expense on a house that is empty, so far as the Lord Lieutenant is con-concerned. In addition, I want to know what was the salary of the Gentleman who occupied this position? My recollection—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat will come on the new Estimates.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI was trying to bring out this point; whether or not he could provide some of those things for himself. It is not unreasonable that we shoud remember the poverty and that provision for the unemployed—
§ Major PAGETOn a point of Order. Does the subject of unemployment come 2772 under the heading of the housing of the Lord Lieutenant?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThat is just the point I want to raise. Honourable and right hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that they are not the whole of the country; that there are other people not so well off in this world's goods. There are one and a-half million of taxpayers unemployed—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI gave the hon. Gentleman a good deal of latitude a while ago, and I would ask him not to repeat what he has said.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI should be very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to trespass even within any reasonable distance of breaking the rules of the House. But I am always driven back to this: the difference in the outlook on the part of His Majesty's Government, in its estimate of the different sections that go to make up the population of the country.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman would read Standing Order 19, which provides against repetition.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI want to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that for the purpose under review that there has already been granted £3,886 in the original Estimate. Is not that a reasonable sum to carry on the Household, even for one, however mighty and however virtuous, and for the family? His own salary and maintenance do not here come to it all. He has already had a sum which by a process of mental calculation I have worked out to be in the neighbourhood of £75 week for 50 or 52 weeks in the year. There is the maintenance of the Chapel in the Estimate. I suppose religion is an essential part of the running of this House hold I These people cannot afford to go outside, as Ireland is a dangerous country, and I suppose religious services are to be obtained as near as possible to their own fireside. Again, let me re mind the House that the people who are asked to supply the additional sum are to the number of a million and a half at present unemployed, and have not—
§ Mr. SPEAKERStanding Order 19 says that, in the case of any Member guilty of repetition, the Speaker may direct him to resume his seat. I have warned the hon. Member.
§ Mr. H. H. SPENCERIs not that an error of judgment, Mr. Speaker— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order"]— Does not this paragraph deal with salaries also, and was not the hon. Gentleman dealing with salaries when he was E topped?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members will see from the Note that the original Estimate made provision up to the 30th September only. The only point now is why this expenditure was not foreseen when the original Estimate was submitted.
§ Mr. HARDIEIs it not in order to criticise the source from which this money should come?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat raises another question altogether.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYIn view of the fact that we are being asked for a Supplementary Estimate in spite of the enormous sum already granted I ask for some in formation as to the purposes to which this supplementary sum is to be devoted. It is not unreasonable to ask how many servants are employed. I want to know whether they have any work to do and if not why do you go out of your way to grant them this generous allowance. That is not the usual Governmental way of treating people who have no work to do. Could not the people' who run these establishments do a considerable amount of this work themselves, because it would be a good thing for them to work some times. The suggestion behind these proposals is that they should get other people to do the work and not pay them out of their salaries but out of the taxes in older that the people who employ the servants may sit idle at our expense. That is not a very elevating position and it is bad not only for the taxpayers but for these officers who ought to have' an opportunity of doing their own work—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid that I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move to leave out "£1,360," and to insert instead thereof "£1,260."
I do this in order to obtain from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite an explanation of the items in this Vote. I also move this reduction because I do not think that we have gained in this 2774 country any compensating advantage for this additional expenditure of £1,360. It is possible Ireland may have gained something from the prolonged presence of the Lord Lieutenant, but where do we come in? The original Estimate assumed that the Lord Lieutenant would only stay in Ireland until the 30th September, where he stayed three months longer. Why should the British taxpayer pay for that additional three months? Presumably it was for the good of the benefit of the people of Ireland, and if they got no advantage why did the Lord Lieutenant stay on? And why is it that the additional sums asked for are not all proportionate to this additional three months? In some cases the items are higher, in other cases they are less than the proper proportion. It is peculiar that the proportion is much greater in the case of wages and allowances than in the case of travelling and incidental expenses. Surely the proportion should have been equal in both cases? We shall feel bound to vote for this reduction of the Vote as a protest against the continued residence in Ireland of the Lord Lieutenant after the 30th September last.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI wish to second the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote, and I hope you, Sir, will be more kindly to me than my predecessor. Rightly or wrongly, I believe the Lord Lieutenant is now one of the unemployed, and I want to look at this Vote from that point of view. This is a claim put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for a member of their class. I say that because they are always up against us members of the working class.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Vote. The hon. and gallant Member has asked a number of pertinent questions on the Vote, and we cannot go beyond that.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIt is with the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREOn a point of Order. May I say that there is no money in this Estimate for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIt is evident, according to the paper which I hold in my hand, that we are asked to pay an additional £1,300–I hope I am not making a mistake this time—and the paper states that it is 2775 for salaries. I want hon. Members to watch the variation that takes place here. The hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) drew the attention of the House a few minutes ago to the manner in which the Government uses the words of the English language, and right hon. Gentlemen, and hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and Noble Lords, are part and parcel of this discrimination. The paper says "Salaries," and the next word is "Wages"; and then they tell us that we are the individuals who raise class strife. Why, they cannot keep it out, even in making up a simple statement such as this. I ask the hon. Gentlemen, what is the meaning of it?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREDoes the hon. Member wish me to explain that point? It is because the caretaker of the Viceregal Lodge has a salary. She is the head housemaid, as it were. The under-housemaid has wages.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe hon. Gentleman stands condemned. He has simply admitted my contention that because certain individuals occupy a certain status in society, the money which they receive is designated salary, while the money received by others who are in another station in life is designated wages. I am not getting away one little bit from what is here. The next word we come to that strikes me as requiring some explanation and translation —? [Interruption] —? is "Allowances"—allowances to a man—I am being interrupted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid I must also interrupt the hon. Member. These headings are not the subject of discussion on this Vote. I have explained twice, I think, earlier in the evening, that these headings are merely taken from the main Estimates for purposes of reference, and are not, therefore, matters open to Debate when we are asked for a Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI think you, Sir, will agree with me that some allowance ought to be made for the fact that we were not here when this yearly Report was submitted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI could not allow that. The last Parliament dealt with the main Estimates of the year. The fact that the 2776 hon. Member was not here does not alter the case.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThat is a pity for the other people. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter for me. This is for household expenses extra. "Household of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for three months £1,360." I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he is gallant or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Give me a chance and I will speak up, and everyone will hear me too. But I am in no hurry. I have the floor of the House.
§ Sir BURTON CHADW1CKOn a point of Order. How long is the House to be entertained—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is reflecting on my action in the Chair.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODPut that in your pipe, and smoke it. I should like to know if, when the Lord-Lieutenant was dismissed, he got a pension?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is quite irrelevant to the matter under consideration. I must now ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI want to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give us some information. It is not enough that hon. Members should laugh when we have become converts to their economy doctrines. We ought to be encouraged in this because this is the sort of thing that used to be preached in the country. After what happened last week, we cannot allow money to be voted here without knowing exactly the reasons for which the money is voted. The hon. Member told the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that the caretaker had it salary and the housemaid had wages. Did he really mean that as a reply, or was he trying to lead us to believe that there is only one department? Is there a multitude behind these two? We also want information about "Travelling and incidental expenses." I notice the word "household" again. As this only applies to a period of three months, they appear we have done a lot of flitting in that household. One cannot say what it would cost for a year, but I predict that when the Irish people have to pay for these things themselves they will be kept within reasonable bounds. So long as hey can 2777 get this House to vote these lump sums, they will get money out of the British taxpayer. All that Ireland seems to be united upon is in making demands upon this House. We have ben experimenting for the last three weeks with questions, and I have come to the conclusion that if one wants to get no information the best plan is to put down a question. The Government has developed into a fine art in trying to mislead questioners, or telling them nothing.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI was referring to the statement made by the hon. Member in charge of these Estimates. He said that if we wanted certain information we must ask Questions. We have been asking Questions, and it is almost an insult to Scotch Members the treatment they have got in connection with Scotch business. We are now on Irish business which for a long time has monopolised this House. We are anxious to know-how the money is being spent, and when we are going to come to the end of it. There is an item "Salaries and allowances. Chapel," for which an additional sum of £160 is asked for a period of three months. Somebody appears to be doing pretty well out of religion.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI will do my best to give an explanation. It was said that on the last Vote I replied in too great a hurry. One hon. Member complains that I did not give an explanation of this Supplementary Estimate at once. They cannot have it both ways. When the original Estimate was prepared in January last, it was presumed by the Chief Secretary, who prepared it, that the Constitution would be completed and ratified by an Act of this Parliament by 30th September. We all know that it was not so ratified until last week, 6th December, consequently it becomes necessary to make provision for the period between 30th September and 6th December, when all these offices came to an end. The first item, £600 additional, is for salaries and wages in connection with the Viceregal Lodge. The reason that the amount is disproportionate to the previous Estimate is, I understand, that in order to prepare the Viceregal Lodge for the new Governor-General a certain amount of painting of some kind had to be done at 2778 the last minute when the old staff went out.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThat does not come under this Vote.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI believe that it does. That is the information which I have. Two or three extra persons had to be employed to do this work.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI rise to a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I think that I am in order in questioning the putting of money under another Vote altogether, and trying to induce the House to believe that it has come under this Vote. I have the original Estimate and there is nothing for upkeep. The whole of the Estimate is either for the chapel or for a motor car or for wages of the Master of the Horse and other officials. There is nothing for repairs to the Viceregal Lodge. Therefor the hon. Gentleman is out of order in putting it under this Vote.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat remains to be seen. We must first let the House hear the hon. Member.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI admit that there is nothing for repairs, but the information which I have is that it was necessary to hand over the buildings to the now Governor-General under the new regime in decent order. The second item deals with travelling expenses. It is for the expenses of the people who have had to act as intermediaries between the Provisional Government and the British Government over here, and there are also, I understand, expenses of evacuation. The wages and salaries in connection with the-chapel I understand have no connection with Viceregal Lodge. That item refers to the King's Chapel in Dublin Castle and the salaries and allowances paid to the Chaplain, the Master of the King's Music, the Organist, the Precentor, and the-Choirmaster, £160, are for the period in question.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe House ought to insist on the withdrawal of this Estimate. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his explanation. This Estimate is the extra money required to pay for travelling and salaries and, wages and allowances. It does not contain anything about housekeepers or housemaids, but deals with such things as Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, two assist- 2779 and Private Secretaries, Comptroller, Master of the Stables, Ulster King of Arms, Athlone King of Arms, physician to the household, chaplain, sergeant of riding school and two temporary clerks and typists. That is item A, and we are asked to pay an extra £600 to continue these people in being, although the Provisional Government took over Dublin Castle as long ago as last August. Item B is travelling and incidental expenses of the household, for which we are asked to continue an expenditure of £600. That is for the maintenance and running expenses of the motor-car of the Lord Lieutenant, the travelling of the Lord Lieutenant on public service. If the painters and decorators have been employed at our expense the outlay ought not to be included in this Vote. We shall never have people accounting until the House of Commons insists on accuracy and efficiency in the presentation of Estimates. There are items of £47 for newspapers—nearly £1 a week— sums for the salary and allowances of the chaplain, the reading clerk and the keeper of the chapel. The item of painting and decoration and reconstruction comes under Class I, Vote 14, where there is a special Vote for the Viceregal Lodge and Secretary's Lodge of some thousands of pounds. It is on that item that any
§ question of painting and decorating should come, and it is absolutely wrong that we should be asked to vote the money under the heading of salaries and allowances. As a matter of fact, during some years in the public service I have seen this sort of thing done again and again; but it was not often that Parliament was able to find it out. I have seen money that was voted for entirely different purposes used for furbishing the Admiralty yachts, and the House was misled in that way. That is an example. The real reason why the office of Lord Lieutenant was continued was to have some excuse for continuing to pay a salary to Sir Hamar Greenwood, the Chief Secretary under the late Government. The whole thing is extremely unsatisfactory. I do not want to be hard on the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of the Vote and who has only recently taken over a very difficult post. If Ireland is in his bailiwick I pity him. I dare say he will be able to give us an explanation on another occasion, but I submit that the Vote should be withdrawn now, and presented to the House only when the full information is available.
§ Question put, "That '£1,360' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 125.
2783| Division No. 37.] | AYES. | [11.40 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Cassels, J. D. | Flanagan, W. H. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Ford, Patrick Johnston |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Forestler-Walker, L. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot |
| Archershee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wlllrid W. | Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Furness, G. J, |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon, Sir John Lawrence | Clayton, G. C. | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Garland, C. S. |
| Balfour, George (Hempstead) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gates, Percy |
| Banks, Mitchell | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Cope, Major William | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Golf, Sir R. Park |
| Becker, Harry | Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) |
| Berry, Sir George | Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Guthrie, Thomas Maule |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Doyle, N. Grattan | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Edge, Captain Sir William | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive | Ednam, Viscount | Halstead, Major D. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Elliot. Capt. Walter F. (Lanark) | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Elveden, Viscount | Harney, E. A. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Erskine-Boist, Captain C. | Harrison, F. C. |
| Broton, Sir James | Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Harvey, Major S. E. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Eyres-Monsell, Com, Bolton M, | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Fildes, Henry | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Mercer, Colonel H. | Shakespeare, G. H. |
| Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Shepperson, E. W, |
| Hewett, Sir J. P. | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Hlley, Sir Ernest | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Singleton, J. E. |
| Hinds. John | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Murchison, C. K. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Nail, Major Joseph | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Norton Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Houfton, John Plowright | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Paget, T. G. | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Penny, Frederick George | Tltchfield, Marquess of |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Jarrett, G. W. S. | Philipson, H. H. | Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P. |
| Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Raine, W. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Wells, S. R. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Remer, J. R. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Rentoul, G. S. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herelord) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Winterton, Earl |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Rothschild, Lionel de | Wise. Frederick |
| tougher, L. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Russell, William (Bolton) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Sanders, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, 3.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B, | Lieut. -Colonel Gibbs and Major |
| Manville. Edward | Sandon, Lord | Barnston. |
| Margesson, H. D. R. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Murray, R.(Renfrew, Western) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Newbold, J. T. W. |
| Amnion, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Nichol, Robert |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hancock, John George | O'Grady, Captain James |
| Barnes, A. | Hardle, George D. | Oliver, George Harold |
| Batey, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. | Paling, W. |
| Bonwick, A. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Parker, H. (Hanley) |
| Bowdler, W. A. | Hastings, Patrick | Pattinson, R. (Grantham) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Pattinson, S. (Horncastie) |
| Bromfield, William | Hayday, Arthur | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Brotherton, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Herriotts, J. | Potts, John S. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hirst, G. H. | Pringle, W. M, R. |
| Buckle, J. | Hogge, James Myles | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Burgess, S. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Ritson, J. |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Cairns, John | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Chapple, W. A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Collison, Levi | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Sexton, James |
| Darblshire, C. W. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Shlnwell, Emanuel |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Short, Allred (Wednesbury) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwlek) | Lansbury, George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Duncan, C. | Leach, W. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Dunnico, H. | Linfield, F. C. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Snell, Harry |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | M'Entee, V. L. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | McLaren, Andrew | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Foot, Isaac | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Maxton, James | Sullivan, J. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Middieton, G. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Greenall, T. | Morel, E. D. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thornton, M. |
| Groves, T. | Muir, John W | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Murnin, H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Warne, G. H. | Westwood, J. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C; |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) | Wheatley, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Whiteley, W. | |
| Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Weir, L. M. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe) | Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn. |
| Welsh, J. C. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Fifth Resolution read a Second time.
