§ The CHAIRMAN
Under Mr. Speaker's guidance I propose to follow the practice which was adopted in regard to the Report of the Ways and Means Resolution and to allow a general discussion on the first Amendment. That is following the same course which has been pursued on two former occasions.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I want to ask a question. I wish to know if it is your intention, Mr. Hope, to take the Chair at the proceedings to-day in view of what happened in the early part of this morning when a large section of this House lost complete confidence in you continuing in the Chair.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Surely it is in order, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question like that which my colleague has just put. Has he not a right to ask you this question, because a large section of the House have lost all confidence in you.
§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if during the general discussion you intend to take you have it in mind to accept a Motion for the Closure when it is proposed from the other side?
§ The CHAIRMAN
That matter will be dealt with when it arises. I now call upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I want to know whether it is your intention, if the Closure is moved from the other side by any responsible Minister during the evening, to accept that Motion?
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
If you name the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to-day you will have a few others to name.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have called upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. Does he move this Amendment?
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I want to know if an hon. Member of this House is precluded at any stage from raising a point of Order?
§ The CHAIRMAN
Three hon. Members have already risen to put points of Order and they were not points of Order at all.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I ask the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring to proceed. If any further points of Order arise, I will deal with them.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out Subsection (1).
In moving this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), myself, and others, I desire to make one more appeal to the Government to give way on this matter and to do justice to the people concerned. [Interruption.] I have listened to these Debates very keenly indeed, and I agree with the remarks that have been made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends as to the position the Government have taken up. I say here emphatically that, if this proposal is proceeded with, and the Government fail to do justice to these people, there is only one way in which it can be rightly designated, and that is—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Hope, to the loud and continued provocative laughter which is being indulged in by Members on the other side, preventing us from hearing what my hon. Friend is saying?
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
With very great respect, may I point out that your attention was directed elsewhere at the time? I am drawing your attention now to the fact that several hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee have indulged in continued mocking laughter during the whole of the time that my hon. Friend has been speaking.
§ Mr. RICHARDSON
I was just about to appeal to you, Sir, but my hon. Friend did it for me. I trust that hon. Members will not interrupt others when they are addressing the Committee, and I ask for fairness. I was going on to say that I have listened to my friends who have made eloquent appeals to the Government to withdraw this proposal, knowing, as they must know, that in doing what they are now doing they are hitting at the very poorest of the poor. I listened to the Secretary of State for War yesterday with keen interest, but I failed to find that he produced any argument that would in any way justify what he is proposing to do under this Clause as it stands; in the Bill. He must remember, as we all remember, that there were more than the Government in this matter when this contract was made. He must know that the Army was a party to the contract, that the Navy was a party to the contract, that the Air Force is a party to the contract now—that the soldiers were a large party to the contract, and that the Government, of all people, were the very first of the whole of the:parties to commence paying less than the others into the Fund. There was much discussion in the Debate as to whether it was a fund, or an organisation, or a society, but that, to me, is immaterial; the question is, What does it propose to do?
506 I would ask hon. Members opposite whether they consulted the approved societies on this matter during the Recess, whether they consulted their constituents on this matter? I venture to think that not one of the working-class population of this country was consulted, either in regard to this Clause or in regard to the Bill as a whole. I want to warn the Government that retribution will come upon them. This proposal can only emanate from the minds of men who have neither faith nor honour behind them, and men without faith or honour are usually mad. One remembers the old saying that those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad. I warn the Government that, if they are banking on the short memory of the ordinary working-class elector, that will not occur in this House, and we will see to it that this is kept green in the minds of the people When the next General Election comes round.
Apart from all that, this sum of £1,100,000 is to be taken from the broken, from the people who are down and out because they fought for their country, and now have no means of living at all except through the Poor Law. We were told during the War that no man who served his country should ever want in this country, but hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the Committee must know that there are thousands of broken men who are receiving nothing but Poor Law relief, although they were told they would never have to appeal to the Poor Law. Their children are going with insufficient boots and clothes, aye, and even with insufficient food—the children of these very men from whom it is now proposed to take something further. I do not know of any more cowardly act than the introduction of this Bill. In connection with it, cowardice has been displayed by the Government on every conceivable occasion. To me, the meanest act of cowardice is the act of attacking those who cannot help themselves. The soldiers are powerless to say even a word against the Government; if they do they are charged with insurrection and put into gaol. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that only too-well, and it makes their task of attacking these people easier than it otherwise would be. Citizens who cannot help themselves ought to be helped by a House such as this. Not only is the soldier attacked, but his children are attacked, 507 and they cannot by any means make themselves heard. It is left to men with souls to look after the people who cannot look after themselves.
It is proposed here to deplete a fund which was created for the purpose of looking after these people, for the purpose of properly looking after the soldiers who are now serving, and who may need its assistance later. Many of us know, from the actuarial figures, that soldiers who come back from the Army into industry are often broken in constitution, and the ordinary worker has to look after them. This is a proposal to rob them to this extent. I plead with the Government to see the other side of the question. After all, as I have said before, if this be carried, they will suffer in the long run, and I want, if I can, in the few words I have to say to the Committee, to appeal to them to do their best to have this proposal withdrawn. May I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and to the Secretary of State for War, to convey this appeal to the real culprit in this matter, because, after all, as has been well said in this House, they were dragooned into it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at his wits' end to find sufficient money to cover what he did in the Budget of last year, in looking after his friends so well. We remember only too well his words in introducing the Budget, when he referred to the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, and said that the worker had got something out of that Budget. Really, his words meant, "I am going to take back every penny that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Come Valley has given to the worker." Now his Budget will not balance, and his attack is not on persons who can afford it, but on persons who cannot afford to do more than they are doing now. I therefore plead with the Government, and I urge the Government, at once to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they think it wrong to proceed further; and I trust that even now, at this late hour, the proposal we are making to delete this Clause will be accepted and that at least some justice will be done to those men who did so very much for us.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
For three days now we have been making an appeal on behalf of the Service men who are affected by the intentions of the Governments as expressed in this Clause. It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that the £1,100,000 that he is taking away has been contributed by the sailors and soldiers and partly by the ex-sailors and soldiers. It has also been admitted that the only reason why additional benefits were not given out of this fund was that it was assumed originally that the Fund would not be sufficiently large to give anything more than maternity benefit. It was admitted, when the Act was originally introduced, that the Fund that was in process of accumulation would be earmarked for the benefit of the Service men. How, in those circumstances, can the Government possibly justify taking the money away from the purpose for which it was originally provided? I am sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, but I am delighted to see the unusual spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government Bench. He has made these extraordinary proposals, and he has never once come into the House and attempted to justify them. The First Lord of the Admiralty, if he were here, would have an opportunity of being reminded what injury has already been done to the Services during the administration of the present Government. Their pay has been reduced, their pension rates are being reconsidered, their marriage allowances have been reduced, and every possible penalty that could be put upon the Services has already been put upon them. There is great distress in the dockyard towns, and nobody knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, because he is being compelled, out of sympathy and necessity, to make some provision for the housing of the population in the constituency which I represent. The greatest misery prevails. The-houses in which the sailors and soldiers live are in a state of great disrepair, and their wives are suffering—
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
It is in these houses that the Service men have to live, and their families are being penalised to 509 a large extent by this Bill. I submit that this money belongs to them and could be used for the purposes of their welfare, and I was endeavouring to establish that it was a case of the utmost necessity to use this money in the Service towns and for the benefit of the Services. For years the Navy has been demanding pensions for widows. It is true that they get a pension now under the Widows' Pension Act, but it is only 10s. a week, and then only in respect of those who have become widows in. the current year. Could not this money lie more justifiably applied in helping the widows of Service men than in taking it for the relief of the Income Tax payer?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am asking here why the sailors' and soldiers' money. I will make it Super-tax payer or anyone else, but I think the hon. and gallant Member, as a Service man, will see quite clearly that it is absolutely unjustifiable, however great the need of the country may be, to take this money which belongs to the Service men, which has been contributed by the Service men, and contributed by very great sacrifices, because when the Act was originally introduced the pay of a soldier when he first joined the Forces was 7d., and the pay of a sailor 10d., and out of that meagre sum he was mulcted 1½d per week, which, in. proportion to his wages, was a very much greater sum than was exacted from the civilian. It is not disputed that he contributed; it is not disputed that every penny in this Fund has been accumulated at his expense. Nobody disputes that at all, and there can be no snore justification for taking this money than for plundering private property. If a poor man who is starving steals a loaf of bread, then, however great his necessity, he goes to gaol. If a. trustee misappropriates funds with the administration of which he is charged, he suffers a very severe penalty and goes to gaol for a considerable period. The Government are the trustees of this Fund, and, whatever phrases you choose to use in the matter, there is no concealing the fact that the Government are taking money which more appropriately belongs to the: Services than it belongs to them.