Captain HAYI beg to move to leave out "£282,875," and to insert instead thereof "£282,775."
I will start with item E, Pensions Appeals Tribunals, Salaries, etc. The original Estimate was £4,175, and the revised Estimate is £5,000. I have no objection to those figures. Had the original Estimate been double, it would not have troubled me in the slightest. I take this opportunity to try to do something for those men who are silent to-day, and have not much chance of speaking for themselves.
An hon. Member opposite has spoken to-night about the meanness of some Government Departments in calling upon men of the Royal Irish Constabulary to give careful and meticulous details of expenses incurred in their flight from Ireland to some asylum in England I am not surprised that alter these me I had done what was asked of them—I do not say I should have liked their job—that now the Government, or some part of the Government, turn round upon them and ask for details which possibly they canot give. Keeping faith has never been a mark of some Governments. I will not labour that, but I wish now to say what faith has been kept and what faith is being kept, not with hundreds, but with thousands, of the men who have been wounded and disabled in the War. I desire to say—if I am out of Order, I must be silent—that if there is one tribunal regarded with suspicion by these ex-service men it is the appeal tribunal. There is such a thing as common know ledge. I may be told that after all these ex-service men go before the tribunal with their appeals, and they are put in train by medical men who take up their cases. We have been told—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. That comes on quite another Vote—-what we ordinarily call the Pensions Appeals Tribunals.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. I notice the following under Sub- 2784 head E.I.,dealing with Salaries for Pensions AppealsTribunals:—
Provision for payment of salaries of Members of an additional Tribunal for Assessment of Pensions, and for an additional Tribunal for Entitlement Cases.I understand the hon. and gallant Member objects to these Tribunals for Entitlement Cases.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREOn that point of Order. This is for a specific additional Tribunal for Entitlement Cases in Ireland. I believe it was appointed under the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland for dealing specifically with Irish cases.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThen it is open to discuss the Irish cases; of course, but not the English cases, which come in under quite another Vote.
Captain HAYI am not discussing the English cases—I am sorry to be out of Order—I am dealing with cases of ex-service men who come before this tribunal. There is no doubt whatever about what they suffer and as to their wounds and disabilities. It may be that these men have found that they were suffering from tuberculosis four or five years after their War service had finished. Now they come before these tribunals to be turned down, to my personal knowledge, and told that their illness, say, tuberculosis or diabetes, or some other thing, was not caused by their War service or even aggravated by their War service. We know quite well—not as medical men, but from common knowledge—that in most of these cases these men were strong men, from 25 to 35 or 40 years of age. They wont into the War strong and powerful and well set-up in every direction. Now, after the War, we find that they have contracted some disease, such as tuberculosis. There is no doubt about their disability, and there is no doubt in the minds of ordinary folk that the disability was contracted in the War or aggravated by War service. We find that in very many cases these men are simply turned down, with a medical statement that, in the opinion of the appeal tribunal, their illness was not-caused or aggravated by war service. 2785 I wish now to speak for those men who have delivered the goods, for those men who did not stand up and make their bargain with the country in the time of the country's difficulties, but who offered themselves freely for service, and now that the country has got from them all it can get, now that they have been sucked dry, now that the very core has been pulled out of them, it is possible for them to come before tribunals of medical men and simply be turned down by an opinion which we who knew these men before the War know quite well is a wrong opinion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) reminds me that in Ireland there was no conscription and that all the men were volunteers. That is the point I am trying to labour at the present time, that while there was no doubt about those men's service, that it was free and unstinted, now that they have given their all, they must be brought before medical tribunals, turned round, examined, sized up, smiled upon or sneered at, and dismissed with a medical opinion that the disability was not due to war service or aggravated thereby.
I wish also to speak about the training in agriculture of ex-service officers and men, and here again I wish to bring out the fact that there is grave dissatisfaction, not only with the length and character of the training provided, but with the manner of selecting people who are to undergo that training. The whole thing is riddled with dissatisfaction and, so far as I can see, with injustice. Ex-soldiers, in other words, do not know and cannot learn the why and the where-for of one man being taken and another man being left, and many of them are in grave doubts as to the real value of the training they receive. In some cases men, having received a training and having learned a great deal about agriculture, go out to find jobs, trying in many cases to conceal carefully where they got their training, because the mere mention of the fact that they got it under a Government training scheme is enough to put them out of court at once.
12 M.
Under the item D, Schemes under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, the original estimate was £600,000; now it has been swelled by more than 50 per cent, to £950,000. I think there is some explanation required 2786 here, because the war finished in 1918, and the wounded or disabled or ex-Service men of any description who were likely to apply for resettlement were bound to be known. The number and the amount of money which would be required must have been known approximately. Why then do we find that in a Vote of this description we have the first Estimate swelled by over 50 per cent? Is it the fact that more men are crowding in to demand training, or that prices in some direction have gone up, or is it that some miscalculation has been made? Under those items, and chiefly under A and E, there is grave dissatisfaction among ex-Service men, who have gone to the appeal tribunal, at the fact that there is no appeal apparently from that tribunal, and many of these men and a great number of the general public feel and know that the cases have not received just treatment. I think it was in to-day's Order Paper that I saw the case of a man whose pension is now being stopped, because he could not give the date on which ho was blinded and the casualty clearing station to which he was carried. These are the things that rankle in the breasts of ex-Service men. Among ex-Service men there is a strong current that is firmly believed, that when a man goes before an Appeal Tribunal of any description he goes before a medical tribunal which is working under secret orders. The efforts—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for the main Estimate. This is merely a question of an additional sum. It does not raise the other points, whether right or wrong.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSurely it is in order to deal with the question of the utility of tribunals when the question is the construction or the appointment of a. further tribunal?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is raising the whole question of the policy of the main Vote.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMay I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the need of a new Tribunal is largely due to the policy of the Ministry in multiplying the number of appeals?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat again turns upon the main policy.
Captain HAYI am afraid that anything more I might say would be out of order, so I will resume my seat after moving the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Major ATTLEEI beg to second the Amendment. The House is entitled to some explanation of the extraordinary difference we find in these figures. The original Estimate was £47,000; that has been increased by £30,000. Why? I am seconding this for the purpose of getting information. I do not want to stop anything that is being done by ex-service men in Ireland. I only wish such a Vote could be extended to England. We have schemes under the Land Act and we have, too, schemes for agricultural education for which a very small sum appears in the Estimate. I can hardly make out how much education they are going to get and how many ex-service officers and men are to be trained in agriculture out of this additional £1,800. I should like to be informed how much of this money is being allocated to the different parts of Ireland. Is the expenditure to be confined to the agricultural districts or are the mining towns to share the benefit? How much of the money is going to Dublin and Belfast, and how much to the country areas'? The information accompanying this Estimate is the minimum amount that could be given, and I think the House is entitled, when it is asked to vote large sums of money, to be provided with the fullest possible information before it is called upon to discuss the Votes. It ought not to be contented with getting the information during the course of the Debate by means of question and answer across the Table.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREIn reply to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, I may say at once I sympathise with his desire that as full explanations as possible should be given at the commencement of the discussion on any estimate, but unfortunately that is not possible under the system which obtains on the Report stage here, because it is the custom to allow hon. Members first to move and second the Motion for the reduction before the Minister in charge of the Vote makes his explanation and gives what information is at his disposal. Still, I will do my best to enlighten the hon. 2788 Gentleman on the points he has raised. With regard to agricultural education and the amount herein provided, I gather that this is practically the final Vote for the training of ex-service men in Ireland in this manner: 211 ex-service men have undergone a special course of agricultural training in Ireland and a good many have already finished it and are coming under the Settlement scheme. I am given to understand that the results, so far as Ireland is concerned, have been very fairly satisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the hon. Gentleman say that 211 have been settled under this scheme?"] No. I understand that approximately a thousand courses have been granted to Ireland under the University scheme, of which 700 are provided for in this sum of £77,300, and the reason why the estimate is £30,000 less than originally anticipated is that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland hoped that the Provisional Government would be in a position to pay some portion of the grant for the higher education of ex-service men. But that hope has not been fulfilled, owing to the financial difficulties of the Provisional Government.
The main item is, of course, that of £350,000, and that is due to the passage of an Act this Session under which, it will be remembered, it is proposed to set up a body of Trustees—three representing Great Britain and one each representing Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland—to carry on the scheme already in existence for the provision of houses and small holdings for ex-service men in Ireland. It is intended to provide a total of 3,672 houses, of which rather more than one half are in course of construction. Some indeed are actually completed. The sum asked for now is to enable construction to be carried on until the end of the current financial year, but if before the end of that period the Board of Trustees is set up and is in operation any sum which may be unexpended will be repaid to the Imperial Exchequer. A new Vote will be necessary next year to provide funds to enable the Trustees to carry on the work. These schemes are the Irish share of the money that was granted under the Land Settlement Act both to England and to Scotland, which is regarded as an Imperial obligation by this country whether any Trust is set up or not. As regards the Appeal Tribunal I under stand from my right hon. Friend 2789 the Minister of Pensions that it was asked for by the ex-service men themselves, and so far from its having any secret instructions it operates altogether apart from the Ministry of Pensions. It was appointed by the Lord Chancellor and has no connexion with the Ministry of Pensions. It does its work free of that body. But if my hon. Friend who moved the reduction of the Vote has any case of any ex-service man in Ireland who feels aggrieved, I shall be very glad if he will bring the matter to my personal attention. I have listened carefully to his speech and I did not gather that he had in mind the case of any particular Irish ex-service man. His remarks indeed were rather directed to the general question. I gather that there are already tribunals of this kind in Ireland, and that this Supplementary Estimate is required because there has been a certain amount of delay in dealing with cases. An additional Estimate will be required for the purpose of speeding up the machinery and to get these things finally settled.
§ Mr. PALINGCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many soldiers applied to be settled on the land, how many were passed as suitable applicants and how many of those so passed were actually settled?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI am afraid I have-not got the information by me. The answer would necessitate some statistical research. I have of course the work of the Colonial Office to do as well as look after these Irish matters. But if the hon Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to get the information he asks for.
§ Mr. PALINGI would be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will get the information. I have had some experience in these matters in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I know that the number of men actually settled, compared with the number who wanted to settle, is very email indeed.
Mr. PR INGLEI think the House is greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given. There are, however, one or two other points on which hon. Members, will be glad to have a little further information. With respect, to the function of the appeals tribunals, it is true that the tribunals were set up in the first instance at the 2790 request of the ex-service men, who believed that the tribunals would be a means of protecting their interests. A surprising thing in relation to this Vote is that a further Entitlements Tribunal and a further Assessment Tribunal are required. That must be necessary because of a larger number of appeals having arisen than was anticipated. To what extent is the increased number of appeals due to appeals coming from the Ministry, or due to appeals coming from ex-service men? We know of many cases where the appeal comes from the Ministry. That is a general impression amongst ex-service men. If it is a false impression, the Ministry of Pensions will be very glad to have the false impression removed. The impression does exist that much of the work of these tribunals is due to the action of the Ministry in appealing against the tribunals of first instance.
I do not want to go into the question of agricultural education or higher education. We are all very glad to see that additional money is available for these purposes in Ireland, and that there are ex-service men in Ireland who benefit from the Votes made by this House; but it is very extraordinary that the original Estimate in connection with the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, should be exceeded by such a large sum as £350,000. In the original Estimate there was provided in 1921-22 a sum of £1,200,000. It was assumed, apparently, when the original Estimates for this year were compiled that that sum would be sufficient.
It now appears that £350,000 in addition is required. The explanation given is hardly adequate. The hon. Gentleman told us that it was due to the creation of a new trust under the Consequential Provisions Act. Later on, he said it was doubtful whether that trust would function before the end of the financial year. The trust, obviously, has nothing to do with the vote of this further sum of money. The only justification for it can be that a larger number of ex-service men are going to be settled in Ireland than was contemplated at the beginning of the financial year. In other words, Ireland is going to receive in this financial year a large amount than is her due proportion in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want, except, 2791 by way of illustration, to refer to what has happened here, but we know that settlement has come to an end here. Actually at this moment ex-service men who had been settled under the schemes are under notice to quit. It is very strange that while that is happening in this country larger sums are becoming available in Ireland for the settlement of a larger number of men than can be settled in this country. Before we agree to this bigger sum for Ireland we should have some explanation of this preferential treatment for Ireland. The other grants are entirely justifiable, but I think that before the House comes to a decision on this Vote we are entitled to further information on both these points—firstly, as to the Appeal Tribunal, and secondly, as to the question of settlement.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe information I have is that the additional entitlement tribunal is a purely temporary tribunal appointed to overtake the arrears which have accumulated owing to the number of cases to be dealt with in Southern Ireland and to the disturbed condition of that country. That is all the information I have been able to obtain on that point. With regard to the other point, I gather that the sum of £600,000 was fixed this year because it was half the amount allotted last year, and because it was anticipated that the Provisional Government might be willing to contribute the other £600,000. It now appears that only £950,000 will be wanted, and not the full £1,200,000, and I am given to understand that in the main the applicants have been selected and met.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThere was the other point as to the question of appeals at the instance of the Ministry. Could the Minister of Pensions say something on that, from the point of view of the ex-service men?
§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)I am very happy to correct any misapprehension that there may be in the mind of the hon. Member. I do not think, if I may say so, that he has grasped the point. It is quite simple. When the assessment of a man has been decided—that is to say, the extent to which he is disabled—the question whether that particular disablement is due to the War has to be decided. If the Ministry of Pensions should decide that a particular dis- 2792 ablement is not due to the War, the man has a right of appeal to an entitlement tribunal. The Ministry, obviously, would not in any circumstances wish to appeal against its own decision, and it is obvious that the appeal would be from the man against the Ministry. The existence of these tribunals was due, firstly, to the demands of the ex-service men and, secondly, to the decision of the House of Commons, which instituted these tribunals. Any suggestion that we should have fewer tribunals would not in any way influence the decision arrived at, but would have the effect, which I am sure the hon. Member did not realise, not of doing justice to the ex-service men, but of delaying a decision which they are anxious to secure.
§ Mr. LAWSONWhen I saw the note at the bottom of page 8 of this Estimate, I almost thought of making the suggestion that we should get a move on to get some of our ex-service men to go over to Ireland. They do seem to have a better prospect there than here. This Supplementary Estimate practically increases the original Estimate by one-third; and when I tell the House that the original Estimate for ex-service men in this country was over-estimated by £10,000,000–that is to say, that their pensions are economised upon to that extent—I think the House will agree that it is much better to be an ex-service man in Ireland than in England at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in Scotland."] Or in Scotland. I ought to have said "Britain." I think the state of things must be very happy over there as far as ex-service men are concerned. One of my hon. Friends says "No." Most of the Members who usually speak for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for compensation and all the rest of it for people in that Department, have, not spoken here at all to-night. There are scarcely any of them here. It must be happy to be on the other side of the House, because you can make your arrangements and go home. You can increase the grants to particular sections of men by 33 per cent., and you need not be here to do it.
I want to call attention for a moment to the question of the pensions appeal tribunals. I am sorry for the ex-service men in Ireland that they are going to get an extra pensions appeal tribunal. I see from one of the notes here that these tribunals are understood to be for the 2793 assessment of pensions. That must be news to Members in this House, and particularly to ex-service Members. The usual impression now is that pensions appeal tribunals are for stopping pensions. When I tell the House that the number of pensioners in this country in the last twelve months has been reduced by 700,000, chiefly by the operation of the pensions appeal tribunals, I think the House will feel rather sorry for the ex-service men in Ireland that they have an extra pensions appeal tribunal set up for them. Of course it may be quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the ex-soldiers asked for the pensions appeal tribunal. Everyone says that on the other side of the House, every time the question comes up. I wonder if the Irish ex-service men asked for this extra pensions appeal tribunal? I know they did not. I know they never asked for any appeal tribunals anywhere. It is all very well to say that the increase in the number of tribunals means that the appeals are sooner heard, but the ex-service man knows very well now that, the more appeal tribunals there are, the more men are sent to the appeal tribunals. That is the position exactly. I have now in my possession a particular case. I do not want to transgress the Rules of the House, but it is typical of many cases that are coming forward. You get a man with synovitis, or a disease like that—
§ Mr. SPEAKERBefore the hon. Member came in, I pointed out that we could not pursue that line of argument. It would be quite in order on the main Vote, but not on this Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. LAWSONI am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I heard the ruling you gave, but I thought it would be permissible to use an illustration of the kind of work that the pensions appeal tribunal is called upon to do. I will not pursue that line of argument. All I would say concerning the pensions appeal tribunals, to those who say that ex-service men want them, is that I should like the definite opinion of ex-service men, and particularly pensioners, upon pensions appeal tribunals at the present time, and upon their effect upon them. When the time comes, evidence is going to be given, which will take some challenging, that the appeal tribunal principle must either be considerably modified or some drastic 2794 change must be made in the composition of these bodies.
I am very much interested to see that there is an amount here of £30,000 for higher education. I am wondering who is going to get the benefit of that higher education—what proportion of officers and what proportion of the ordinary rank and file? What kind of education is it? Is it fitting them for special professions, or simply giving them a general education such as some of our officers got in the universities here?
It is very important to men who have been shell-shocked or have had limbs damaged that they should be given very great consideration in fitting them for particular professions. I have many cases in mind, and I am sure there must be some cases of this kind in Ireland, because these are fairly common cases. The men get neurasthenia, or complaints of that kind, and they want opportunities of fitting themselves for the struggle of life, sometimes it is of art, sometimes for some other profession.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis would be quite right on the main vote, but this being a question of policy, it does not arise on the supplementary estimate.
§ Mi. LAWSONI apologise, but I should like the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give us an explanation, if he can, as to where this £30,000 is going to. What is it going to accomplish? Are the ex-officers going to get the bulk of the money? What proportion do the ex-soldiers of the rank and file get? And particularly I want to know what kind of work it is going to do. Is it going to fit men to get a new hold on the life-line; because that is the real test of the value of this work? Until we get that information, I think there is good reason for opposing this particular Estimate. I say quite frankly that I shall take the opportunity of following my friends into the Lobby against this Estimate. I shall fight Pensions Appeal Tribunals, whether one is set up or whether it is 21, until there is some drastic overhauling of the general principle on which they act, whether they are in England or Ireland.
§ Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSI feel this question, even though it is raised on the Irish Vote, is one of such vital importance to the general policy affecting 2795 ex-service men, and one must be pardoned for making one or two observations. Myself, I am sorry that the money proposed to be spent on this extra Appeal Tribunal in Ireland is not being given direct to the ex-service men who have had their claims assessed at a certain degree of disability. If there were fewer appeal claims to be heard and the Pensions Minister would accept the responsibility and the liability which is undoubtedly his, money would be saved which they are spending on the Appeals Tribunals and be spent on the cases of the ex-service men themselves. Unfortunately, the same principle is being established in regard to the Irish Appeal Tribunals as operates in this country. The Ministry is asking the men to accept too great a responsibility in justifying their claims to pension rights. The reverse principle ought to be accepted; the Ministry in Ireland ought to accept the full responsibility of proving that the man is not entitled to a pension. Instead of that an unjust system is operating against ex-service men. I wish to ask the Minister of Pensions whether he can tell us the number of pension appeals which have been lodged from the Irish area, how many his Department has turned down, and how many have been granted? I suppose it would be a little unfair to press this question too far, but there is a great principle at stake, and I hope the Pensions Minister will give some further attention to it, because while I do not join with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in the entire condemnation of the Appeal Tribunals—for I feel that in Ireland they can render as good service as they have been doing in this country—yet at the same time too great a demand is being made upon them, and justice can be given to the ex-service men without submitting so many cases to these Tribunals.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLENAs an ex-service Irishman, perhaps I need
§ hardly apologise to the House for just saying a word or two in connection with the Estimate. I would like to join with my hon. Friends opposite—if I may call them so—in their desire to debate fully the question of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. I hope we shall have an opportunity very soon of entering into a thorough discussion about them, and so far as I have listened to hon. Members opposite, I shall be very glad to support, to some extent at all events, the sentiments they have expressed. I do not entirely condemn these proposals, but if hon. Members opposite will look at the Order Paper to-morrow they will see my idea of what it is that sometimes happens. We have grievances over there, as we always have; but we really have got some grievances about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ohester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), said he would go into the lobby to support the reduction of this Vote, partially on the question of the Appeal Tribunals, but I put it to him that the general subject of Appeal Tribunals does not enter into consideration on this vote. Out of love for the ex-service men, I would appeal to the hon. Members opposite not to press this to a Division. I am certain that hon. Members opposite have a real love for ex-service men, whether Irishmen, Englishmen or Scotsmen, and I know-that I need not recall to them the magnificent work that those men performed. I hope that members of the Labour party will do nothing by proposing a reduction on this Vote to suggest that they would stand in the way of these men being treated, as I am sure hon. Members and the Government wish to see them treated.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose, in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 104.
2799| Division No. 38.] | AYES. | [12.40 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Blades, Sir George Rowland |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Banks, Mitchell | Blundell, F. N. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. |
| Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James | Barnett, Major Richard W. | Brass, Captain W. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Becker, Harry | Brassey, Sir Leonard |
| Ashley, LL-Col. Wilfrid W. | Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Brittaln, Sir Harry |
| Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Berry, Sir George | Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Betterton, Henry B. | Bruton, Sir James |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Raine, W. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Cblonel W. R. | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Remer, J. R. |
| Cassels, J. P. | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hood, Sir Joseph | Roundel), Colonel R. F. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hopkins, John W. W. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Houfton, John Plowright | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cope, Major William | Hudson, Capt. A. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Hurd, Percy A. | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Sandon, Lord |
| Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Shakespeare, G. H. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Singleton, J. E. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Ednam, Viscount | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Kellcy, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Eivedon, Viscount | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel | Sparkes, H, w. |
| Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Lamb, J. Q. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H, |
| Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Lane-Fox. Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sutcliffc, T. |
| Fawkes, Major F. H. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Fildes, Henry | Lort-Williams, J. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Flanagan, W. H. | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lumley, L. R, | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Forestler-Walker, L. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Titchfield. Marquess of |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Frascr, Major Sir Keith | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Furness, G. J. | Manville, Edward | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Margesson, H. D. R. | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Garland, C. S. | Mercer, Colonel H. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Gates, Percy | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Waring, Major Walter |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wells, S. R. |
| Greene, Lt.-Col-Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Murchison. C. K. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Nail, Major Joseph | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Newman, Colonel J. R. p, (Finchley) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Winterton, Earl |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nicholson, Bg.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Wise, Frederick |
| Hall, Liout.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (UV'B'I.W. D'by) | Paget, T. G. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Hipon) |
| Halstead, Major D. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Hancock, John George | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Harrison, F. C. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. | Penny, Frederick George | |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major |
| Henderson, Sir T, (Roxburgh) | Philipson, H. H. | Barnston. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Lansbury, George |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Greenall, T. | Leach, W. |
| Attlee, C. R. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Batey, Joseph | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | M'Entee, V. L. |
| Bonwick, A. | Groves, T. | McLaren, Andrew |
| Broad, F. A. | Grundy, T. W. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. |
| Bromfield, William | Hall, F. (York, W. H., Normanton) | Maxton, James |
| Brotherton, J. | Hardle, George D. | Middleton, G. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Harris, Percy A. | Morel, E. D. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hastings, Patrick | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Buckle, J. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Muir, John W. |
| Burgess, S. | Hayday, Arthur | Murnin, H. |
| Cairns, John | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Herrlotts, J. | Newbold, J. T. W. |
| Collison, Levi | Hinds, John | Nichol, Robert |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Hirst, G. H. | Oliver, George Harold |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hogge, James Myles | Paling, W. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Parker, H. (Hanley) |
| Duncan, C. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Pattinson, R. (Grantham) |
| Dunnico, H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Entwlstle, Major C. F. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Fairbairn, R, R. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Potts, John S. |
| Foot, Isaac | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Kirkwood, D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Ritson, J. | Stephen, Campbell | Westwood, J. |
| Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wheatley, J. |
| Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Sullivan, J. | Whiteley, W. |
| Sexton, James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shinwell, Emanuel | Thorne, G. R. (Woiverhampton, E.) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attcrcliffe) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Thornton, M. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Warne, G. H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline) | |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, T. (Pantefract) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. | Mr. Amnion and Mr. Lawson. |
| Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) | Welsh, J. C. |
Resolution agreed to.
§ Sixth Resolution read Second time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe Committee which is here referred to sat for some time under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and now the Chairmanship has been taken over by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy). The duty of this Committee is to take temporary measures to relieve distress, and I cannot do better than point to the sums set out in this Estimate. On every hand one hears of the immense work this Committee has done for the distressed refugees of Ireland, and I hope this Vote will not be opposed in any quarter of the House.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWhat I want to find out from my right hon. Friend is what is the total assistance that is to be given. Here we have £10,000 doubled in the course of a very few months. What is the total allowance going to be to this Committee? Can we find out from the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of claims that are coming before him and how far he has got through the claims. Did they run to hundreds or to thousands, and how many have been dealt with? What is the sum total likely to be and is the whole of this liability to devolve on the United Kingdom and how far is it to devolve on the Free State or Northern Ireland? As far as I made out from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, this refers only to refugees from Southern Ireland.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDoes it include refugees from Northern Ireland?
§ Sir S. HOAREYes.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt includes Catholic refugees fleeing from Ulster to Glasgow, just as it includes Protestant refugees from the South going from England or going to Ulster?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREBritain. Only Great Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a case of compensating people for damages or to meet cases of exceprional damages. Is that so?
§ Sir S. HOAREYes.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI would like to know what number of cases there are and how far is the whole amount to be met in this way? Secondly, is there any possible chance of getting any of this money back from Ireland or getting the Provisional Government of the Free State to meet part of the bill? After all, the expulsions from the North and South of Ireland are not primarily the fault of the British taxpayer or the British working man. We have to look after the refugees when they come here. That is admitted; but as long as there is a Government that ought to pay, surely we should make some attempt to get this money back from them. I would like finally to know how much of this £20,000 is for Catholic people fleeing from Ulster and how much for Protestants fleeing from the rest of Ireland?
§ Sir S. HOAREPerhaps I may answer one of my most distinguished constituents. I cannot give the exact number of cases with which this Committee has dealt. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the interim report of the Committee, he will find full details. Roughly speaking, I think there are about 4,000 cases, and of these cases about one-half are Protestants and about one-half Roman Catholics. But the great majority of them come from Southern Ireland. At the same time, there are a certain number of cases that come from Northern Ireland. How many cases there will be in the future neither I nor anybody 2801 else can possibly say, but it must depend upon the course of events in Ireland and on the restoration of law and order, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, at any rate, up to the time that I resigned the position of Chairman of this Committee we had dealt with every case without any distinction as to whether the refugee was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, or whether he came from the North or the South. The other question that the hon. and gallant Member asked me was who was to be responsible for the money that this Committee had spent. I can reassure the House on this point, for the Provisional Government have accepted full responsibility for the whole of the funds that we have spent on the relief of refugees from the South. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Northern Ireland?"] I myself went over to Dublin during the summer and I discussed this question with Mr. Cosgrove. There was no difference of opinion between us on the subject. The Provisional Government accepted full responsibility for the expenditure, and in due course we shall no doubt be reimbursed both for the original Vote and for the Supplementary Vote we are asking the House to pass this morning.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI would like to ask why is the Provisional Government not paying now? Why should this sum apear first on our Estimates?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe hon. and gallant Member will remember that a great many of these financial questions between ourselves and the Provisional Government arc being held up until the final settlement. In some cases we are paying first and in other cases they are paying first, but there is no question whatever about the Provisional Government having accepted financial responsibility for this expenditure, and we shall certainly get it back.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is just about one o'clock, and we have been here since very early in the afternoon. I submit we have done a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. We have watched right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House yawning, and I was very pleased to recognise that after all they are only human 2802 and that there are at least some things in common between us. For my friends on this side of the House I can say that they have registered a very practical protest against unemployment. They have worked for eleven hours and it seems rather paradoxical that we should be working double time to protest against other people having no work at all. But that seems to be the way of the world and of this House. I submit that the business we are now discussing is much too important to be discussed by a jaded House, for neither on one side or the other have we the mental alertness that is needed to discuss these questions at this hour of the morning, and I think we are now entitled to relief from our duties.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to second the Motion.
During the War a Committee was set up to deal with the hours of labour of workpeople, and one of the things the Committee reported was that workpeople all over the world were unable to perform their work so profitably for their employers after they had been working for a certain length of time. My argument is that this House cannot do its work so well after a certain time. I have been here since half-past nine yesterday morning attending to the wants of my constituents and after attending fairly regularly to the debates in this House I will have to be here again this morning because the people of Glasgow demand that: their Member of Parliament—
§ Colonel Sir A. H0LBROOKI rise to a point of Order. We are not discussing Glasgow at the present time.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI submit I will have to be here early to-day to attend to my constituents. I, being a young man, require some sleep. My father used to tell me that a young man needed far more sleep than an old man and he being a Scotsman I always take a Scotsman's advice. In any case, I feel I require a certain amount of sleep to be able to perform my work properly, and, coming straight from the factory floor, I can say I always found twelve hours' work was sufficient anywhere. Having now performed fifteen hours' work on behalf of the community, I think we have done very well indeed, and I hope that the Government under these circumstances will accept this Motion. I have personally 2803 a claim on the National Health Insurance and it might affect the funds of the nation if I have to do without sleep. [Laughter.] Therefore to save the taxpayer money I want to object to any further sitting.