510 The need of the men in the Services and of their widows and their dependants and of the ex-service men is far greater than the need of the Income Taxpayer, or the Super-taxpayer, or the Government. Another source from which this Fund has been accumulated is the dead. These men did not accumulate this Fund for the purpose to which it is now being applied. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is part of a consistent policy on the part of his Government for injuring the interests of the Service and ex-service men, because during the brief tenure of his office a great deal of harm has been done. to the Service and ex-service men. There has never been a Government which has mulcted them in such severe pains and penalties as this Government. It has closed the dockyards, it has reduced the building programme, it has reduced their pay, it has withdrawn the marriage allowances of officers, it has reduced the marriage allowances of ratings, it has reduced the provision allowance and many other allowances—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must know that it will be out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to this argument.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am only asking him if this is part of a consistent policy to injure the interests of the Service and ex-service men, and I am going to ask him whether, in. view of the fact that there have been so many Measures that have redounded to the disadvantage of the Service, he cannot hold out some hope that provision will be made to repair the damage that has been done by other administrative actions. I am going to ask him whether it is the adament determination of the Government to take this £1,100,000 which is so sorely needed in the Service towns. All that the men have got out of their 1½d. per week has been a donation of £2 to their wives if they have had a child, and that £2 is worth very considerably less than it was before the War. The single men who have also contributed have never had a farthing out of this Fund. Yet you have taken their money to accumulate it. Now, having reduced their pay in order to accumulate this Fond, and having given them no benefit whatever—they cannot get the maternity benefit, because, having reduced their 511 marriage allowance, they cannot get married, which is one of the principal causes why this Fund has accumulated—you are taking this money away. I appeal to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who is my colleague, to speak up on behalf of the service men this afternoon. I want to know whether she is going down to Plymouth to justify her Government in this matter.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced this Act, which was intended to benefit the Service men. The Government which the Noble Lady is supporting is intending to take away the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman by his Act conferred. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] That is indisputable. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Clause into the original Act, the Secretary of State for War, who now sits on the Government Bench, got up and thanked him for what he was doing for the Service men, and admitted, if not in so many words, at any rate by implication, that this Act was going to redound to their advantage. Years have passed since then, and now that it promises to redound to their advantage, the right hon. Gentleman, who was so eloquent on behalf of the Service men in those days, uses the influence of his office to take all the advantages away from them. He said on that occasion: "There are these poor men whom I am representing. They cannot write to Members of Parliament; they cannot go on deputations; they cannot discuss their grievances. I am going to get up in this House and speak for them. If there is any doubt as between the Exchequer and the ex-service men, let the benefit. of the doubt be given to the Service men every time." That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He admits that the money does not belong to the Government; he admits that it has been accumulated out of the pockets and on behalf of the Service men. I say to him: "If there be any doubt in this matter, let him give the benefit of the doubt to the Service men."
What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it? Is he going to get up and repeat the same old argument that 512 the money does not belong to anybody? Is he going to dispute his own Memorandum which he laid before the Commission, and in which he said that the only reason for not giving greater benefits. to these men was because it was doubted whether the fund would be great enough to do so? Why cannot he have the courage and decency to get up and say: "I am taking this money. It is daylight robbery, but I am going to use my majority to take it away from the service men and ex-service man and their dependants. I have no justification. I frankly admit it." The Navy then would say, "Well, here is a good old healthy buccaneer," and they would rather like the right hon. Gentleman for having the courage to call a spade a spade and a theft a theft but I assure him they will not have very much admiration for him in his endeavour to conceal the real intentions of his act and the real effect of his act in a whole maze of phraseology and intricate argument.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole matter. I saw just now that he was having a conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the three days' Debate must have affected the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] It must have convinced him, at any rate, that there would be a very large amount of political wisdom in reversing the course which he is now taking. The First Lord of the Admiralty was also on the Bench for a few minutes. I think he was convinced by the eloquent appeal just made. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) moved the Committee yesterday by drawing a very accurate picture of the distress of these ex-service men and particularly of the 30,000 of them who are too incapacitated to be accepted by any approved society in the country. Here are men who were promised a great many things, who have not a brass farthing in the world, and who will not be accepted by any approved society, and I appeal to the Government even at this late hour on the third day to come to some sense of reason and some sense of honour in the matter and to accept the Amendment.
I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has been a little unfair in saying the ex-service men under this Bill would not get what had 513 been promised them. He knows they will get what was originally promised them, and they have been assured that they will get all they would get from the best approved societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I cannot commend the Government for this because I am desperately against the whole thing. I am against any economy of this sort when it has to do with the health and welfare of the people. I think the hon. Member's speech was a little misleading. When people criticise the Government for what they are doing, particularly when it has to do with the Navy and the ex-service men, we know perfectly well what are the proposals of the other party. I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnal-von Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) looked a little uncomfortable while the hon. Member was talking about; closing the dockyards, cutting down the Navy and the rest of it. I hope we shall hear something from him later on. It is really not quite honest to make these points against the Government when we know what is the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal party.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must ask the noble Lady not to pursue the same trend of argument for which I stopped her colleague.
That is why I hoped you would have stopped him before he went on. I feel very strongly about further benefits to the ex-service men. We got an assurance yesterday from the Secretary of State for War. All these points that; are being made have been answered. Many of us deeply regret this Bill. We regret that the Government have taken this step, and many of us regret the Bill too. I think it is a very unwise thing and I should not be honest if I sat here without; saying so. We know that a former Member for Plymouth fought hard for the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs brought in, and we hoped it would go on better and improve as the years went on. They say they cannot drop it. We cannot expect them 514 to as long as we have a Chancellor who is an inheritance from the Liberal party. Heaven knows what we should do if we got one from the Labour party. I beg the Government before they finish with the Bill to give us some assurance that in a year or two, when things get better, they will reverse the whole of these economies.
I thought we might bring in some points about general economies. I appeal to the Government to realise that, although we have not spoken, many of us feel as intensely as any of the Opposition, and I beg them to make what concessions they can and to assure us that as soon as it is possible the whole of these economies will be reversed.
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
To me the most extraordinary feature of the defence put up by the Secretary of State for War was precisely the point the Noble Lady has referred to, the statement that the Government are not injuring the service men, but the service man is getting an advantage owing to the fact that a certain reservation is made for the purpose of giving him some extra advantages and bringing him up to the level of the average approved society. Altogether apart from any technical detail, altogether apart from whether there is any technical defence at all possible or at all logical in the matter, surely we ought to consider the question from the standpoint at any rate of the ex-service man, if not of the present serving soldier, sailor or airman. Why should the ex-service man have to put up with the average when he ought to have the best? If the money is there for the purpose of giving the best medical treatment and the best advantages while the service man is in bad health, surely all that was promised to the serving soldier during the War, that he should have the best, that he would be looked after, justifies any Government in all fairness in using the money that is there for that purpose so as to make his medical benefits, etc., at least equal to the benefits of the best society rather than the average society. The money is there. It has been contributed by the serving soldier, by his employers, and by the State. There is 515 no question about the amount being available to give him the kind of medical and other advantages which would be at least equal to the best type of approved society. I remember when my party was in office there were Members of the present Conservative party who on every possible and almost impossible occasion peppered the front bench of the Labour party with questions as to the rights of ex-service men. There is one Member who is within the precincts and has been throughout the whole of these debates who never lost an opportunity of suggesting that the Labour Government were always against the interests of ex-service men, and never lost an opportunity of bringing up the question of the ex-service men though it might have been miles away from the subject under discussion. That Member made herself the ex-service man's champion and yet the hon. Member for Berwick (Mrs. Philipson) has not been in the Chamber to defend the interests of the ex-service man throughout the whole business.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)
The hon. Lady is not present, but I have seen her sitting here.
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
I must accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is plainly impossible for any Member to be at every moment upon the benches here, but I have attended these Debates pretty consistently, and even if the hon. Lady has been here we have not heard her uttering protests, as we did then, about the interests of the ex-service men. The same applies in various degrees to the rest of the members of the Conservative party. They were constantly talking about the ex-service men. What are they doing for him now? They are pretending to give him an advantage by bringing him up to the level of the average approved society. A few years ago nothing, it was said, was too good for the men who fought and bled for this country, who saved this country. Now the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Health and the rest of the defenders of this disastrous policy are using every trivial, technical argument they can in order to rob the ex-service man of what he was promised, and what he is entitled to from the standpoint of what the 516 general feeling of the country was at the time of the War and immediately after, and what he is entitled to because of the fact that the ex-service men themselves are partners to the creation of this Fund, and that they naturally expected, as everyone else would expect, that when it was agreed that the Admiralty, and the War Office and the Air Force should contribute to a definite fund, the same principles would apply as apply with regard to ordinary insurance of that character.
I confirm what the Mover of the Amendment has said. It is evident already in the constituencies that Ministers, especially upon this question of the ex-service men, are making the biggest mistake in the life of the present Government. I suppose we might say that is something for us to look forward to and to be grateful for. I do not want to take that line. I am not grateful for injustice. But I warn the Government that the people of the country are going to register their disgust at the meanness of the Government. They are prepared to put money in the pockets of millionaires and to steal pennies from the pockets of poor people. We have been charged with being mere advocates of class war because we have said the Conservative party is a rich man's party. Throughout the life of this Government every Bill that has been brought forward involving questions of pension, insurance, taxation and everything else, has shown that they are a rich man's party and one that is prepared to filch all it can from the poor people. We enter our emphatic protest against that policy, and we are determined to fight for all we are worth in spite of your mechanical majority, and if we cannot do much here we will certainly do our best to let the country know.
Captain ARTHUR EVANS
It is rather a remarkable thing that in spite of all the humbug and all the cant that we have heard from that side of the House for the last three days—
I am sorry if I infringed your ruling by using those expressions, but I think it is within the memory of the House that expressions of that nature have been used on those benches 517 since this Debate started. But in spite of all this hysterical outburst, in spite of the kites they have flown for the benefit of the East Ham electorate, in spite of their hysteria, it is a remarkable thing that the real representative body of the ex-service men in this country, the British Legion, have not thought it necessary or thought fit to protest against this proposal. Hon. Members opposite know that if their arguments were justified, all Members of this House would have received a circular from this very wonderful association of ex-service men, putting their views before us.
No action of that kind has been taken by the British Legion. When hon. Members opposite taunt us and say that we have been giving wrong descriptions of certain features of the Bill, I would like to know whether they have ever admitted that in this Economy Bill the ex-service men are going to get benefits to which they were not entitled under the Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or under the Government of the present Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) thought that this was such an important point, why did they not bring in a Bill to give effect to it when they were in power? The right hon. Member for Derby has admitted that an Act of Parliament was necessary to alter this state of affairs. If he thought that the general taxpayers should not benefit by this money, why did not his Government bring in a Bill to deal with the matter?
The majority of the soldiers who contributed to this fund are no longer in the Army. Some of them, unfortunatey, fell in the War. It is a matter for regret that hon. Members opposite should bring into this Debate such a sacred phrase as "the men who have fought and died," in order to forward the political propaganda of their own party. The majority of the men affected are not in the Army at the present time. I should think that 75 per cent. of them are civilians at this moment. Is not the Government justi- 518 fied in saying that they, as civilians and as a section of the general taxpayers of the country, should not be entitled to this refund, instead of a certain section or class? There are many things which this Government would like to do and which hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to do, if we could afford it. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has put forward suggestions which would not cost the Government £1,000,000 but £12,000,000. Hon. Members say that money should be spent on this or on that. The sum available is about £1,000,000, because £400,000 is to be used in giving benefit to the ex-service men and to the men who are on the Regular establishment at this moment when they are discharged, to which they were not previously entitled. If hon. Members opposite, who have suddenly taken such an extraordinary interest in the ex-service men, were honest, as they want us to believe they are, they would go to the trouble of drawing attention to the fact that these men are going to get benefits under the Conservative Administration which they did not get under their own Administration.
We have heard two speeches from the Government side of the House. For days we have pleaded with hon. Members opposite to give expression to their opinions. We felt that they were acting under instructions and that they had been told not to speak. At last, we have had two speeches on which the Government ought to congratulate themselves. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, in effect, "My contribution to this Debate is that I think this is a rotten Bill. It is a wicked Bill." She says she is uncomfortable about it, that her party is uncomfortable about it, and she hopes they will repeal it. She went so far as to say that the only consolation she got out of it was that the ex-service men were going to get maximum benefit. They are not going to get anything of the kind. Her discomfort will be measured in the wrong Lobby. That is not the attitude of the last speaker. He is not uncomfortable. He says, in substance, "The Noble Lady knows nothing about it. She does not know what she is talking about. Why should she be uncomfortable, when this Bill is really one of the best Bills ever introduced?"
519 That is the contribution we have had from the other side of the House. I hope the Minister will take some comfort from it. We have had a very interesting lecture on consistency from an ex-Liberal Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I do not object to that, because he ought to be an authority on the subject of consistency. So far as he is concerned, he has tried to demonstrate this afternoon that our opposition is humbug.
He says that we have used sacred phrases about the dead and that we have attempted to exploit the ex-service man.
He declared as evidence that this proposal is not an injustice to the soldier and the sailor, that no word of protest has come from the British Legion. I presume that the fact that what he calls the representative body of the soldiers and sailors have not protested is the best evidence that he can bring forward in favour of this Clause.
What I wanted to point out was that if the British Legion or any other ex-service organization—
Well, if the British Legion considered that this was a matter which was not in the interests of the ex-servicemen, they would have taken steps to circulate the Members of this House, giving them their views.
I accept that general definition, the implication of which is that it is the duty of people who are representative of soldiers and sailors or of approved societies to let Members of Parliament know their feelings.
We may take it from the hon. and gallant Member that it is the usual practice for representative organisations to circulate their views to Members of this House. The hon. and 520 gallant Member has received a number of communications from the approved societies with regard to this Bill. How did he act upon them? I say with all respect that the British Legion are not the people who deal with this aspect of the question, or know anything about it. The logic of the hon. and gallant Member's argument is that when he receives a communication from people who do know something about things he acts upon it; but when his own constituents remind him that they are suffering and they ask him to act, he ignores the communication, and it is of no avail.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair. What I said was, that it was usual in such cases for those interested to communicate with Members of Parliament. I did not go so far as to say that Members of Parliament should act on the views of such people, irrespective of their own opinion.
It does not follow that if the hon. Member does not receive a communication that he should act the other way. What object was there in quoting the British Legion, unless it was to convey to the House the idea that this is the body that should speak for the ex-soldiers and sailors, and as they have not spoken this proposal must be quite right.
I would point out that they have nothing to do with it. The argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member is opposed to the actual facts. He asked what the Labour Government had done in the matter, and why they did not introduce a Bill. He could not have been present in the early hours of this morning when an incident happened to the ex-Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who took action in connection with this matter. The hon. and gallant Member is evidently not aware that it was the Labour Government, in their short term of office, who recognised that there were so many anomalies and difficulties to be dealt with in National Health Insurance that the ex-Minister or Health appointed a Royal Commission. The hon. and gallant Member must 521 surely have been aware that we appointed the Royal Commission, the report of which contained numerous recommendations on vital matters affecting national health. One of our complaints on this Clause is that the House as a whole has never had an opportunity of discussing these recommendations. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will recognise the injustice of the general indictment that he made against us.
Since the first Debate on this Clause, the whole ground of the Government has changed. The person responsible for this Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not been in the House during these Debates.