1.0 A.M.
Of course if the Government and my Friends on the other side are going to continue, I shall feel it my duty to remain because I cannot allow the questions that are coming before us to pass without discussion. Having put the case before the House, I can now return to my constituents with some feeling of having looked after not only my own welfare, but the welfare of hon. Members opposite. Having seconded the Motion and having entered my protest and given my advice to the House, I hope they will now adjourn, as it is one o'clock.
There is one other thing to which I should like to call the attention of the House. My financial position, after being here for some time, does not allow me to afford a taxicab home and I have to walk home. I want to remind the House that it is not very enjoyable walking a long distance home, and especially if it comes on to rain. Having regard to the fact that my coat is very nearly gone, and until my quarter's salary—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)I think the hon. Member is now departing from the Motion.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI want to say this in all seriousness to the House, that to carry on business at one o'clock in the morning is not the best way of carrying on business. During the War I met hon. Gentlemen on the other side on questions of wages and conditions of great vital importance to this country. I have met them here in London and sat negotiating until twelve and one in the morning, and I know well how the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs (Mr. Lloyd George) used to tell us that from the point of view of the country it would be better for us and for the country if we went home and had a sleep. From that point of view, then, we might well adjourn.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOf course, if the House would consent as we would like them to consent to continue to sit into next week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good old Monte Carlo!"]—and cut out not 2804 only Monte Carlo but this long Recess when there will be no Parliament, nobody representing the democracy of this country for the people outside to appeal to—if they would consent to cutting down the Recess, extending the period of this Parliament and calling the next more quickly, we would not be faced with the present difficulty. Our difficulty has been not only to-night, but on other nights when there had been bargains with the other side that the House was to prorogue at the end of this week. There is no need. We can perfectly well continue in Session and we on this side believe we ought to continue in Session. You can get your Estimates, you can go on to-night, you can vote us down, closure the debate on unemployment—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODLike they did all the others.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat is not the way to carry on business. Your own supporters are almost in rebellion now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You have got the big battalions. You can vote us down. Do you think you can get much satisfaction from that process, and I am quite certain that the country outside will realise what it means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members opposite sometimes think of the country.
§ Mr. NEWBOLDThey own it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe country is beginning to realise that in time of exceptional crisis Parliament should be in session and not enjoying itself in Switzerland. We have conditions now when one and a half million are unemployed in the country, and when it is advisable that these subjects should be thrashed out in the House of Commons. I hope my two hon. Friends who moved the Adjournment of the Debate will withdraw the Motion, for the only alternative before us is to have this discussion again to-morrow night instead of to-night. As we are here now, let us go on now. If the Government will consent even now to extend the debate and the sitting of the House into next week, so that we can get proper and decent discussion, that will be the best solution. I am only sorry that the Prime Minister is not here in order that he might hear our arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your leader?"] We are sometimes told in the Labour Party that we are all followers 2805 and no leaders. The leaders of the Labour Party are generally told that they follow in the tail of their followers. I am speaking on this occasion for my leaders as well as myself. The leaders on both sides are not present. My leaders would emphasise the appeal I now make to the leaders on the other side, that we should have an opportunity of discussing, not only this question, but the very serious questions of foreign affairs which now concern this country at a decent hour, and that we should have every opportunity of expressing what the people of this country are thinking instead of expressing the opinions of tired men at two o'clock in the morning.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to join in the appeal that we should go home. I have had at least a dozen ancient members as ancient as myself, ask me for a pair in the last three hours. [Interruption.] You need not shout. Some of you are there now. You are as eager to go home as I am. Many years ago I was taught, like my hon. Friend, that it is wiser to get a few hours sleep before twelve than after. Does anyone think that in carrying on business at this hour of the morning that we are carrying it on in a common-sense way? I have sat in the Strangers' Gallery and watched you or the people who were there before you many times, late and early, and I have been very much disgusted when I have seen Members asleep, or nearly asleep, and I wondered why it was that they did not realise that the country could not be properly governed, could not get proper laws passed if they were passed in this fashion. We have been told that we should adjourn in order that the Government might give us more time next week. That provoked rather a hilarious outburst on the other side, as if it were something extraordinary that we who have been elected to do the work of the nation should be asked to sit and do the work continuously instead of running away from it. After this vote you have got the McGrigor's Bank and unemployment to be discussed.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTIt that all?
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe hon. Member opposite asks is that all. It is the measure of our intelligence if we do not realise that the unemployment problem is of far greater importance than any other dis- 2806 cussed in this House. Do hon. Members realise that you are going to compel us to go home on Friday for four, five, or six weeks and leave that question practically untouched? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I have sat in the House all these weeks while it has been discussed. I have heard the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and the Minister for Labour, and I think I under stand the whole of the programme put forward, and it does not amount to any thing of any worth to the million and a half unemployed. You have had two scenes in the lobby, and you might have had quite a riot out there—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERHow does the hon. Member connect this with the Motion that the Debate be adjourned?
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt is necessary to have full and adequate time at a reasonable hour of the day to discuss the important question of the day, namely, the unemployment of a million and a half men and women. Hon. Members opposite will perhaps force us to sit during to-night to debate it. If you have a majority you can do that, but will you really get a decent debate worthy of the occasion? Everybody knows that Members opposite will not debate at all. You will just leave the Debate to us right through the night. That will prove to the unemployed that we really are in dead earnest about the question. It will prove that you think more about your holidays next week than about them. We ought to have some consideration for the people that are employed about this place. I think it is a disgrace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no use giving these ironical cheers. I have sat on that side when most of you ten years ago did exactly the same as is being done tonight. You tried to get the questions you were interested in discussed to the fullest length possible. We have no right to impose on the men who have to carry on the work of this place the duty of sitting here all these hours. We want only a few more days before Christmas to enable us to really thoroughly discuss these matters, and then to meet immediately after Christmas and let the House of Commons seriously sit down and consider unemployment. If you cannot find a solution let us say to the unemployed, "There is no solution but to starve unless you are strong enough to pull 2807 society down and put something else in its place." That is the alternative the men in the lobby had to-night. Before you use your mechanical majority you ought to consider what you said to them during the War and what you said to them when you wanted to get their votes.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion for the Adjournment intend to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Colonel Wedgwood). If so, I have nothing to say, but if not, much as I sympathise with the desire of everybody to go home to bed, I have got to represent what I think is the view of the majority of members of this House. The alternatives before us are to go on sitting into next week or to make an effort to finish our business and to get the House prorogued on Friday. I think I am representing the views of the large majority of the members of the House when I say that even for the sake of rest—which the leader of the Labour party claimed at the opening of the Session as very much needed by himself and his party—a better rest would be obtained by finishing on Friday and having a full rest over the week end than would be gained by going to bed now at 1 o'clock and sitting into next week.
§ Mr. HOGGEThere is one point which I think has been forgotten. I say this as a member who has never failed to sit through any long sitting we have had in this House. The Government brought us together to discuss the question of Ireland. It was a special Session in which other business was not to intervene. Since then the Government has introduced the Trades Facilities Bill, and the Canadian Cattle Bill. By arrangements through which we call in this House the "usual channels," the Opposition agreed to the Committee stage of these Supplementary Estimates going through without any discussion. On the Committee stage it is much easier for Members of the Opposition to raise their points of substance, because on the Report stage no Member can speak twice. Both the Government and the Opposition are pledged to economy and the discussion of Estimates. To-day we have had a long and, I think, a very unnecessary discussion on the Report stage of the Third 2808 Reading of the Bill dealing with the importation of animals. We wasted up to seven o'clock, without any Division at all. There was no conflict of opinion; nobody in the House was prepared to divide the House on the Canadian cattle question. On these Estimates, which deal with the expenditure of public money, we are forced by the arrangement of business to discuss these vital questions of finance in the early hours of the morning. That is not a business arrangement. That is all that the Opposition are saying. The Home Secretary says, in defence of what the Government is doing, that we need a week-end's rest. I do not know what he means. What does he mean by a weekend's rest? He is not coming back after the week-end; and what is the use of putting the argument that we need a weekend's rest. This House is rising on Friday till the 13th February. That is the date on which Parliament is going to reassemble. Suppose we had been at war. During the War we never had a long recess because of the difficulty of supplies to our fighting men. What we are asking to-night is that we ought to have a short Recess because of the difficulty of supplies for our working men. That is a fair point. If the Government know that the Opposition are quite willing to sit in the House, why need we rise on Friday? There is no substantial reason.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURThe majority want it.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) says: "Because the majority want it." The majority of the House brought us together to consider Ireland. That was all; but they put any amount of other work on the House, work which is important to the country; and I think my hon. and gallant Friend who is leading the Opposition (Colonel Wedg wood) will agree that the Opposition are going into the Lobby to record their view that the Government is not doing a fair thing in discussing for the first time on the report stage Estimates which they ought to have given the House an opportunity of discussing on the Committee stage.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWhether hon. Members opposite are desirous of remaining or going away, may I respectfully suggest to them that there is no reason in the world why their Leader during these debates should so frequently intervene with a 2809 Motion for the Closure. If the subjects under review are supposed to be of importance, and it is obvious that hon. Members on the other side believe they are important, or we should not be here, there appears to be no reason at all why discussion should be burked by the frequent moving of the Closure. I would direct the attention of hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends on this side to a statement made by the Prime Minister in reply to a question submitted during the afternoon. He said to the Leader of the Opposition that if business demanded it he would consider carefully and sympathetically the desirability of calling the House together during the proposed Recess. If there is any urgent business on which the House should be called together surely it is that of un-employment. At this time, with evidences of mental fatigue so obvious all around us, we are asked to consider the pressing question of unemployment. Apparently there are hon. Members opposite who imagine that they can indulge in ironical cheers at the expense of hon. Members on this side and occasionally indulge in jeers, seeming to resent any references to themselves from this side. I want to make it clear to hon. Members opposite that we can give just as much as the other side, and probably a good deal more.
I was absolutely amazed when the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) intervened to suggest that the majority ought to rule on a question of this kind. The majority have a perfect right to rule, but the majority must act fairly and honestly in the interests of the constituencies whom they claim to represent, and I challenge hon. Members opposite to go to their constituents and say to them that at this hour in the morning they propose to discuss the question of unemployment. I question very much whether the unemployed in the constituencies, and unfortunately there are no constituencies in the country without unemployed, will take that kind of action lying down. I submit that since you have kept us here— [Laughter.] It is quite true that hon. Members opposite have been singularly quiet despite the fact that they do not agree with all the proposals which emanate from the Government, as was obvious yesterday when there was an incipient revolt which might have developed, which might have created havoc from the Government's standpoint—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think the remarks of the hon. Member are not relevant to the matters now under consideration.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI hope the havoc to which I was about to refer will not take place for some little time, so as to enable us to direct attention to other faults which the Government, in our judgment, possess. But I do respectfully submit to the House that at this time we ought to give consideration to the eminently reasonable and temperate proposal of the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley). He knows the effect of fatigue at a time like this. He knows we can adapt outselves both to the Rules of the House and the Debates before us by adopting different methods from those at present in operation. Might I suggest to hon. Members opposite, who so frequently tender advice to the working classes as to the desirability of adopting the three-shift system, that we might adopt the three-shift system in this House. [An HON MEMBER: "Payment by results!"] I did not ask for that interjection, but since it has been offered, might I suggest, that payment by results would create starvation here.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think this is in order on a Motion that the Debate be adjourned.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI only succeeded in getting myself out of order when you arrived, Mr. Speaker. I claim, at any rate, that we have a perfect right to submit a Motion of this kind to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Submit it!") Hon. Members opposite when they submit Motions think it unnecessary to submit any arguments in support of them. That is one of the advantages of a majority. But we on this side are compelled to state our case in support of Motions. It is perfectly true that hon. Members opposite feel that the effect of their majority, perhaps an ephemeral majority, an evanescent majority: in my opinion a majority which will succumb to the influences which will be brought to bear—
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 93: Noes, 185.
2813| Division No. 39.] | AYES. | [1.32 a.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Herriotts, J. | Ritson, J. |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hirst, G. H. | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hogge, James Myles | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bonwick, A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bolhwell) |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Sexton, James |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Brotherton, J. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Buchanan, G. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Buckle, J. | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Burgess, S. | Lansbury, George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cairns, John | Lawson, John James | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Leach, W. | Sullivan, J. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lunn, William | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | M'Entee, V. L. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | McLaren, Andrew | Warne, G. H. |
| Duncan, C. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Middleton, G. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Entwlstle, Major C. F. | Morel, E. D. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Foot, Isaac | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Muir, John W. | Wheatley, J. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Murnin, H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Newbold, J. T. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Groves, T. | Nichol, Robert | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Paling, W. | |
| Hardle, George D. | Phillipps, Vivian | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hastings, Patrick | Potts, John S. | Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Pringie, W. M. R, | Jones. |
| Hayday, Arthur |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Elvedon, Viscount | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. sir William James | Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Fildes, Henry | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon Sir John Lawrence | Flanagan, W. H. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Baldwin, Pt. Hon. Stanley | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Jarrett, G. W. S. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) |
| Becker, Harry | Furness, G. J. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lamb, J. O. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Garland, C. S. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Berry, Sir George | Gates, Percy | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Goff, Sir R. Park | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Margesson. H. D R. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by) | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Halstead, Major D. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hancock, John George | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Harrison, F. C. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Harvey, Major S. E. | Nail, Major Joseph |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hawke, John Anthony | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Nicholson, Brig -Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Paget, T. G. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Parker, H. (Hanley) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Cope, Major William | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Crooke, J. S. (Derltend) | Hinds, John | Penny, Frederick George |
| Curzon, Captain viscount | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Philipson, H. H. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Hood, Sir Joseph | Raine, W. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hopkins, John w. w. | Rawson, Lieut. Com. A. C. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossleyl | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Ednam, Viscount | Houfton, John Plowright | Remer, J. R. |
| Reynolds, W. G. w. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Sparkes, H. W. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) | Wells, S. R. |
| Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H, H. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Russell, William (Bolton) | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | Windsor, Viscount |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Sutcliffe, T. | Winterton, Earl |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney] | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Wise, Frederick |
| Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Sandon, Lord | Thornton, M. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Shakespeare, G. H. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Turton, Edmund Russborough | |
| Sinclair, Sir A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Skelton, A. N. | Wallace, Captain E. | Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major |
| Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) | Barnston. |
§ Question again proposed.
§ Mr. R. MURRAYI take it that, having decided that we are not going to adjourn at this stages of the morning, we must proceed with the duty which was in front of us of considering this question with regard to the Refugees' grant. There are several points that I want some enlightenment on with regard to this matter. I only want enlightenment with regard to these matters. We are growing very familiar on this side of the House with the vast amount of inattention which Members on the other side consider all that is necessary when dealing with question of this kind.
§ Mr. MURRAYThe point I specially want to make with regard to this is: What is the number of the refugees, and on what basis—
§ Sir S. HOAREI have already said the number is about four thousand.