And the atmosphere was such that he felt embarrassed and cleared out at once. What was the Government's case as presented by the Secretary of State for War? I ask the House to note the change. The Secretary of State for War, in explaining this Clause, said that the surpluses that we allege are being taken in a way which is robbery were surpluses which the Government themselves had contributed, which they were entitled to take, and that there was no claim of any sort or kind on them so far as the ex-service men were concerned. I do not think I have unfairly stated the matter when I say that that was the defence of the Secretary of State for 'War. He was immediately asked a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He challenged the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, but when the records of the OFFICIAL, REPORT were turned up it was clearly proved that the statement made in this House was that as far as the Government were concerned they were in precisely the same position as any other employer—in other words, the first part of the case goes down. I ask hon. Members opposite when they vote on this and when they have to answer their constituents—for people outside will know about it; there are ex-service men and there are approved society officials who not only know about it, but who know just what is going to happen—to remember that they have got to answer this question. The 522 Secretary of State for War put in a Memorandum himself the suggestion of additional benefits. What was that a recognition of? It was a recognition that an injustice had been done to the ex-service men in this connection. But it implied something else. It implied that at least the ex-soldier and sailor should be put on an equal footing with the ordinary civilian. Will any hon. Member opposite get up and say that he ought not to be? Dare any hon. Member say that, all things being equal, the soldier and sailor who has now returned to civil life ought not to be in precisely the same position as the civilian? But when hon. Members vote against this, they have got to explain to the ex-service men, to all the soldiers and sailors, their vote. They have got to explain that when they went into the Lobby they voted to take money away that they knew would give them additional benefit that they could not otherwise get unless this money was there. They have got to answer that.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said she understood that they would get additional benefits like the others. Let me explain what that may mean. Take two societies. I could give scores of illustrations, but I will give two, and I challenge contradiction from any hon. Member on the benches opposite. Here is a society, well managed, with healthy lives, and a surplus that enables them to increase their sick benefit 2s. 6d. per week, to give an increased maternity grant of 10s., and then to provide half the cost, of dental treatment for families as well as individuals. That is very important, I think there is common agreement as to how magnificent is the value of dental treatment. That is one society; their surplus enables them to give these additional benefits. Then there is another society that through unfortunate epidemics if you like, through a tremendous increase in sickness, situated in a bad district and with all the physical disadvantages, when their valuation takes place find that they have not only no surplus but a deficit. Please observe that 10 per cent. of the societies are in that condition, according to the Actuary's Report. Now the Secretary of State says that the additional benefits that he proposed for the soldiers and sailors is a mean as between those two. He does not even say that he has 523 to determine what they are. He does not even give any indication of the lines on which they are going to travel. That cannot be denied. Do hon. Members on the other side of the House challenge that statement? If so, I repeat that, so far as the Clause we are dealing with and the effect it will have merely means that those who go into the Division Lobby against us, go in deliberately with the knowledge that these people, according to the Secretary of State, will be deprived of half the additional benefits.
I shall also have another opportunity of speaking. I want again to emphasise the importance of that question, and I want to draw attention to the tremendous change of front of the Secretary of State himself. I do not know how many Members were in the Committee when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the remarkable way in which this very difficulty which we are now dealing with was even anticipated in the original Act. The present Secretary of State for War was not only an admitted authority, but I say quite frankly that he rendered remarkably good service in the discussion on the original National Health Insurance Bill, and he was recognised in all parts of the House as a great authority. He was acting then in consultation with, and as the spokesman for, a very large number of societies. He had in his mind this very point, and he questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on this point. He was dealing then with the soldiers and sailors, and he was pointing out how they were handicapped and how they had not got strong trade unions and friendly societies to represent them, and he contended that Parliament ought to be more generous because of this very difficulty. He said:Neither have they been able to appear in the Lobby of the House of Commons, 524 or to approach Members of Parliament, for they have no organisation. It is true that one of the friendly societies in which servicemen are enrolled -has written to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George), but a majority of the servicemen have had no spokesman at all in connection with the Clause. Therefore, it is all the more necessary "—and I would beg hon. Members to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said here—for the Committee to be not only strictly fair, but even a little generous, and if there is any question of doubt it should be given on the side of the soldier or sailor and not to the Treasury.That is a remarkable forecast of the present situation. "If there is any doubt"—and is there any doubt here that the money that the Treasury is taking is the money that belongs, to put it no higher, jointly to these three people? Yet the interpretation which we have not got from the Government is "Yes, our definition of being generous is to collar the lot!" It is remarkable to contrast the attitude of the present Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) as compared with his attitude when he was Member for Leicester, and sat on the other side of the House, and the attitude of the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) as compared with his attitude when he was Member for Devonport. But there are not so many soldiers and sailors in Cardiff as there are in Devonport.
Here is a remarkable illustration. Here is an lion Member who confuses the seamen in Cardiff—
Surely the right hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that mercantile marine seamen are ex-service men?
Well, so are railway men. I am dealing with this Clause, and when I draw attention to the difference between Devonport and Cardiff so far as service men are concerned, the hon. and gallant Member begins to confuse Cardiff sailors with Devonport sailors. But here 525 is the question which was put by the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and was answered by Mr. McKinnon Wood, who was then Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member asked whether the balance which the men did not use would be absorbed by the State for the general purposes of the whole scheme. Mr. McKinnon Wood replied:In no case can the value of his contributions he absorbed in the manner suggested, as the special fund will be earmarked for soldiers and sailors.5.0 P.M.
The special fund, "earmarked for soldiers and sailors," is now collared by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unlike the present Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) I am not going to appeal for anything from the Government. We have been appealing for four days, and at a quarter to nine this morning we got a magnificent concession that amounted to nothing, and when both sides discovered that it amounted to nothing, the Government gave way. That is the only concession we have received, and we say, just as we have said on previous Clauses, that the action of the Government is mean and contemptible. Without any sentiment, it cannot be denied that you are dealing with a surplus belonging to men who died in France. You are dealing with funds created as the result of the unfortunate sacrifice of these men in the War. You started off by saying that this was Treasury money and that it was a State contribution. You refused to tell the House until you were pressed that the State was put in precisely the same position as the ordinary employers of labour. The Actuary's Report says:—The reserves released in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds or disease due to the War, have been specially heavy in the case of this Fund, nearly the whole of the contributors to which were serving with the forces in the War.This is only one of the reasons. The fact that it is dead men's money is not so important as the others.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I do not think the right hon. Member really appreciated what he said. He said that this belongs to men lying in France. That is not a correct statement of the case at all. Only part of it arises in this way.
I ask hon. Members whether I suggested that the whole of it was belonging to men who were lying in France. I said that part of it belonged to them, and I repeat part of it, and it is admitted that part of it does. I have already drawn attention to the fact that it is so stated in the Actuary's Report. I ask Members if they can be happy in doing this, having now got the admission that some of it is the money of these poor dead men created as the result of their sacrifice. Whether we are Tory or Labour, if in our private capacity we were dealing with a trust that involved dead men's money, the money of soldiers who have risked their lives for us, we would ask ourselves what would be the nearest approach to what these men would desire in order that we might do them justice. In our private capacity the answer that we all would make would be that we should try and give as much comfort and help as possible to those who are left to us. Is not that what we would do in our private capacity? Yet when we are faced with a Government Whip, when it is brought up under the guise of economy, and under the pretext that the State requires this money, although we would all do that in our private capacity, yet we go into different Division Lobbies, knowing in our heart of hearts and consciences what is the right thing. That is my answer to your taunt about insincerity. I would never make capital out of a sacrifice of human life. I would rather see justice done, but when we know that an injustice is dons to these people, it is a moral obligation on us to protect their interests. That is why we are indignant; that is why I say it is a mean, petty act. It will recoil on the Government. They will pay dearly for A. Many Members in this House to-day will have cause to remember it.
§ Mrs. PHILIPSON
I regret that the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) did not conform to the traditional courtesy of this House, and inform me of his intention of mentioning my name in connection with this Measure. I was here until 9 o'clock this morning, and had only left the House to see two constituents into the gallery, when I heard my name mentioned. I only wish to say that I have worked hard and sincerely in the cause of the ex-service men since I have been in this House, and the fact that I have been returned three times, largely 527 by ex-service men's votes, is sufficient proof of that. I wish to state that my record of work for the ex-service men, not only in my own constituency, but elsewhere, will bear comparison with the record of the hon. Member for West Islington or, I can fully say, of any other hon. Member on the Labour Benches.
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
May I take this opportunity of saying at once that I did not realise, when I referred to the hon. Lady's name, the fact that I was offending against a custom of the House. T extremely regret that I have done that. I should have informed her beforehand that I intended to refer to her. That is a mistake I profoundly regret. I hope the hon. Member will accept that as an apology.
§ Mrs. PHILIPSON indicated assent.
§ Mr. HARNEY
I propose in my few remarks to concede, for the sake of argument, that the Minister is technically right when he says the original Act made provision only for minimum benefits being given to this class of men. That be is also technically right when he says that the effect of this Bill is to give something more to the men than they would have had if the Bill did not pass, I will concede that freely. Further, I will not stress the point, so forcibly made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that to express promises there are very frequently just as strong implications, and that this will be one of the cases where, benefits having been carved out for a particular class of individual, any excess over the purposes mentioned should by implication be reserved for the class that is intended to receive the benefits. I will pass that over and come to the one broad human feature. Do the Government really appreciate the class of persons they are hitting by this effort at economy? Who are they? We are told they number about 30,000. Thirty-thousand without a vote, without a voice, for they dare not speak ! Does not a, sense of manly indignation, even if it were nothing more, rise in everybody when he sees money being taken from that small class just because they are innocuous to injure by a vote and just because they are powerless to defend themselves by their voice? What is the character of those 30,000? 528 They are those poor fellows shattered by the War, a prey to disease contracted in the trenches, nervous wrecks through shell-shock, too deplorably gone in health to be received by any approved society that hopes to maintain its solvency. If all those men were at all events assured of the wolf being kept from the door by a pension, then there would be a poor justification, but some justification for the action of the Government. Is there a Member of this House who does not, week after week, receive pathetic letters from his constituents, from the wife or daughter of some one of these men, speaking of a poor fellow who entered the Army as a fine young chap, capable of maintaining himself and' those beholden to him, and now a wretched thing hobbling painfully through life while the medical experts are unable to state affirmatively that his condition was brought about through War service, and, therefore, he is turned down by the Pensions Board. There are thousands in the country to-day, who have lost the health they had before the War, and who cannot get pensions, and it is about those poor men that, under the stress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the word goes forth, "If rob you must, rob those who have been shattered for their country's good and arc deprived of even a single penny from the country's purse."