§ Mr. MURRAYIs that the number from all sections of Ireland? We have four thousand refugees from Ireland, and what I want to know now is the basis on which these refugees have been paid. It has been freely reported in Glasgow that there has been a very considerable disparity in treating these refugees. Some are receiving very considerable amounts and many other are being treated on a niggardly and lower scale. I have reason to believe that that is correct, and it forms a sufficient ground for objecting to this £10,000 which has been proposed. We have grown accustomed to refugees all over the world, and I am confident there will be a considerable amount of sympathy for these persons from all sections of the House. We do not desire to repress the efforts of the Government 2814 to deal fairly and squarely with these refugees from Ireland. It is unfortunate that at this time of day we should have so much of this type of thing. We know with regard to some refugees that there, is a very great amount of gross waste of public money. We have instances of the refugees in Egypt. While the people who are contributing the money are living from hand to mouth, these refugees have something like £4 per week. That is being paid to the Russian refugees, and I want to know what sums are being paid to these Irish refugees, and upon what line are sums credited. It is stated that some of them arc receiving large amounts and others very small amounts. It has been stated here that, although we are not going to get back all the money, at least a considerable amount of it is to be returned. There are many Members in this House who would like to know what are the safeguards for the repayment of this money. It is the old story of the British taxpayer being called upon to pay this money, and it will only come back if the Government have sufficient control. A considerable amount, it-is said, is to be paid by the recipients. What are the safeguards for the repayment of this money by individual recipients, and upon what ground has it been decided that some of these recipients shall repay the money and that others shall not? Take the money which will be placed upon the Provisional Government. What are we getting upon this money which we are paying to the refugees? Are we going to receive, from those capable of repaying, not only the principal but the accumulated interest upon that principal? Are we going to receive from the Provisional Government, not merely the proportion of principal for which they are responsible but a reasonable and fair amount of interest upon it? There is another point. I do not know whether there are many Members on the other side of the House who have had 2815 individuals from Ireland settled in their neighbourhood. We have had a considerable number around Glasgow. I have already expressed my sympathy for Irish refugees, and I know genuine cases deserving of more than has been given to them. But has the Government taken care to find out whether the individuals they have been assisting—many of them on a generous scale—are really refugees from Ireland or people who have left their country for their country's good? Are they sure they have not been supporting individuals who desired to leave Ireland, and gladly and willingly took this opportunity to come to this country I What I have said constitutes a sufficient body of reason why we should at this time, when we are trying to economise, and when there is not a single individual in this House who has not thundered from the platform to his constituents his determination to economise even in small matters of expenditure—and when we have already passed a few millions—why we should not here and now demand full details even with regard to this £10,000? We demand information as to where it is going; how it is being spent, and what safeguards there are for repayment; whether due and careful attention has been paid to these questions, and whether the people who are receiving the money are really refugees. For these reasons I beg to move that this sum be reduced by one hundred pounds.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," is already before the House.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI want to ask the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider a further question. A question has been asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood): What is the Southern, or Provisional, Government doing to provide this? He was given an answer to that question, but he also asked what the North was doing? He received no answer to that simple and direct question.
§ Sir S. HOAREI will answer the hon. Member at once. Negotiations are now going on. There has never been the least suggestion that the Northern Government will not meet their obligations in this respect.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIt is rather peculiar that the South, whose numbers I am led to believe were far larger than those of the North, could come to an agreement while the North are still negotiating. It seems to me that the South have come through a period of worse trial than that of the North. They have had to face difficulties that are not comparable with the difficulties in the North. Their Government has not got the stability that the North has got, and yet in spite of all that— [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would allow me to develop my argument. I am not experienced in Parliamentary matters and I feel rather tempted to reply, and I do not wish to get out of order. I intended to crack a little Scotch joke. I have a great deal of sympathy with the refugees, but I have a great deal more, Mr. Speaker, for you having to listen to the speeches. I feel somewhat deeply on this question because I worked in Belfast right up to the day of War breaking out, and I know somewhat of the conditions in Belfast and the North. It is rather peculiar to me that you have here the Provisional Government faced with difficulties that none of us here can really understand. The North have not those difficulties, and yet the South can come along and state in definite terms what the r money obligations are to this country while the North are still negotiating.
There is another important point I want-to raise. We are told that, in the North, Roman Catholics are going to receive equal treatment with those in the South. I want to challenge that. I want to say that many people who were driven out of Belfast during the dispute in the shipyards because of their religious opinions, and in other cases because of their political beliefs, have in some cases not received the same compensation as some of those to whom right hon. Gentlemen opposite referred during the last week or two. I am on the executive of my union, and on this matter I am extremely serious. We had something like fourteen men, some of whom were Protestants, driven from their work. Our union, which is not a Government Department, in order to maintain these men in decency, out of our meagre funds paid them for twelve months their full wages. The Government have never applied the same principle of equity to the men driven from their work in the shipyards in Bel- 2817 fast, as they have done to the wealthy landlords who lost their estates in the South.
§ Sir S. HOAREThey have applied exactly the same principle.
§ Mr. BUCHANANMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman that something is due to the people in our locality? I represent a district to which a fair number of these people came. We had to help them from local funds, and I think that the local people who had to meet the commitments of those folks arc entitled to some compensation for the money they have expended. It is rather peculiar that we should be moving a reduction when we actually want to increase the expenditure. Only a week ago I was supporting the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in protesting against the Northern Government compelling us to pay £8,000 a year for a useless office when they might have spent the money to real advantage.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has gone beyond the limits of the Debate.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI apologise. At that time we were pointing out that the money was being spent in a useless way, while it might have been used with advantage in giving some of these poor refugees better treatment. I join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. R. Murray). I am still unconvinced that the North is going to meet the claims at all. I think the North has no real desire to meet the claims, and I would like some proof before I believe to the contrary. My experience is that those people have got very little compensation from the North. Another point I would like to submit is that we ought to try and insist on employers taking these men back to the work that they formerly did.
§ Mr. SHORTI think we are entitled to ask that consideration of this Estimate should be adjourned. In the first place, I have to complain that there is really nobody on the Front Bench who can speak with adequate knowledge on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member who is really in charge of this Estimate knows little or nothing about it, and he has handed over the job of replying to the Secretary of State for Air.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREHe was Chairman of the Committee.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. SHORTNo doubt, and he performed his work in an able manner, but he has resigned the Chairmanship of the Committee to take office in the Government. By that fact the Government has a spokesman on the Front Bench who knows something about the subject, otherwise we should have had the spectacle of an ordinary Member of the House in the person of the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies replying to the criticisms of the Opposition. That is not a proper position for the House to be put in. Someone on that bench ought to be officially told off to represent the Government and to state the case for the Government in its defence. The hon. and gallant Member has tried to make out a case to justify the action of the Government. We have no fault to find with any financial assistance given to the refugees, providing that the distress is real and urgent, and that there is sufficient grounds for the expenditure of the money. On that point the hon. and gallant Member has not given us any real evidence. He has made a statement which appeals to the sentimental feelings of Members rather than a statement which appeals to the judgment and intelligence of the House. Then when he comes to deal with Northern Ireland he says that this matter is still under negotiation. What does he mean by that? What arc they negotiating about?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member is now repeating a speech which one of his colleagues has delivered.
§ Mr. SHORTI did not think I was repeating any statement made by any of my friends on these Benches. At the moment I was quoting a remark of the hon. Member that negotiations were proceeding with the Northern Government of Ireland. What I want to know from the hon. and learned Member if he is officially representing the Government is, What are they negotiating about? How far have these negotiations proceeded, are we nearing a settlement of the question, and when shall we learn authoritatively that the Northern Government intends to recognise its obligations in this matter and to provide for these refugees? I associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker. I know something of the dis- 2819 ability the workmen have suffered in being driven from the shipyards of Belfast upon religious grounds, as I understand, and the Government ought either to see that these refugees are adequately and fairly provided for or some action ought to be taken to ensure their return with speed and rapidity to the shipyards. When these Estimates come before the House it is our duty to
§ endeavour to get such information as will satisfy us and enable us to go into the Lobby feeling that we can vote in accordance with our judgment.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 92.
2821| Division No. 40.] | AYES. | [2.5 a.m. |
| Alnsworth, Captain Charles | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Goft, Sir R. Park | Paget, T. G. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrehce | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley | Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Philipson, H. H. |
| Barlow, Fit. Hon. Sir Montague | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Raine, W. |
| Sarnett, Major Richard W. | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by) | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Becker, Harry | Halstead, Major D. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hancock, John George | Remer, J. R. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Harrison, F. C. | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Berry, Sir George | Harvey, Major S. E. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hawke, John Anthony | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Brass, Captain W. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Brittain, sir Harry | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hinds, John | Sandon, Lord |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Shakespeare, G. H. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Hood, Sir Joseph | Skelton, A. N. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Smith, Sir Allan M, (Croydon, South) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Houlton, John Plowright | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Clayton, G. C, | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hudson, Capt. A. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Collox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hurd, Percy A. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Sutcllffe, T. |
| Cope, Major William | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Crooke, J. S. (Derltend) | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Thornton, M. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lamb, J. O | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Ednam, viscount | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lloyd-Greame, Rt Hon. Sir P. | Warne, G. H. |
| Elvedon, Viscount | Lort-Williams, J. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Wells, S. R. |
| Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Lumley, L. R. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Fawkes, Major F. H. | Margesson, H. D. R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Fildes, Henry | Mercer, Colonel H. | Wise, Frederick |
| Flanagan, W. H. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Forestler-Walker, L. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Murchison, C. K. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Nall, Major Joseph | |
| Furness, G. J. | Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Flnehley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES ßž |
| Garland, C. S. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major |
| Gates, Percy | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Barnston |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Attlee. C. R. | Broad. F. A. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Batey, Joseph | Bromfield, William |
| Amnion, Charles George | Bonwick, A. | Brotherton, J. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hogge, James Myles | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Buckle, J, | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Ritson, J. |
| Burgess, S. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Cairns John | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Darbishire, C. W, | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Lansbury, George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Duncan, C. | Lawson, John James | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Dunnico, H. | Leach, W. | Sullivan, J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Entwlstle, Major C. F. | M'Entee, V. L. | Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | McLaren, Andrew | Warne, G. H. |
| Foot, Isaac | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Middleton, G. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morel, E. D. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Groves, T. | Muir, John W. | Wheatley, J. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Murnin, H. | Whiteley, w. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hardle, George D. | Newbold, J. T. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe) |
| Hastings, Patrick | Nichol, Robert | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hay, Captain J. p. (Cathcart) | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Paling, W. | |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Parker, H. (Hanley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Herriotts, J. | Phillipps, Vivian | Mr. Robertson and Mr. Morgan |
| Hirst, G. H. | Potts, John S. | Jones |
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
2822§ The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 81.
2823| Division No. 41.] | AYES. | [2.11 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Elveden, Viscount | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Entwistle, Major C. F. | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Hudson, Capt. A |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Fairbairn, R. R. | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Flldes, Henry | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Flanagan, W. H. | Jarrett, G. W. S. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Foot, Isaac | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Becker, Harry | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Forestier-Walker, L. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Lamb, J. O. |
| Berry, Sir George | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Furness, G. J. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Garland, C. S. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gates, Percy | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Bonwick, A. | George, Mafor G. L. (Pembroke) | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Lumley, L. R, |
| Brass, Captain W. | Gray, Frank (Oxford) | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Brittaln, Sir Harry | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Murchison. C. K. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by) | Nail, Major Joseph |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Halstead, Major D. | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hancock, John George | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Harrison, F. C. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Harvey, Major S. E. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hawke, John Anthony | Paget, t. g. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Cope, Major William | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Hinds, John | Philipson, H. H. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Raine, W. |
| Ednam, Viscount | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hood, Sir Joseph | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Remer, J. R. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Reynolds, W. G. W. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Roberts, C. H. (Derby) | Sparkes, H. W. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Spender-Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. | Wells, S. R. |
| Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Russell, William (Bolton) | Sutcliffe, T. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Winterton, Earl |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wise, Frederick |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Sandon, Lord | Thornton, M. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Shakespeare, G. H. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Turton, Edmund Russborough | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sinclair, Sir A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| Skelton, A. N. | Wallace, Captain E. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Parker, H. (Hanley) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Herrlotts, J. | Potts, John S. |
| Amnion, Charles George | Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hogge, James Myles | Rltson, J. |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich; |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Brotherion, J. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Buckle, J. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Burgess, S. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cairns, John | Kirkwood, D. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Davtes, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Warne, G. H. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Leach, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | M'Entee, V. L. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | McLaren, Andrew | Welsh, J. C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Maxton, James | Westwood, J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Middleton, G. | Wheatley, J. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morel, E. D. | Whiteley, W. |
| Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Muir, John W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Murnin, H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hardle, George D. | Newbold, J. T. w. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hastings, Patrick | Nichol, Robert | |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Oliver, George Harold | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hayday, Arthur | Paling, W. | Mr. R. Murray and Mr. Buchanan. |
Seventh Resolution read a Second time.
Mr. AMNIONI beg to move to leave out "£340,000" and to insert instead thereof "£339,900."