How does it arise that there is this fund at all to pilfer? It is common knowledge, and cannot be disputed, that when the National Health Insurance Act was introduced, having carefully stated the actuarial basis upon which it would be built up as regards the civilian population, the Government were faced with the difficulty that these men had their own doctors to attend to them and that they were not deprived of their wages during their period of illness. The Government of that time felt that they must make special provision for these men and therefore it was worked out that these men, instead of paying 4d., should pay l½d. while the Government, being the only other party instead of being a party with the employer as they were in other cases, should pay another 1½d. At that time there was no war and our Army was a small one. It was felt that with that small sum of money the most they could be given was the minimum benefit. If it was thought at that time they could get additional benefits they would have 529 got them. What brings about the big surplus out of that tiny weekly contribution? The right hon. Gentleman knows, and realises as well as I do, that it was not primarily through any of these half-dozen reasons set down in this White Paper. It was primarily due to the holocaust of the War. It is a surplus that was never contemplated at the time, because no one ever realised the terrible occurrence that was to take place some years afterwards when men were wiped out in tens of thousands.
That is the surplus you are filching. It amounts to £1,500,000. You say you will be good enough to give £400,000 of it for additional benefits, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the £1,100,000. I would really like an answer to this. The Under-Secretary on the Front Bench is as sympathetic as anybody else, and I ask him to give an answer to this question. What more right has the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that £1,100,000 than I have? Where is his right? Is it because he is the head of the Treasury? What right has the Treasury to say that they will take a surplus created in this way? Have they any more right to take that surplus than to take the surplus of an insurance company which would be redistributed in the form of a bonus? Has he any more right to take this surplus than he has to take the money from an insurance society? No, but it is a far easier thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in distress to rob the poor-box which is not as safely guarded as the jewel case. He says, "I will take this £1,100,000 because it is my money. I contributed to it." Even on that basis, what right has he to more than half?
If he is going to take up the attitude and say that this is no insurance scheme at all, and that the contributions of the men were not part and parcel of a bargain; if he is going to say that the present which the Government gave they can take back, then why take also those presents which the Government never gave? The men contributed half. Their wages were docked. They gave their work to the country at a certain wage. A portion of that wage was kept back and put into this Fund and it represents at least £500,000 or £600,000 of the amount. What right has the Government to take that money under the plea 530 put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His justification is that what the Government gave the Government can take away. Then let it take away what it gave and not take away all the weekly pence paid in by the soldier. We have heard some talk about dead men's money, and I would like to bring home the reality of this. You have these contributions made by the men at the front. Many of them were dying, and if you had asked them where they would like their 1½d. to go, whether they would like to see their payments go into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to aid and assist their colleagues who, though not stricken down definitely and finally, will have to pull along during their later years, I am sure those men would not hesitate to say that that is the way they would like to see their money go. In this Bill the Government is belying what would be the wish of these dying men. The Government proposes to convert this Fund to general purposes instead of allowing it to go to the aid of the colleagues of the men who died.
My last word here, and I intend to say it outside, is this. It is easy enough for a party that has 400 Members, either in the House or in the Smoking Room and the Library, who is not desirous of listening to tirades such as I am giving now, to bring them in at the end of a Debate and then into the Lobby, but which one of them is going to stand on a platform before his constituents and say, "the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money badly and the choice was presented to me of voting a farthing more on Income Tax or of depriving poor cripples wandering throughout the country of the benefits of the purse put up for them in their distress, and I, rather than dock one farthing off what I and my class pay, took away from these poor devils, on a technical point, the additional benefits which were intended for them, and have left thousands of them without pensions and without any insurance scheme." Let any hon. Member opposite say that on a platform and I know what the answer of the electors will be.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
Before I entered this House I was trained in an exceedingly hard school in battling with the same class which the present Government represents. I speak of the trade union world, 531 and after many years' experience I have come to the settled and considered opinion that we obtain nothing from the employing and wealthy classes without fighting for it. I came to this House with the sweet delusion that things would be different in this assembly of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, chosen by the constituencies, and I was led to believe from conversations with older Members that the view I held outside had been wrong and that here I should find the humanity of the nation exhibited through its representatives. I believed there might be something in it. Since I have been here I have seen the House in various Moods. I have seen it hilarious. I have seen it benevolent to speakers who have been haltingly trying to put a case before it. I have seen it exceedingly brutal with speakers who, out of class hatred, it did not desire to hear. But I have never seen such an exhibition of callous heartlessness as on the discussion of this paltry £1,100,000. Some of us have only been away on private business for a few hours after sitting all last night. Some of us sat through the other long all-night sitting, and we know that no voice was raised from the other side in support of the Measure. Two hon. Members have spoken to-day, and I regret they are not in their place at the moment because I must refer to them. Look at the benches opposite where there should be 400 occupants, although there was an all-night sitting last night. We on this side are present, and you must remember that 13 of our number have been excluded from sitting in the House.
I want to say a word about the callous view of those who profess to be sympathetic towards Service and ex-service men. Some hon. Members on these benches have spoken feelingly with regard to it. I am not an ex-service man, I was never good enough to be a soldier, and I shall make a very poor one when the next war comes along. Therefore, I am not speaking because I belong to the class that is suffering, and I do not wish to use strong language as I am going to make an appeal before I sit down. But I can only describe it as real dishonesty to a suffering class of the people that has not an opportunity of properly defending itself. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), as usual when speaking on any Measure, 532 devoted a greater part of the time to a tirade against the occupants of these benches, and put what I believe is the Government view—that these service and ex-service men will get what they were promised. I am the secretary of an approved society, and what we promised is much less than what our members are now obtaining, due to our efficient and economical management. Are the service and ex-service men, because of their unfortunate position, to get less than other people who have now more than they were promised? I notice that the Noble Lady said there was much feeling in the constituency. In other words she was having a bob each way. She is going to vote to the party Whip, but she has made a speech that will he read by her unfortunate constituents. I also want to say a word about the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), a very worthy representative of the benches opposite, who again delivered a tirade accusing hon. Members on these benches of humbug and cant. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) entirely disposed of his arguments, and I will leave him merely with this observation, that he is a very worthy specimen of the people on whose behalf he speaks.
Although neither the Minister of Health nor the Secretary for War is present at the moment, I want even now to ask whether this paltry robbery cannot be withdrawn. Much of the standing to it is on dignity and punctilio. I am willing to admit the team work of a Cabinet. I think the Cabinet are unfortunate in their Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I admire to some extent their loyalty to each other. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has now returned to his place, and I put the question to him. Is it too late, without loss of dignity, to put aside the puling nonsense of political divisions for one moment in this case? Is it too late for the Government, whose followers dare not support them by voice, except in the two cases I have mentioned—is it too late for the Government to say: "Well, in the circumstances, after careful examination we may possibly find the £1,000,000 somewhere else?" Is it too late for the Government to retreat from the position taken up? From the ordinary and human point of view it would be better for any 533 or all of us to look ridiculous for one day than to feel dishonourable for the rest of our lives.
These men have contributed towards a certain surplus, just as members insured in approved societies have done. It has been admitted that much of this money was contributed by service men who have passed away. The excuse used by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff was that many who had contributed to this Fund had now quitted the forces, had returned to civil life, and were not now insured members in approved societies. He asked, was it not fair to return the money to them? What a low plane of argument, if I might say so without throwing barbs about, even under the stress of our feelings on this subject! Then the Government claim that they are entitled to take back their contribution. I deny that the Government, as a Government, contributed one farthing. We of the nation who pay the nation's taxes contributed that proportion. Those who have returned to civil life, and are fortunately in such a position as not to require medical care and benefit through an approved fund, may very well say, and I think they would say, "We are fortunate not to need this money. Let our contributions go to the comrades with whom we worked and fought in the forces, so that they shall receive not only what they were promised, not even the average which a generous Government is professing to offer them, not even, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the highest which is paid to any, but as the money is available let them receive even higher than anyone else because of the suffering through which they have gone."
But the money is to be returned to a few people who do not want it. What do we find? The proportion contributed by those who are dead and gone, and the proportion contributed by those who, now out of the Service, are sufficiently well-to-do to pass beyond the care of approved societies, and the proportion contributed by all of us—not by the Government—as taxpayers of the country, is not to be left to the unfortunate who need it to bring them up above the highest of the ordinary members of an approved society, but is to be returned by this beneficent Government into the Exchequer of the nation. For what? Am I unfair in asking for what? Where will 534 the £1,000,000 go? If it had remained in this Fund, it would have gone to men who, if not all wounded, if not all gassed, if not all injured by service, have by virtue of their service had their health undermined for the rest of their lives. Again, I say, am I unfair in asking where it will go now? It is quite reasonable to say that it will go to the relief of the taxpayer, of wealthy people who never contributed a farthing to the Fund. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite can interject, but, like the rest of his colleagues, throughout the whole of these long Debates he has not had the courage to get up and defend the Government proposal in a speech. I admit frankly how difficult it may be now to uncoil the tangled skein that has been wound, but I put it to hon. Members opposite that here is a paltry million pounds, and that if the nation, from the poorest on this side to the wealthiest on the opposite side of the House, were convinced that the country was in a serious financial plight for the sake of a paltry £1,000,000, we would quite willingly contribute to build up that million pounds rather than take the money from the source from which the Government propose to take it. But the nation is not in distress and suffering, and is not on its last tottering legs for the want of £1,000,000.
I ask again, why take this paltry sum from people about whom so many hon. Members—I am not one of them—have slobbered phrases during the War and since, as to the care and love and affection that were to be given to them. I appeal to big humane men who can get outside the hide of party politics, that, it is not too late, despite the intricate dovetailing of the Cabinet, even now to say, "Sink or swim our nation for the sake of £1,000,000, rather than take it from these people, we will accept the Amendment and withdraw this Sub-section from the Bill." Are the Government big enough to do that? Even though they appear to be foolish to-day I ask them to be wise men, and kindly men and worthy of our nation for the rest of their lives. I am afraid that they will not do it. I have referred already to the callousness indicated by the empty benches opposite, and by the explosion from the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff. the inaccuracies of whose speech were dis- 535 posed of by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) as easily as if he were pricking a bladder. The cant and humbug are not on this side of the House but on the other side. Again I express regret that opinions which I gained outside this House in fighting the same people on another plane are only being confirmed by my experience in the House. I ask Members of the Government, not because there have been fierce things said from these benches during the all-night sittings, not because 13 of our gallant friends have been suspended in fighting on this question, but out of the bigness of what we call the British spirit, to return this paltry £1,000,000 to people who have suffered and will suffer for the rest of their time on this earth, and are entitled to some sympathetic consideration.
Dr. VERNON DAVIES
We have listened to many criticisms of this Bill, and we have been accused of cowardice for not speaking in support of our party. The Opposition are wrong in thinking that we have remained quiet because we have not been willing to support the party, or because they, by their numerous arguments, have convinced us. On the contrary, I am, personally, an unrepentent supporter of the Government. I think that the Government are acting honestly and seriously. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding that he had a surplus of £1,500,000 in this Fund, and, it having been pointed out to him by the Royal Commission that there were one or two places in which he could improve conditions, he, acting, probably, on the advice of the actuary, proposes to give back this £400,000, which was considered to be sufficient. to bring the Fund into comparable condition with the Fund of approved societies. He was left then with £1,100,000. Probably from an oversight, the right hon. Gentleman missed one Department to which some of this surplus might have been applied. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion that there is a crying need in the Service for some of this money. I refer particularly to the question of tuberculosis. We know that the present state of tuberculosis in the Services is extremely unsatisfactory. The medical authorities decide whether tuberculosis is attributable to the condi- 536 tions of service or not, and as far as I can make out there is no appeal against their decisions.
How is consumption caused? There is the bacillus of consumption. Every one of us is breathing that germ every day of his life. We do not get consumption and die from it, because the condition of our bodies is such that we are able to resist and kill the germ. But no doctor, whether in the Navy, Army or Air Service, is in a position, when a man has contracted consumption, to guarantee that it is attributable to the conditions of the service or not. It is only a guess, though it may be a very good guess. Because the authorities cannot do that, they are put into a very awkward position. During the last few weeks I have obtained definite statistics from the three Services by means of question and answer in the House, and I find that in the last three years the number of men invalided from the Air Force suffering from consumption was 92, from the Army 601, and from the Navy 479, giving an average of 390 per annum over the three Services. There is one peculiar point about these figures. I asked for information as to how many cases of the disease were held to be attributable to, or aggravated by, conditions of service. I find the War Office have no records in this respect. In the Navy I found that 1.46 per cent. of the cases were held to be attributable to service, and were consequently granted pensions. I find that in the Air Force 18.47 per cent. were held to be so attributable.
I ask the Committee to note the remarkable difference between the figures for these two services, and of the two services I should think, undoubtedly, the Navy is the more unhealthy because there you have men serving in submarines and torpedo boats, at times in very trying circumstances. One would naturally expect that men in the Navy would he more apt to develop tuberculosis than men in the Air Force. I wonder' whether the Air Force, being a junior service, has perhaps not yet found out by tradition and precedent a rule of thumb in dealing with this matter. Perhaps they allow a freer hand and have been—shall I say—a little more charitable to the men concerned. I think there must he some definite cause why, apparently, the Air Force medical officers are more sympathetic than those in the other service. I can state quite definitely that 537 it is absolutely impossible, in the majority of cases, in either of the services, to define accurately whether, the cause of the disease is attributable to the conditions of service or not. One may have a very shrewd suspicion, but I do not think that is a sufficient ground either for granting or refusing a pension. I would like to state briefly what the services do. In all cases there is a very thorough and careful examination, and a man who is found to have consumption is invalided out of the service. If it is found that the disease is not attributable to conditions of service, the man cannot get anything. He gets no pension at all in cases where he has not served long enough to qualify otherwise. I should like to give to the Committee a few typical examples showing how the services arc treating some of the tuberculosis men.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think a detailed account of the medical treatment of these cases would be going too far. A reference to these cases, in so far as they concern men who would be affected under this particular Clause, would be in order, but I think the hon. Member proposes to go into too much detail.
§ Mr. SPENCER
On a point of Order. Would not the hon. Member be in order in giving a typical case, provided it is closely associated with this Fund?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Yes, I think Tie would be, if he showed the case had some association with this Fund, but I do not think the case to which the hon. Member proposes to refer in detail has anything to do with the Fund.
§ Mr. PALING
Is it not in order to show that the money, which it is now proposed to divert to other purposes might be better spent on the purposes illustrated by the hon. Member?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That might be so, but as I understand the hon. Member, he proposes to give in detail cases taken from the three services and I suggest that to do so would be going beyond the proper limits of this Debate.
§ Sir JOHN SIMON
May I respectfully submit that the issue before the Committee is whether or not money, winch it 538 is proposed to take from this Fund and apply to general purposes, is urgently needed for the relief of those who subscribed to the Fund? Is it not in order —provided too much time is not taken up in individual instances—to quote cases for the purpose of showing that the money ought not to be taken away and devoted to general purposes?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I agree that it is in order, within reasonable limits, to refer to such cases, but the hon. Member would not be in order in taking up too much time by going into the details of such cases.
I have no wish to enter too much into details, and all I sought to do was to give one or two examples of cases—not of the medical treatment of those cases—in order to show how men under the present system suffer from disabilities in this respect. I was then going to suggest a new system under which they would receive certain benefits. I have in mind one case of a man who entered the Navy, served nine years, developed consumption, was invalided out, was refused a pension and was granted a gratuity of £17. His mother and father being dead he was kept by the charity of a step-mother. Yet this man had served abroad and had developed consumption while in the Navy, but it was held that his disease was not attributable to service and. he was passed on to charity. I have another case of a man who joined the Army, went to Cologne, developed consumption and was invalided out with a gratuity of £17. I have another case of a married man who served in the Army for 17 years and three months, developed consumption, was invalided out, and his disease being held not to be attributable to service, he got a pension of 12s. 3d. per week for himself and family.