It is with a mixture of regret that one moves to reduce this Vote by £100. In particular to call attention to the disparity of treatment accorded to those who have suffered under the collapse of this particular bank and the treatment accorded to those who were victims of the collapse of other banks under somewhat similar circumstances some time since. I think it will be permissible, without transgressing the Rules of the House, that one may call attention to the well-known banks which have collapsed recently, namely, the National Penny Bank in 1914 and Farrow's Bank in 1920. In both cases these were brought to the attention of the then Government who were then asked what help they were prepared to give, if any, to meet the needs of 2824 the victims who were dispossessed by the bank failures. Replying to Mr. Dawes on 27th August, 1914, Mr. Runciman, who was then representing the Board of Trade, said that they had no power whatever to give any assistance in any way to those who had been victimised by the failure of the Penny Bank. That same point was raised again by an hon. Member who now graces the Treasury Bench, who sought, if possible, to get some help from the then Government for the victims of that particular bank collapse. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs replied that, much as he sympathised, unfortunately they had no power whatever to help them, and he learned that the bank had made some arrangement to pay something like 5s. in the £. Then we had the case of the collapse of Farrow's Bank. That was also discussed in this House, and Mr. Mills, who then represented the Dart-ford Division, called attention by private notice on 30th December, 1920, and asked what help the Government were prepared 2825 to give in that particular case. He was then replied to by the Member for Birmingham West Division, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he regretted that they had no power whatever, much as he deplored the widespread hardship, to help the depositors in this particular case. That was again referred to in this House, when the subject came up for discussion, and the same hon. Member, Mr. Mills, raised the point which was again dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who replied then:
The affairs of the bank are now in the hands of the Official Receiver and, as the House is aware, legal proceedings have been now taken.He replied to the same effect that they were unable to give assistance. The parallel between this case and the others is this, that we have been informed in this House that there had been no balance sheets published or any statements of account so far as McGrigor's Bank was concerned until they were compelled by Parr's Bank some time ago to bring forward a balance sheet. We have heard a great deal in this House about the advantages of private enterprise. Here is a particular case of private enterprise which has failed in the very ordinary matter of providing proper balance sheets and statements of account. Had it been a State bank there would have had to be statements of account and of deposits, and we should not have been in this position or the state of affairs would have been discovered sufficiently early to protect the depositors. It has been stated here that no liability rests on the Exchequer for the banking business of Army agents, which is entirely distinct from their duties as Army agents, and that they are in no sense under Government control, but that the Government are prepared to make ex gratia payments to Army officers and others whose losses arose out of the bank's position as Army agents. They are to make up a dividend of 10s. in the £. It is this sort of treatment—I am not suggesting that it arose deliberately in the minds of the Government—that gives rise to the statements outside that this House is largely moved by class considerations. Although it has been alleged against those on this side of the House by those on the other side of the House that we stand for what are 2826 called class distinctions, as a matter of fact this side has always been on the defensive, and what is called the class war has always been waged by those on the other side of the House. You have here a particular instance. I am not going to say that provision should not be made for these gallant Gentlemen who have lost their money by its being invested in this bank, yet we have a very distinct case to put that there is no consideration whatever given to ordinary working men and women who have put all their life savings in other banks. In the last case the failure of Farrows Bank, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that the Government knew for some time before that that bank was in a very precarious position, yet no steps were taken to safeguard the interests and protect the savings of the unfortunate people who were let down on that occasion. Many hon. Members on both sides can give heartrending stories of how people had put the whole of their life savings into that particular bank against a rainy day and how those savings were washed away, and there was nobody to give them any sympathy.Surely this demonstrates that the Government ought to give an assurance to this House that they will take steps to see that all banks have public statements of accounts and balance sheets which will be open to Government auditors at any time to come in and examine and make quite sure that the assets and the interests of the customers are adequately safeguarded. I am glad to have the approval of the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise), who is considered an expert on matters of finance, and I hope he will emphasise to Members oh the other side of the House the necessity of taking these precautions. We are brought to this position that, when we have a bank failure in which the victims are mostly Army officers more intimately concerned with the majority party in the House, then some steps can be taken to meet the hardships under which they are suffering, while no thought is given when the failure of a bank affects four or five times as many people. They get nothing but sympathy. I move the reduction of this Vote to call attention to the position, and I hope we shall get some statement 2827 that the Government will consider bringing in the necessary legislation to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, a similar collapse. Here we have a case where this bank never published any accounts, yet no steps are taken to bring those people to justice. Surely they are responsible for their negligence, which is equally criminal with the guilt of people who rob others of their money. It is criminal because people are suffering owing to their failure to carry out their duty, not only to the depositors, but to the Government, for whom they acted as agents. The Government cannot shelve their responsibility. They failed to see that their agents were looking after their interests and that their customers were safeguarded. It is no good saying that no responsibility rests on the Exchequer for the banking business of Army agents. Surely the Exchequer are responsible for having persuaded Army officers, through the confidence they had in the Government, to deposit their money with these people. The answer, I suppose, will be that the Government are recognising their responsibility by this Vote. It raises the whole question of differentiation of treatment. The fact that you have recognised responsibility in this particular case draws a sharp demarcation between the different classes of depositors concerned. I hope the Government will assure us that they will bring in the necessary legislation to safeguard the interests of depositors in banks and to maintain public confidence, so that the banking business of this country, which has stood high, and does stand high, may not be shaken to its foundations by the cumulative failure of banks one after the other.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAI beg to second the Amendment.
I must also draw the attention of the House to the principles which are expected to be observed by the constitutional Government or, in fact, by any body of men standing as trustees of public funds, and these principles seem to me to be quite openly violated in this Grant. In the first place, it is an extremely difficult position to charge a body of honourable men with any bad motives or bad intentions, but a certain place and the British House of Commons are both paved with good intentions. That does not help anyone. Our actions must be 2828 such that they not only remain above suspicion, but that they are in conformity with the principles that we desire to enforce upon the public as a governing House. It has been pointed out that there have been other bank failures. The difference between the other bank failures and this bank failure appears to be, as far as one can judge from the Supplementary Estimate, that these are mostly members of the military Service. I put it that, because they are members of the Army Service, is the greater reason why the Government should not, on sound principle, make this Grant, when in the case of private customers of private banks they have openly refused to do so. After all, is there not a very close connection between the civil Government of the country and the Army that supports the Government and keeps it in its position? This means that the civil Government and the Army which form a close fraternal union in the State are willing to scratch each other's backs, but they are not acting in the same manner when people lose their money who are not part and parcel of themselves. That is the obvious conclusion. In the case of banks where the subscribers were a poorer class of the public, and who from a financial position were in need of greater assistance than the present set of investors, the Government were drawing the distinction simply because it was the other arm of the Government whom they considered it advisable to help, whereas they did not help the others. There is another consideration. We have seen how emphatically on two previous occasions the Government refused, not only all liability, but even their liability of the soundness of the principle to help the ruined shareholders and depositors of other banks, especially in the case of the Penny Bank. I submit that the depositors had a claim at least, not only upon our sympathy, but upon the moral support of the State. Essentially that class of poor depositors were a class who were not highly educated, who were not supposed to understand all about banking, all about the soundness or otherwise of a bank, or of the status of the directors and persons who formed that bank. Here the position is quite a different one. Generally speaking we may take it that the depositors who have suffered here are people who ought to have known better and had acted wrongly through 2829 perhaps the motive of making a higher profit by dealing with this bank than by investing their money elsewhere. They could not plead that ignorance and that inability to understand their business which the depositors of the Penny Bank could very well plead.
Another principle underlying this Grant appears to me to be almost a startling precedent. Personally, I do not mind that the Members who are in a majority in this House should go to the constituencies a month ago and proclaim the merits of private enterprise, and when they get into power, and when they find themselves and their friends in a very tight corner through the glories of private enterprise, that then they should rush to a scheme of Socialism for safety and emancipation. Personally, I do not regret it, but, as a matter of principle, taking the Government as it is formed, and taking the Government as the people of this country desire it to be, I think it is exceedingly wrong for the Government to trifle with the money of the public in this fashion. If you look at the nature of the Grant itself, what does it mean? It is paying a premium on gambling. It is rewarding those who take part in a swindle, because, after all, though we may sympathise—
§ Sir A. HOLBROOKOn a point of Order. I think it is unfair of the hon. Member to charge officers of the Army of being concerned in the swindle. That is what I object to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAWhen the money disappears, it disappears either through gross negligence or through swindling directly by those who are in control of these moneys. There is not the slightest question in my mind whether one party directly swindles the depositors or another set of swindlers in the way of private enterprise. What I beg to point out and what I do point out, is that the Government, by this action, are paying a premium on this system of swindling, because we must remember that in private enterprise, as constituted by law and carried on in an orderly manner, both parties are guilty either of negligence or of encouraging fraud, if not of practising it. The depositors who deposit their money in a concern and do not make proper investigation as to the nature of the soundness of that concern, as to the 2830 business ability of the heads of that concern, who are careless of going to that concern from time to time to demand proper accounts and analyse the affairs of that concern, are, themselves, a danger to society and especially, I should say, a danger to society composed of private enterprisers. It is a public duty, if it is not a personal duty, of every depositor in a money concern under a system of private enterprise, which always encourages sharp practice, it is the public duty of every investor in a private enterprise to very carefully and analytically search into the conduct and condition of those persons responsible for conducting the industry; and the depositors of this particular concern, having failed in that personal duty as well as that public duty, have themselves been responsible for the very thing which has come to them and their deposits. The Government now comes and says, "Oh, never mind; we are at your back, because most of you are akin to us in your social and economic conditions, and because most of you are followers of our politics, we are friends, we are one and the same; we will get you out of the trouble," whereas, the self-same Government and the self-same country once upon a time refused to bring out of trouble a much poorer class and a much poorer set of depositors when they lost their money. But we are told, in a very indirect and vague manner, as if there is some thought of a liability hanging upon the Government, that this bank was something like a double-faced Janus. It turned to the Army officers and said to them, "I am your agent; give me your money." Then it turned to the other side and became a speculative banker, and gambled or did what it pleased with the moneys of the depositors. The Government, therefore, feel that, when they look at this particular concern from its banking face, they cannot easily forget its agency face. But that is the greater reason why the responsible Government ought not to take this step of granting money. I should suggest that they ought to take steps to save the depositors as a compensation for having brought them into the dangerous position, but they ought not to have done so from public funds. I appeal to you; supposing the Government was in a position of a director of a concern, what would have been your position? The 2831 Government here are distinctly negligent themselves, because they have appointed as Army agents, or sanctioned the working as Army agents, of a certain party who, as results have proved, were unworthy of being put in that position. The Government victimised the Army officers by inducing them to deposit their money with a concern with which otherwise, perhaps, they would not have entrusted so much. The Government are helping themselves. I use that word with due apology. The Government are helping themselves with public funds in order to make up a loss to innocent people, the burden of which they feel upon their conscience as private human beings.
I submit very seriously to this House, what would be the position of the same Ministers if they found themselves placed in a condition like this; were they the directors of a concern. We have recently seen some scandalous affairs attaching to banking corporations where directors have by their negligence brought a loss upon innocent depositors or those who have had dealings with the concern. The Courts of Justice, constitutionally, made demand that these directors put their hands into their own pockets and make up the loss. That is the moral law. But if the Government sitting in Parliament says that they must make up the loss with the avowed enterprise of protecting them, it was setting a bad example and degrading the dignity of the House. The Government appointed these people as Army agents, and their appointment was inducive to the depositors going to this particular concern and not only going to this particular concern—[An HON. MEMBER: "But coming back!"]—but remaining very careless as to the modes of operation of this concern, thinking that as these were Army agents they would be safe. When it comes to the Ministers that the burden lies upon them, they ought to take some other means of raising this money, themselves or their friends, to defray these losses, but they ought not to touch money belonging to the public. I submit that we, as a Parliament and as a public, should be able to take Ministers to law and make them refund this money. We have heard about private enterprise. This case more than any other distinctly proves that what we know to be private enterprise is certainly private, but is always devoid of the spirit 2832 of honest enterprise. Private enterprise appears to me to be that moneys and properties belonging to others are dealt with in privacy, the profits accruing therefrom being pocketed by those who call themselves private enterprisers, and when their recklessness or carelessness or inability, or even their dishonesty, brings the whole thing to ruin, the position of the present Government is that the taxpayer is called upon to reimburse the losers. If this scheme passes—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will!"]—I wonder how many more banking concerns will be encouraged to "mushroom" up to-morrow in this country? If this grant be made to reimburse the losses of foolish and negligent depositors, giving back to them, a substantial assistance, after their remaining negligent, of their own ordinary interest, I wonder whether we are giving a lesson to the public to be more careful after a failure like this or are we giving a lesson to the public not to worry about carefulness, that the State is always at their back to make up their gambling losses, and that they can gamble away? These are Army officers. Had they no Post Office Savings Banks or were they too superior and too rich and aristocratic to go to the savings banks alongside the poor people? If they were too rich and too aristocratic to do that, why did they come with their hats to the British taxpayer? Were these the patriotic gentlemen of Great Britain who were putting their placards and posters on the walls, published and printed from public money, "Put in your 15s. 6d. and it will be 25s. 6d."? Why do not they practise what they preach? Why did they come to this private bank for the deliberate purpose of speculating on a larger scale? All the bait you held out to them did not draw them even when that bait was steeped in the more attractive honey of patriotism. No appeal seems to have gone forth to these depositors at the time they were depositing their money that there were other channels open to them.
What does that indicate? It distinctly indicates that they had some spare money about which they were not really verymuch concerned and with which they thought it possible to take a gamble in a so-called bank. It points to the fact that, while the Army itself is underpaid, the Army officers are paid more than was needed for their daily life, and that accounts for the large 2833 deposits in a certain concern in which they had no business to deposit any money. Secondly, it shows that the Army officers being well provided for with more liberal compensation than the old age pensioner gets in this country, were very unconcerned as to what really happened to their savings, and they wanted laterally to gamble with it rather than save it in a State Savings Bank. The whole question is that there is no real financial need. This time it is not the failure of the needy and the poor ones; it is not the failure of those who would be dragged to the gutter absolutely in their old age by having lost these fortunes. This is money belonging to a class of officer who evidently, after living fairly well—[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] From the very fact that the State issued this money. They got it exactly from the same Government that starved the Tommy. They got this money after living on a much higher scale than the ordinary soldier and the ordinary average working-class man of this country, and they were so backed up by a system of pensions and so confident about it that they did not consider it necessary to take the ordinary care and precaution about saving this money for their old age. No one likes to lose money. Even we have seen millionaires, if they lost a few thousands, beginning to wail, and if they had to pay-Excess Profits they would cut off some of their benefactions. The richer they are the more unwilling they are to part with it.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The hon. Member is getting very wide from the point now.
§ 3.0 A.M.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAI submit that, while they may feel the loss of their money, they cannot be classed with the people rendered destitute by the other failures, people who have now got to pass a hopeless future in their old age without any means of support or livelihood, as was the case with the depositors in the Penny Bank. There is no particular reason, from a financial point of view, for the State to come with public funds and help them to the extent of £340,000 at a time when the Government have no money ' for the men whose women and children have anxious moments to find a piece of bread for next morning. From a moral point of view, the Government 2834 have not made out any particular case for this grant. Men are responsible for the way in which they invested their money in a concern conducted in a very indifferent manner, and in which no cautious man would have kept his money for any considerable time. Considering the moral responsibility of the Government, that it was their own Army agents who had done it, I think that the responsible persons in the Government themselves, with the assistance, if they are too poor, of their rich friends, should have a donation fund, instead of paying compensation from the public funds because of their own negligence in dealing with a party that was not worthy to be dealt with. These are considerations which can go directly against making such a grant from public funds. We are told there are no precedents for such a grant being made. The Government are not only making the public pay £340,000, but they are not making the public learn a costly lesson. Instead, they are, by making this grant, setting a bad example of appointing wrong Army agents for depositors to go ahead and gamble as they please, giving a premium to bankers who want to play fast and loose with the depositors' money, knowing there will be no public howl about it, but that a generous Government will come forward and help them with public money. They are also giving a bad example to the Army, which is maintained by the State, by showing by this grant that Army officers are not required to be cautious and thrifty. They are not of the people. They are not to go to the State arrangements for saving money in the Post Office banks. They are permitted to gamble. If they make a profit, the profit will be theirs. If they make a loss, the loss will be borne by the taxpayer.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson)I am sure the hon. Gentleman who moved and seconded the Reduction will not think me discourteous if I do not reply to their arguments at this particular moment. They will be replied to later in the Debate and I am doubtful if I can reply to all the remarks of the last speaker. I am not sure if I could do it in the sunshine and I am quite certain I cannot do it at this late hour. I shall try to make some statement as to the reason why we want the money and what 2835 we propose to do with it. The money, I am hound to admit, is for an unusual Estimate. I sincerely hope that I shall never have to present such an Estimate again and that no one who follows me will have to do that either. The Estimate provides for the relief of certain sufferers by the failure of Messrs. McGrigor's Bank, who were Army agents and bankers. It is proposed to make an ex gratiâ payment towards the losses of Army officers and others whose connection with the bank occurred through their connection with the firm as Army agents, and the sum required to pay a 10s. dividend to such customers over and above whatever is received by the liquidation of the assets by the Official Keceiver is estimated to amount with the costs of distribution to £340,000. The assistance which the Government proposes to render is in the shape of an ex gratiâ payment.