I have other cases of the same sort which go to show that under present conditions the amount of money which these men receive as gratuity is absolutely inadequate. The amount which they receive from the National Insurance Fund or from this Services Fund is grossly inadequate and, for the sake of their health and their lives, it is necessary that some other means should be found of assisting them. Here we have a fund which could he partly applied to that purpose. I would suggest a scheme of com- 539 pulsory insurance. I do not blame the Services in this matter. I have already said it is impossible for them to decide accurately, yea or nay, in these cases, and I think they are perfectly fair and do the best they can according to their convictions. The only way out of the trouble is to have a scheme by which every man in the Services should have to pay a certain amount in order to insure himself against consumption, so that if he is invalided out owing to that disease he may be certain of some provision. If all the men paid Id. a week it would provide each man invalided out of the Service with £100 capital.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Member would be in order in going into the details of such a scheme, though he might suggest the use of this money in other ways.
I was about to suggest that out of the £1,100,000 with which we are dealing here, a grant could be made of £250,000 to produce £10,000 a year, and I reckon—taking the average of the cases for the last three years—a sum of £40,000 a year would be sufficient to give each of these men £1 a week as long as he lived. I take it the average period of life in these cases would be two years. In such a way, I submit this fund could be used, or partly used, to do immense good to these men. How can the man who is invalided out through consumption live on the money which he gets from his approved society? In the best circumstances it is £1 a week for sickness or 10s. a week for disablement. Why, a baby can consume 10s. worth of milk in a week, and yet that is practically all a man gets in disablement benefit When he comes out of the sanatorium. A man has no chance of getting well again in these circumstances. Yet these are men who have served in our Forces and who have been willing to give their lives if necessary for their country, and we send them home, to live or die, on these very inadequate allowances. In some cases they have to depend upon the charity of others, and one of the finest things I have noticed in the practice of my profession has been the fine charity shown by the poor people, one to the other, in such cases. I appeal to the Minister to see if something cannot be done in the way I suggest. It is not charity, it is simply a grant out of this windfall, and 540 by using it as a nucleus, we might develop a fluid which would prove of material benefit to the Services, help the poor men who are invalided out and be a credit to the nation.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am sure the Committee heard with interest and sympathy the contribution of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and we recognise his special experience and knowledge of this subject. He will forgive me, if I do not follow him in all the points he raised, some of which I fear were hardly relevant to the matter before the Committee, but I hope to show in a few moments that, under the proposals of the Government, a certain section of the men in whom he and many other hon. Members are interested—the men who arc unable to join approved societies—will be able to receive much better benefits and assistance.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
They will not be as well off as they would have been had you left the money in the Fund.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I have listened in patience to all the speeches from the other side, and I hope the hon. Member will have the courtesy to listen to me. As I say, the proposals which are now being made by the Government will do something for that section. of the men to whom the hon. Member has referred. I will endeavour to put before the Committee—very inadequately I fear after the speech of the Secretary of State for War—this matter, as I see it. I remember the formation of this Fund in the year 1911.
It would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1911 to have made no distinction between the particular members of this Fund and the general mass of insured members, and put them in similar conditions to those of members of approved societies. It would have been perfectly easy to have said: "Although you may say this is a bad class of life, if there is a surplus, It shall belong to the contributors." He did not do that, but what did he do I He set up a different system altogether. I think, if I may say so respectfully, that one of the most unfortunate speeches in opposition to this proposal was made by the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, who en- 541 deavoured to persuade the Committee, I think only to his own satisfaction, that this Fund was exactly like an approved society. I never heard a more unfortunate suggestion, because I do not think a single soul in this Committee, who knows anything about the matter at all, would pretend that this Fund in any material respect is comparable to an approved society.
Is it not true that tile contributions that go to make the surplus in this Fund are joint contributions from three parties?
§ Sir K. WOOD
The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is again putting a point which the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) put yesterday, but which is absolutely untrue. As a matter of fact, if you want to examine and see what the terms of the contributions to this Fund are, you must look at the Act of Parliament, just as a member of an approved society must look at the terms of his policy. That is the only test you can apply, and I think it is a very reasonable test. What are the terms of the policy, which were not framed by this Government, but which were framed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, whom I am not criticising for doing so? The terms of the policy were that, in the first place, unlike an approved society, which has got to stand or fall according to its own merits or demerits and according to its own experience, the amount of benefits is guaranteed. Whatever happens, the State says in connection with this particular Fund: "I will guarantee you the amount, whatever may happen," which is a very different thing from the case of an approved society. As hon. Members opposite, who have been connected with the management of these societies, know, if there is a failure, you have either to levy upon your members to make up the deficiency, or you have to increase your contributions, but there is nothing of the kind so far as this particular Fund is concerned.
In my judgment, no one who belonged to that Fund could come forward and say, either in law or in equity, notwithstanding the very able argument which was addressed by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) yesterday, that under these proposals he has been treated unfairly or in any way 542 unjustly. The whole of the terms of the contract are not only being honourably and faithfully administered, but under these proposals further benefits are to be given to him. The analogous case to this is that of an insurance company which creates special sections for its policyholders, and says: "If you make certain contributions, we, on our part, will set aside a special fund, and the whole of the assets of the company shall guarantee it, and you will receive a certain fixed amount." When that insurance company comes to be valued, and that fund is valued, if there is a surplus in it, there is not a single person in this Committee—and the last one, I know, would be the right hon. Member for Spen Valley—who would say that that insurance company is not entitled to treat the balance of that fund for the general benefit either of its shareholders, if it is a limited company, or of the whole of its policy-holders.
That, stated dispassionately and, I hope, fairly, is really the position of the contributors to this Fund, but I am quite prepared to deal with the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee, so far as I am concerned, on a different basis altogether. I have been anxious and waiting to hear from the many able Members who have addressed the Committee what exactly, in their judgment, oven on their own basis that this is a fund contributed to by certain sections of people, should be done with the money, and who should receive it. We have had various expressions of opinion. At various times I have taken down, but I have not kept them, loose expressions as to exactly what should be done with this money I wish the hon. Members who have made very able speeches would consider for a moment that this Fund has been in existence since 1911. The Actuary, in his report, has certified that there is a net surplus of £1,500,000 which has been accumulating and growing since 1911, and if you are to say that this money belongs to the contributors, I ask: "Who are the contributors, and how are you going to apportion the money amongst them?"
There are, I think I may say without exaggeration, millions of people who have built up this Fund and the accumulated surplus of £1,500,000. What type of people are they? It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for Derby stated, 543 that the Actuary said that a certain amount of the margin had been built up by people who, unfortunately, had died in the War, but that is not the only class. I doubt very much if that is the biggest class. The biggest class, or, at any rate, a very big class, who have contributed to this Fund, is the literally thousands and thousands of men who came into the Fund during the War, and in respect of whom contributions were paid. What happened to thousands of those men? They went back to civil employment, and, in a very large number of cases, they went out of insurance altogether, because they were above the income rate. If you are going to attempt to apportion this money, you must say that those men are equally entitled to a share of this Fund. because they just as much helped to build it up as any other people who have contributed to it. Therefore, if you want to make a fair division, even on that basis, you will be up against the most extraordinary circumstances in order to do fairness to the contributors.
What is the Government's proposal? They say, in the first place, and, as I believe, perfectly justly, on the analogy of the insurance policy which I have mentioned, that they guaranteed this Fund, that it can be in no way compared with the funds of an approved society, that they kept their bargain in the spirit and the letter, and that if they really so desired—and I would state this on any platform in the country—the whole of this money could go directly back to the Treasury without giving cause for the slightest sense of injustice or complaint. There is not the slightest doubt about it.
§ Sir K. WOOD
That is why we are dealing with it here. As the right hon. Gentleman has put that, will he allow me to deal with it? He forgets that, as has already been explained, under the scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs all that must be done, so far as the State is concerned, is to guarantee the solvency of the Fund. He read, in his very able speech, Section 57 of the principal Act, and attempted to say that the contributions of the Government were fixed, but he did not read the whole of that Section. It was only 544 the contributions in respect of members of approved societies that were fixed, and the contributions in respect of other people were such as were to be prescribed. Therefore, it is a perfectly fair argument that it is perfectly possible for the Government, without any Act of Parliament at all, without doing any harm or injustice to a single person in this Fund, having got the. Fund into such a condition as to have such a large surplus, to say that they need not contribute any more until it is necessary. That, undoubtedly, is not only the legal position, but the position in equity, so far as this Fund is concerned.