It is desirable that I should at once try and make it dear that no liability rests upon the Exchequer for the banking business of their Army agents. It is entirely distinct from their other duties, and is in no sense whatever under Government control. There have been several occasions when Army agents and their responsibilities have been considered during the last 50 years. In 1881, on the re-organisation of the Army, the duty of appointing agents was taken away from the colonel of the regiment, and the duty fell upon the War Office. The appointment of the then existing agents was continued by the War Office for the purpose of issuing pay to officers unless they elected to be paid by the Paymaster. In 1888 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the Financial Secretary required to be convinced that the system of agents was a good one, that it was a sound one, and they actually brought up the question of terminating the system altogether. Up to 1892 the agents received a commission of approximately 1½ per cent. on disbursements they made to officers. In 1890 the agents, Messrs. Cox, Holt, and McGrigor, offered to do the duties without any charge to the public, and at the same time gave security for the proper performance of their duties as Army agents. The amount of security was for Messrs. Cox £50,000, Holt £10,000, and McGrigor £5,000. In approving this arrangement the Treasury laid it down that there was no obligation upon any officer to draw his pay through 2836 an agent, but if he preferred to do so, the responsibility must rest with him. It went on further to say that if these firm6 were re-appointed it should be understood that this implied no guarantee of their solvency or a desire by the Secretary of State to induce any officer to employ it. There was a Debate in 1909, and Mr. Acland, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, made this statement:
It is not the case that these agents have a monopoly and that officers are compelled to keep their accounts with them. If any officer requested us at any time to transfer his account to any other bank we should at once do so on being satisfied that the bank had his power of attorney.In Army Council Instructions on the Pay Warrant, Article 421, it is laid down that a regimental officer at home or abroad may receive his pay either through the regimental agent or through the Paymaster as he may elect. I quote this to make it as clear as I can that this decision had been come to by various Governments from time to time. They have been construed over a period of 50 years to mean that no liability can possibly rest upon the Exchequer for the banking business of their agents. I think the House will agree that for the War Office to lay down or even suggest that officers should be obliged to bank with the agents and that they were not free to do what they liked would be quite absurd. The War Office have acted under these instructions and decisions and they have not considered it desirable that they should make close inquiries of these firms or take balance sheets. If they had gone to these banks and demanded an audit they would undoubtedly have had to assume control, which would have meant responsibility for the solvency of the bank. I come now, if I may, to the question of moral obligation which the Government have decided to assume. No doubt, since 1914, when the War intervened, a very considerable alteration of circumstances occurred. As far as the professional Army is concerned, the traditional knowledge of individual responsibility as regards nay could be generally relied upon. But there was a tremendous influx of thousands of new officers in the War strange to Army ways and conditions, and that in itself very much altered the whole thing, and there is no doubt, in my judgment, that the present system has been a very strong inducement for these officers to open a 2837 banking account for the first time with the agents. There was no time for these young officers to make themselves acquainted with the Regulations and with the responsibility they had. It is a matter, I think, of particular interest that the largest number of sufferers in the failure of this firm are persons in the McGrigor's payment as temporary officers during the War. The total number was about 5,000, and the average balance at the bank was only £64. I have no doubt whatever that a very strong case is made out, and it appears to impose an obligation on the Government which the Government have decided to accept. There were other officers on half-pay and retired officers on whose behalf McGrigor's drew on the Paymaster-General under their power of attorney given by the officers. Pensions were drawn from McGrigor's and there were widows of officers who carried on their husbands' account. There were also children of officers who were receiving compassionate allowance.I am sure the House will naturally wish to know what steps have been taken to prevent any possible repetition of this terrible calamity. It is not proposed to alter the system of agents. After most careful consideration, its maintenance is considered desirable in all respects. In the first place it is an extremely convenient system for officers that prefer it and there is no doubt the agents have done a great deal, especially during the War, which the War Office could not have done. As an illustration of the opinion of officers, I may give the following case. When the Air Service was established every officer was written to and asked whether he would prefer to draw his pay from the regimental agent or from the Paymaster. The result was that only 5.8 per cent. preferred to draw their pay from the Paymaster. I am informed that since that time a considerable number of this 5.8 per cent. transferred to the agents. The second reason is that it is extremely economical from the War Office point of view. There is no charge on the public. During the War Messrs. Cox and Holt between them issued pay to 356,000 officers. They employed 900 clerks at a cost of £814,000. If the War Office were to do the work, I leave the House to make an estimate of its cost. There is one other thing. There is the existing contract which lasts until 1932 and of course you 2838 will realise that the cancellation of that contract with the agents would mean a very considerable compensation.
I think it is obvious, after what has recently occurred and what has caused the presentation of this Estimate, it is necessary in the interests of the persons concerned, the Government who pay, the agents who issue the pay to the officers, and the officers who draw the pay, that their individual responsibilities should be clear and absolutely unmistakeable in the future. Balance sheets, properly audited, will, I think, undoubtedly be required. They will have to be produced with regularity, and they will have to be examined by the War Office, who will have to be satisfied with them. I think that it is also desirable that clear intimation should be given that every officer is free to draw his pay direct from the Paymaster or from the agents as he may wish. If blame is to be attributed to any quarter in connection with this trouble, I think it may be placed to a very large extent upon the old established custom that the War Office had no reason to be interested in the banking of their agents and that this old custom has been too rigidly adhered to. In view of the consideration which was given by various Governments, over long periods, to this question, and which resulted in invariably the same conclusion being arrived at, the custom was considered as definite and fixed. Messrs. Cox and Holt publish balance sheets available to the public, and I should like to take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear that these have been carefully considered by the War Office and that they have seen no reason to raise any question whatever upon them.
I should like to inform the House how it is proposed to distribute the grant, if the House should agree to it. We have arranged with the liquidator in view of the urgency of the matter to distribute the Government grant. He will do it as-early as possible. As to those of whose right to share in the distribution there is no question, I should like to give a list. They are: serving officers, officers in receipt of half or retired pay, officers' widows and dependants in receipt of pensions, officers' children in receipt of compassionate allowances, and persons who were in payment as officers in the Great War and continued to bank with the firm after relinquishing their commissions. As 2839 regards others, whose position as customers of the bank arose out of connection with the firm as Army Agents, it will be necessary for them that they should submit their claims for consideration, and in order to secure the greatest impartiality in dealing with this question it is the intention of the Secretary of State to set up a small Committee to adjudicate upon them. The Committee will consist of Lord Askwith and one representative from the Treasury and one from the War Office. The Committee will sit forthwith. I wish that the first Esimate which it has fallen to my lot to present to the House should have been for expenditure incurred in less unfortunate circumstances. I hope that the House will agree that the Government have done right in coming to the assistance of those who, from their connection with the Army and its agents, have been sufferers from this terrible calamity.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSI do not intend to support the Amendment in spite of what has been said from the benches behind. With a good deal of the argument in support of the Amendment I do not agree. I think that we are indebted to the Government for the fair statement of their intention which they have laid before the House. Nevertheless, I venture still to make some criticisms. When this matter was dealt with in the Committee stage, I think it was understood that it would be again brought forward at a time when it could be better discussed than it can be now. It is quite true that there may be lucid intervals even in all-night Sittings and points of substance may even then occasionally arise. I do not quarrel with the Government for suggesting that there is a moral liability; I think it might be put higher than they choose to put it. They are ready to shoulder up to 10s. in the £. Anyone who has considered the situation would admit that in a Court of Law there would be no legal liability. That is clear. The Treasury have safeguarded themselves by taking up a position which clearly could not have been known to those officers. These agents were supplied with, I believe, note paper headed "War Office" which they used in their agency business. The ordinary subaltern, promoted perhaps from the ranks, assumed that when his pay was paid through McGrigor's it was the ordinary course. A few officers 2840 may have taken a different line. In addition, there were advantages. I believe that you got your pay quicker. If you had it put into your own bank you had the bother and trouble of reclaiming Income Tax; which I believe was not deducted in the other case. There were advantages given if the officers chose McGrigor's as their agents and, in these circumstances, if it were a private individual who had got himself landed with this kind of responsibility for the acts of agents, I would rather imagine that private individual would probably pay in full.
But that is not the main point. Hon. Members may have said that this is an illustration of the way in which private enterprise acts. I do not think that private enterprise, or the State, come out well in this matter. I do claim that there has been lax, negligent and casual administration by the Finance Branch of the War Office. It is all very well for the Government to say that it was an old policy and that they took no part and cared nothing for the solvency of their agents. They did take some precaution. They required in this case the totally inadequate security of £5,000. Why they should have asked that sum I cannot imagine. If anything went seriously wrong a small sum of that kind would be of no use. It is admitted that no published balance-sheets existed. It is now admitted that the Government and War Office should have seen these balance-sheets and they are going to do it now. They ought, undoubtedly, to have done it then. Here were masses of new officers coming into the field. They were being paid through this bank. It was an ordinary business precaution to require the state of the business. I do not say that they should have demanded that the balance-sheets should have been published. They ought to have seen them, but it does not necessarily follow that they should have satisfied themselves by an elaborate system of control as to the solvency of the bank concerned. I think, in the case of friendly societies and the trade unions, the Government does require that balance-sheets should be published, and I believe that that ought to have been done in this case, and that it is real negligence on their part not to have done it. Then I should like to know—did no whisper of the difficulties of this bank reach 2841 the Finance Branch of the War Office during, say, the year 1921. I believe I am correct in saying that during that year McGrigors applied to be taken over by at least two banks, and they were refused. I suppose the War Office, washing its hands of any question of the solvency of its agents, kept themselves in isolation, but I should have imagined that some whisper of the difficulties in which this bank must have got must have reached them. At all events, had there been any real vigilance on the part of the Finance Branch of the War Office one might have expected something of that kind. Then, when we come to the actual moment when the bank came to the War Office—I suppose to the Finance Branch once more—and admitted that it was in difficulties, what happened? I should rather like to know. They were given a week to clear up their situation. During that week, undoubtedly, more money was paid into the bank. The Paymaster, who is not, we understand, under the War Office, paid in before the bank closed £13,000. Did it occur to the War Office that they might conceivably have warned the Paymaster-General that it was an unsafe thing to do? If the Government will not take full responsibility for the loss for which I think they admit moral responsibility, and where I think there is a case against them of real negligence—if they will not admit the whole liability, they ought to admit the liability for any monies paid in then. That ought to be paid in full, for clearly the first question they must have asked of the bank is, "Have you been to any other bank to take you over?" If they had done so, they would have been told that applications of that character were made to other banks and refused. I think I am correct in stating that.
§ Mr. BUCKLEOn a point of Order. Is this a usual method of doing business of this character, or is it a new game of patience we are learning?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is an old game of patience.
§ Mr. ROBERTSI have not joined to-night in any of the discussions hitherto, and I have shown my view of the game that is going on by voting once or twice with the Government. Therefore, when I am dealing with a point of real substance I do not think I need be accused 2842 of detaining the House a moment longer than I can avoid. The answer which the Government made as to their action on 6th October is that during that time £100,000 was paid in. That might be very desirable for the sufferers of the bank, but I confess it is a rather curious attitude for the Government to take up. Here was a bank which had been refused, I believe, by other banks, and the Government gives it a week to pull itself round, and apparently it allows a sum of £100,000 to go into the bank, when, I imagine, they must have had very grievous doubt as to the solvency of it. If it was a free gift, well and good, but if it was put in with a view to rescuing the bank from disaster, then I think it was a little hard on the person who provided the money. The whole story of this bank, and the lax and negligent and casual way in which the finance branch of the Army has dealt with it, does not inspire me with any very great confidence in the Finance Branch of the Army. The real moral of the whole story, I think, is—keep, if you like, this system of Army agents, but if you do so, keep it under more vigilant inspection and supervision, and with greater publicity than in the past. In fact, keep it on proper business lines. But I do think there ought to be an inquiry into the management of the whole system in the Army by this branch. It is a very expensive branch. I do not suppose I can go into that, but in 1913 it only cost £400,000. To-day, after the Geddes' axe, it costs £1,200,000, although the fighting men are less numerous than they were. I dare say there is a good deal of extra work to be carried out, but it does seem to me that there are other points, too. I think the system which is adopted now under which the head of the finance branch of the Army is a member of the Army Council is not at all satisfactory. I think it leads to a great deal of extravagance in the Army, and if we could get a real independent inquiry into the way in which the affairs of this branch of the Army are administered, I believe we should probably save a very large sum of money, and get back a good deal of the money which we are now having to vote. I think that when a disaster of this kind has occurred, when the State has to pay up at least £340,000, and when an equal loss falls upon a great number of people in poor circumstances, you ought to have an 2843 independent inquiry. I know military men and others have suffered severely, and I urge that such an independent inquiry should take place.
§ Mr. LAWSONrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERLieut.-Colonel Guinness.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI think, in view of the hour, it would be well to answer some of the criticism which has been brought forward on the action—
§ Mr. LAWSONrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) does not wish to give way, I think he has the right to speak.
§ Mr. LAWSONI have not intervened much in the Debates in the last week or two.
§ Mr. LAWSONI think at twenty minutes to four in the morning we are discussing a matter involving £340,000, and not only involving that amount but also a very grave decision which has disturbed the public mind very much. If there is any reason that could have been given for that decision and for discussing this matter of such great nature at this time of the morning it is, perhaps, the exceptionally clear exposition we have had from the hon. Gentleman who supported this subvention, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, an exposition which promises great things in view of the fact that it was very obvious he was not very much at ease in supporting this subvention of £340,000. He, however, said that he hoped he would never have to support a matter of this kind again, so that it was obvious he did not feel at all at ease. As a matter of fact, the further he went the clearer it was that he was not quite sure of his ground. He had made it very clear that the War Office had repudiated time and again all responsibility for any financial support of this kind in the case of the failure of a bank. I want to draw attention to one parti- 2844 cular point which has been mentioned in a previous Parliament when Farrow's Bank failed. I well remember when the matter was raised in this House and, except for a few words of sympathy from the Prime Minister, the whole subject was treated with contempt by the House at that time. I submit that there is no more responsibiliy in this case than there was in the other case. I should not like to say anything that would hinder these, people from receiving consideration, but I do say there is ground for reconsidering the case of the people who were ruined by the failure of Farrow's Bank under this decision. What is the position? Farrow's subscribers and investors were considered. The matter came up while the House was in session, a full House. I think I am very well within bounds when I say that we on these benches were looked upon as semi-imbeciles because we asked the Government to support and consider these poor people. But in this case the House was not even in session. There was, so to speak, hardly any Government, and yet without any plea in the House, or before anyone knew anything about it, the War Office had taken a decision to come to the aid of these people to whom they thought they had an obligation and yet at the same time they clearly said that it is an ex gratiâ grant.
I want to put this point. Times are changing in this country. There are those of us who sit on these benches who use all the influence we can against class feeling and against bitterness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, we do; and those who know me befit know that I do. But I challenge anyone to deny that the decision that has been given in this case as compared with Farrow's has not behind it the class spirit. It is this of which we complain; it is the motive power behind the Government in settling this amount upon these officers. Let us face the situation. In this country there is a type of edcation which has behind it a good deal of snobbery I have fought, like other people, in the Elections quite recently. There was raised the question of miners' incomes and M.P.s' incomes, but when professional man were asked about their incomes, then they talked about libel. In this House we have the fellowship of all Members. It is one of the fine things in this House, but it is one of the dangerous things to British 2845 society that there is a class spirit prevailing of which those Members on the opposite benches are representative. It is very dangerous to this country. This is the best test you can have of that statement, and the sooner the Government, whether this Government or any other Government, gets the true test, the test of justice and the test of right dealing with any class or any people, the better it will be for this country; but as far as I am concerned I shall not be moved by the statement given from the Government Benches from the conviction that there is no difference between the people who lost their money in Farrow's, and from whom we have received time and again letters of the most pathetic nature, and the Army people, except this, that they are considered to belong to another class and another profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no?"] I say yes. I believe the hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their convictions. I believe they think there is not any of the class spirit behind it. That is the tragedy of it. The people do not seem to see it. But we see it in our ordinary everyday lives, and the opinion is that this is a class decision.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI should like to answer a few of the criticisms that have been brought against the proposed Vote. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) suggests that there is no difference between the case of Farrow's Bank and the case of McGrigor's failure. I think he could only argue that if we were recommending payment in the case of McGrigor's to those customers who had no Army connection. The whole point of the grant we are making in the case of McGrigor is that of Army connection. The system of Army agents does encourage officers to form this connection, and the War Office recognised this when in 1892 they ceased to pay a commission of 1½ per cent. on the payments that were made. It was obvious that agents were not going to embark in this costly work unless they were going to get something in return, and there is no doubt that the inducement to accept; agency work was the Army connection which it would bring. But if you went beyond this ex gratiâ Grant I do not know where you would stop or how you would, for instance, resist the claim to pay up the shareholders in the Equitable Insurance Company. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. 2846 C. Boberts) suggested that we were not erring on the side of paying too much in view of the neglect of the War Office. I admit there must be very hard cases under the War Office decision, but in view of financial difficulties funds are necessarily in these times limited, and we have to do the best we can with the very generous sum placed at our disposal. Some will get considerably less than we would like them to get, while others will inevitably get more than their deserts. I believe the flat rate was the only way of getting any general agree ment—
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean that some of these people will get twenty shillings in the pound?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSNo; it is ten shillings in the pound. I was dealing with the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it is going to be very hard on some officers—I think the hon. Member for Derby instanced young officers—and that is why we have had recourse to the system of the flat rate. The suggestion is that the War Office has been remiss in not demanding further particulars as to the position of those agents as bankers, but, as has been already argued by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, you cannot put it higher than contributory negligence. Surely the customer was not absolved from his share of responsibility in seeing that the bank was solvent and taking the ordinary precautions. I think it is a very generous arrangement that, out of a possible loss of fifteen shillings in the pound, after a division of assets, the taxpayer is going, under our proposal, to assume two-thirds of the loss and leave only one-third to the customer who was also, to some extent, responsible. The Army agency system has been to the mutual advantage of the War Office and the individual officer. Both have shared the advantages, and surely it is not unreasonable that both parties should share the loss.
The hon. Member for Derby asks that an inquiry should be set up into the whole system of Army agency and War Office finance. I am sure he will not expect me to give an answer on so large a subject as that, without consulting my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, but I do not see on his case that there is any strong ground for such an examination. 2847 The whole system is being very carefully inquired into. What would you get by further inquiry? I suggest that it is impossible to say who is responsible for the mistake, if mistake it was, that led to the recent failure. Was it the Secretary of State who renewed the contracts with these Army agents in 1909, taking effect in 1912 for 20 years? If not, was it one or all of his successors who, in spite of the fact that there was no reference to balance-sheets in the agreement between the Army agents generally and the War Office, failed subsequently to enforce a demand which had never previously been made? At exactly what stage was this balance sheet to be demanded? Remember that the publication of balance sheets has been a recent development. I have here the figures of bankers' returns, and I am informed there are still over 30 private banks who to this day do not publish balance sheets. It is very easy to be wise after the event, but if the War Office had during the currency of the agreement said, "We refuse to do business with any Army agent who does not produce a balance sheet," in spite of the fact that so many other banks of undoubted stability have not issued balance sheets and if they had proposed on this ground to break the contract, is it certain that, without our present knowledge, Parliament, would have backed them in what would have been, perhaps, a very expensive breach? I would point out that McGrigor's have been doing business with the War Office for 80 years without any complaint whatever, and I think the hon. Member for Derby is misinformed in his impression that McGrigor's had approached other banks with the proposal that they should be taken over. I understand the only foundation for that is that another bank suggested that they would like to amalgamate with McGrigor's, but McGrigor's would not consent to the proposed arrangement.
The hon. Member also raised the point of the £13,000 which was paid over by the Paymaster-General after McGrigor's first gave notice to the War Office that they were in difficulties. This sum was paid to McGrigor's, not as Army agents, but simply because they held power of attorney, as any bank holds power of attorney, to receive pensions and retiring allowances on behalf of those who had 2848 been in the Army or related to officers. This power of attorney was given entirely in the interests of the pensioner by his own arrangement. I do not know if the War Office knew about it or not, because there was no need to give power of attorney. The machinery in this ease is for the beneficiary himself to lodge a life statement every month and a certified life statement every quarter to show that he is entitled, being still alive, to the allowance. He could send that straight to the Paymaster-General and get his cheque back, and he would get his money in that way quicker. But many pensioners and officers for their own convenience arranged with the bank that they should draw the money for them under power of attorney. That being so, these payments being in no way connected with the Army agency, I suggest that if the War Office had warned the Paymaster-General, there would have been equally grounds for warning every Government Department not to make any payments to McGrigor's under the circumstances.
4.0 A.M.
On 6th October, Sir Tames McGrigor came and interviewed representatives of the War Office in company with a representative of Holts and a representative of Cox's. He disclosed a deficit on his own valuation of far more manageable proportions that that which eventually was disclosed. The fact of the representatives of Holt's and Cox's being present was a very important factor, because it was put to them: "If the matter is not irretrievable, will you help?" and they agreed. The War Office would have been very unwise to have precipitated the crash and if they had sent round, not only to the Paymaster-General, but to all Government Departments saying, "Do not pay any money to McGrigor's," it is perfectly certain that the crash would have taken place immediately, and there was quite a reasonable chance at that time of McGrigor's being saved by amalgamation with other Army agents. Of course when the figures were arrived at by a new valuation, it became evident that nothing could be done and the War Office immediately took action in the interests of the officers.
There is one point which has not, perhaps, been fully realised, that the War Office really lost practically nothing in connection with this failure on that part of the work which directly concerned 2849 them, the Army agency work these Army agents do not draw large sums in advance. They only draw on the last day of the month about enough to pay into officers' accounts on the first day of the next month, and the amounts outstanding is about £5,000, the difference between the amounts they received and paid in the next day. That is about covered by the security they lodged for this purpose. It was lodged not with any idea of guaranteeing the bankers' business in which these Army agents also engaged. I quite agree that an inquiry would be justified if there were any risk to public money in this agency system, but if it is once realised that the banking part of the business is not the Government's concern, and that the proposed ex gratiâ payment is not to be considered as a precedent, I do not think that that risk is of any appreciable size. The agents' books, so far as the Government is concerned, are open to inspection, and always have been. Not only can the War Office send down to look at the books, but they get an account every quarter showing the details of this agency work. I think it would be most inadvisable by saying anything at the present moment in favour of an inquiry to lead to any impression that we had the slightest doubt or anxiety as to the complete stability of the other Army agents. The past we have to regret and to wipe out, but it would be disastrous by anything we decide this morning to prejudice the system in the future. I believe that a Government inspection of the banking side of this agent's business would be most inadvisable, because anything short of a complete and effective control would only mislead the customers and would make the State liable not only for the agency but for the banking business to the uttermost penny in the event of failure. Balance sheets are now issued for the existing Army agents, which are public, and the House can study them and judge their financial position. It will be made clear to Army officers on joining that there is no obligation to open banking accounts with the Army Agents, but in view of the strong financial position of the existing agents, I do not for one moment believe any considerable change in the system of their acting as bankers for many officers will result owing to this information being brought more definitely to the notice of newly- 2850 joined officers. I do feel strongly that the agency system should continue both for the convenience of the Service and the public.
§ Mr. HARDIEI wanted to try and find out exactly what took place in this matter, and, in order to get some information, I was digging things out-to-day. The advertisement of the bank in question reads as follows:
Sir Charles McGrigor, Baronet, and Company, Army Agents and Bankers, 39, Panton Street, Haymarket, Partners, Sir James R. D. McGrigor, Baronet, Edward Albert Biss—we have heard nothing about him in the House. [An HON. MEMHER: "Ho is dead!"] It states that the firm makes returns to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as London bankers. That is the point I wish to raise. It also states that its bankers are the London County Westminster and Parrs Bank Ltd., the National Provincial and Union Bank of England Ltd., Charing Cross, and that the Holder of Procuration is John Francis Jones, while the tragic part of the business is the telegraphic address, "Dream, London."We do not want anyone to be misled by our opposition to this. In reply to a question, on 24th November, the Under-Secretary for War stated that the State had made a profit. What is the use at this time of day of men claiming to be business men bringing forward the argument that because you have made a profit you have a right to assume that it will not be any loss to the nation to take that profit and use it to wipe out a stupid mistake? If that principle is going to be carried out, as far as the Government is concerned, it ought to stretch back to the former Government to the question of the profits in other industries in which the Government had a really tangible interest in the form of control. If it is good to support it in this connection it must also be good to support the British miner's case. "We are not responsible for the bankers," so we have been told a hundred times since I came into the House three minutes ago. Yet we are assuming responsibility for the failure of a bank. [HON. MEMBERS: "An agent!"] That is what I am trying to get at. I have read you the advertisement. They are Army agents and bankers, and I have shown to you there are several agents with whom they bank. 2851 It is for the Government's side to clear up this mess. We are not responsible for the private banks, and had we had a real business sense in this country none of the money belonging to the people would have passed outwith the Bank of England. McGrigor spelt with an "e" would be a Scotsman, but spelt with an "i" he belongs to the Northland across the seas. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Jew!"] The responsibility that is being assumed is unreal. The Government here have no responsibility for the failure of the bank, but we have a genuine responsibility for the unemployed now in this country; and if the Government is going to come to the aid of 50 per cent. of the loss of the Army officers, why cannot they come and pay half wages to the workmen? I will conclude with this:
§ that on the question of banking there has not been any enlightenment given such as ought to have been given by right hon. Gentlemen, who say we are still in darkness on this side of the House. Were I in the position to challenge anyone on the other side of the House as regards banking I would do so. I hope right hon. Gentlemen, in considering this matter, will give some undertaking that, so far as private banking is concerned, they are not in any way standing behind the failure of such institutions.
§ Mr. BALDWINrose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes,
2853| Division No. 42.] | AYES. | [4.13 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Paget, T. G. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Pennefather, De Fonblan[...]ue |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Guthrie, Thomas Maule | Penny, Frederick George |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Philipson, H. H. |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Halstead, Major D. | Raine, W. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Harrison, F. C. | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Becker, Harry | Harvey, Major S. E. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Remer, J. R. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Brassey Sir Leonard | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hood, Sir Joseph | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hopkins, John W. W. | Sandon, Lord |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Houfton, John Plowright | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hudson, Capt. A. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hurd, Percy A. | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Cope, Major William | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lort-Williams, J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Ednam, Viscount | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lumley, L. R. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Elveden, Viscount | Maione, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Margesson, H. D. R. | Wells, S. R |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Mercer, Colonel H. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Fawkes, Major F. H. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Windsor, Viscount |
| Flanagan, W. H. | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Wise, Frederick |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Forestler-Walker, L. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Murohison, C. K. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Furness, G. J. | Nall, Major Joseph | |
| Garland, C. S. | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gates, Percy | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J (Westminster) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Attlee, C. R. | Herriotts, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Ritson, J. |
| Bonwick, A. | Hogge, James Myles | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bromfield, William | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Brotherton, J. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute} | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buchanan, G. | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Buckle, J. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Burgess, S. | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cairns, John | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Thornton, M. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | M'Entee, V. L. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | McLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maxton, James | Welsh, J. C. |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Middleton, G. | Westwood, J. |
| Foot, Isaac | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wheatley, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Muir, John W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Murnin, H. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Newbold, J. T. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Groves, T. | Nichol, Robert | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Oliver, George Harold | |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hardie, George D. | Parker, H. (Hanley) | Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Phillipps, Vivian | Jones. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That '£340,000' stand part of the Resolution."
2854§ The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 83.
2855| Division No. 43.] | AYES. | [4.20 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col, Sir William James | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Flanagan, W. H. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Ashley. Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Forestier-Walker. L. | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot | Lumley, L. R. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Furness, G. J. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Garland, C. S. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Gates, Percy | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Becker, Harry | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Nall, Major Joseph |
| Blundell, F. N. | Guthrie, Thomas Mauie | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Bonwick, A. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Halstead, Major D. | Paget, T. G. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Harrison, F. C. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Harvey, Major S. E. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Bruton, Sir James | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Philipson, H. H. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hewett, Sir J. P. | Raine, W. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Remer, J. R. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Reynolds, W. G. W. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hood, Sir Joseph | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Cope, Major William | Hopkins, John W. W. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Houfton, John Plowright | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Hudson, Capt. A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Dunnico, H. | Hurd, Percy A. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Ednam, Viscount | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Jarrett, G. W. S. | Sandon, Lord |
| Elveden, Viscount | Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Winterton, Earl |
| Sparkcs, H. W. | Turton, Edmund Russborough | Wise, Frederick |
| Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | Waring, Major Walter | Verburgh, R. D. T. |
| Sutcliffe, T. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) | |
| Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Wells, S. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Herriotts, J. | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hogge, James Myles | Ritson, J. |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Roberts, C. H (Derby) |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, J. J. [West Ham, Silvertown) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Brotherton, J. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jowett, F. w. (Bradford, East) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Buckle, J. | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Burgess, S. | Lansbury, George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cairns, John | Lawson, John James | Sullivan, J. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Lunn, William | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | M'Entee, V. L. | Thornton, M. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | McLaren, Andrew | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maxton, James | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Foot, Isaac | Middleton, G. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Muir, John W. | Wheatley, J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murnin, H. | Whiteley, w. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, T. | Newbold, J. T. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Nichol, Robert | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hardie, George D. | Paling, W. | |
| Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Parker, H. (Hanley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hayday, Arthur | Phillipps, Vivian | Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan Jones. |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Potts, John S. |
Resolution agreed to.
§ REPORT [8th December].