Let me finish my argument in. regard to the proposal of the Government. I say that, in my judgment, not a single person, whether he be an ex-soldier or whether he has been maimed in the War, or any case like that that hon. Members can imagine, could complain if, inasmuch as this is a guaranteed Fund, and the contract has been honourably kept, the whole of the surplus money went back to the Treasury. The proposal is that a very considerable sum of that surplus, in fact, £400,000, should be devoted to the interests of a class of the community whom everyone would desire to benefit in the greatest possible way. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman opposite allow me to proceed with my speech?
I neither spoke nor interrupted the hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that I am interrupting. I object to his assumption that people are interrupted. I never looked or spoke.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am sorry. Out of the sum of £1,500,000, the Government are allotting a very substantial portion, namely, £400,000, for the benefit of a particular section of the contributors whom everyone would desire to help, because, as I said just now, if you admit the arguments addressed to the Committee that this Fund belongs to the contributors, at any rate, only a portion of it can belong to them, the number being, I think, at any rate, in 1924, 30,000 readmitted to the Fund, I venture to say—and I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will agree with me in this—that in allotting a sum of £400,000 for the benefit of these men, and for men who may be re-admitted in the same way, very considerable assistance is being given.
§ Mr. HARNEY
I endeavoured to make the point that the contributions were made general, and why should not all be included?
§ Sir K. WOOD
What do we do for these men? We are, in fact, carrying out exactly the recommendations of the Royal Commission; a very able and impartial body. They say, give these men additional benefits on the average of those of the approved societies, and also make it easier for them to obtain transfer to approved societies. We are following out in every respect the recommendations of the Royal Commission in that connection, and it is very interesting to see exactly, so far as the actuaries can estimate it, what additional benefits these men will be getting as a result of the Government's proposals. Of some 3,400 societies and branches which have adopted schemes of additional (ash benefits following the second valuation of approved societies, it was found that the additional cash benefits usually given are 3s. sickness benefit, 1s. 6d. disablement benefit, and 6s. maternity benefit, and I may say there are large numbers of societies, including all the courts of the Foresters and the great majority of t he lodges of the Manchester Unity, which have definitely decided to adopt this scale, and give the balance of the disposable surplus in treatment benefits.
What, therefore, will be the additional benefits, as far as we can see, for the class to which I have been referring, as a result of the proposals made to-day, and to be made by Regulations under the provisions of this Bill and laid before this House? I say this, in view of the charges—in my view, most unmerited—which have been made of robbery, and so forth, in this connection. Their cash benefits will be increased in sickness to 18s. a week, to 9s. in respect of disablement, and 46s. for maternity benefit—a very considerable increase. In addition to that, these men will receive, as recommended by the Royal Commission, the treatment benefits which on the average are given, such as dental treatment, on the lines of the approved societies' additional benefits. The selection of these benefits, as I have said, will be made by the Minister of Health, with the aid of a Committee which manages this Fund, and Regulations will he laid before this House, which will have an opportunity of seeing them.
546 I say that when any hon. Member brings fair-minded consideration to the proposals of the Government, he will admit that the Government are perfectly justified, in view of the condition of this Fund, and the fact that the conditions which were laid down by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself are being faithfully and honourably kept, every benefit being guaranteed, which is not the case in the approved societies. No one has a right, in any event, to complain in that respect; and, further, when it is known that the large sum of £400,000 is going to he set aside for a comparatively small body of men, who, under the scheme which I have just presented to the Committee, will receive such valuable and increasing assistance, I, at any rate, feel that every fair-minded Member of the House will give the Government support in their proposals.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not found it possible to give a more sympathetic answer to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) who very effectively supports the Government not merely on this occasion, but always. Instead of going into the general criticism with regard to the action of the Government in taking away this £1,100,000, I would rather press them further to reconsider their attitude. I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Department is bound to make his case. He is not in a position, perhaps, to consider whether the Government could not see their way to apply this money in some way for the benefit of the wrecks of the War. The Secretary of State for War is here. It is no use referring to the Act of 1911 in this respect. The hon. Gentleman is quite fair when he says it was not contemplated that there would be a surplus of £1,100,000, and that there should be additional benefits based upon it. Of course not. The surplus is attributable to the irruption of the greatest and the most devastating war in history. That was what made the surplus possible, and if there had been no war we should not now be discussing the taking away of £1,100,000 out of the accumulated fund. That was not a miscalculation on the part of the actuaries or a lack of foresight on the part of myself who was in charge of the Bill, or 547 my right hon. Friend who assisted in framing the final Clauses. It was because there was something never contemplated by anybody who came in and made the creation of this fund possible. Therefore, the argument about the Act of 1911 falls to the ground. It is really not a question as to whether the survivors have got a legal claim. Of course, they have not got a legal claim.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)
Then why do you call it confiscation?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to go into that argument, very well, but I have been trying to avoid that. I have already expressed my view upon it. I do not withdraw from it in the least, but that is not the point I am on at the present moment. If this had been a legal claim, it would have been enforceable in a Court of law. Nobody has put it from that point of view. That is not what I am putting. I am putting a question as to whether there is not a moral claim upon this accumulated fund of £1,500,000 for the ex-service men who are the wrecks of the War. It is no use saying, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that they did not contribute the whole of this money. That is true of any superannuation fund. Take a Civil Service Superannuation Fund. The size of the fund is attributable very largely to the fact that a great many people die before they ever reach the superannuation age, and the whole of the benefits distributed are upon that basis. The same thing applies here. It is a fact that because there was a very great slaughter in the War, it has been possible to accumulate all this fund, but I have no doubt at all what the opinion of all ex-service men would be with regard to the distribution of the fund.
The hon. Member has made a very practical suggestion. He suggested that a part of this fund should be used for the purpose of dealing with very hard eases of tuberculosis, and in his opinion—and there is no greater authority on this subject—a sum of £250,000 would provide a not very adequate provision for cases of that kind, but, at any rate, it would help very materially the sufferings of ex-Service men who develop tuberculosis in later years. But nobody knows better than the Secretary of State for War that 548 there have been other cases which have been pressed by the British Legion, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), I think, was a little premature on that subject. He will probably hear from the British Legion later on. I should be very surprised if he does not. The British Legion have been pressing very hard the case of those who have developed, after the seven years, some disease or defect which is really attributable to the War, because seven years after they have left the Service they are not entitled to a pension. There is not a Member of this House who has not had many hard cases of that kind brought to his notice, and has not exercised such influence as he possesses to press the Ministry of Pensions to give some sort of indulgent consideration to some of these cases. They cannot do it at present, because there is no fund available for the purpose. The Regulations are very stern, and you cannot do it under the warrant. It is not a question of criticising the Ministry of Pensions. They are exercising such discretion as is in their power, and they are doing it with considerable indulgence. Nobody knows better than those at the War Office that there are genuine cases of this kind which develop after the seven years' period and which are attributable to the shaking effect of the War. The British Legion has been pressing these cases upon the attention of this House and upon the Government.
I am quite prepared to go into the general argument, but I would rather at this stage simply urge the Government, before we part with this Clause, to consider whether it is not desirable for them to utilise the whole of this Fund for the purpose of dealing with the very hard cases that have arisen out of the War, and which at present are not covered by any provision, however liberal it is. It is not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be deprived of £1,000,000 a year, because it, is merely a question of putting £1,000,000 into the Fund this year. What I propose cannot really dislocate the finances to that extent.. I could under stand it if it, were:£1,000,000 a year, or something that was necessary to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his £10,000,000 reduction. That is not the case, because this is a specific Fund which he can only use for this one specific year.
549 Speaking as an old Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot imagine that this would dislocate his finances to any extent if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to come here and tell the Secretary of State for War that as far as he is concerned he is prepared to forego his claim on this £1,000,000 which he only gets for one year. I am avoiding the general argument about what I consider to be the real character of this transaction, but I am now putting it on the ground of an appeal to common humanity and sympathy, and to the common gratitude which we must all feel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) rather taunted me with displaying a good deal of emotion in my criticisms of this Bill, but I do so because I have some responsibility for it. I am responsible for some of the pledges and promises which were made, and I am glad to say that they have all been redeemed. Not only that, but there has been a substantial margin available in respect of every one of these particular cases, including the present one, and that is the reason why I feel very strongly in regard to this matter. I feel that we are going back upon something which, on behalf of the Government, Parliament and the nation, I undertook to carry through the House of Commons.
But it is not on that ground I am appealing now. I am appealing on the ground of the desirability of using the Fund, which, whatever may be said about it, was intended for the benefit of the men who have rendered service in the Forces of the Crown. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health saying that this money does not belong to them, because it is a fund which is earmarked for this purpose. I would like to know what would have been said if the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 had come down to this House and said he was going to seize this fund and use it to reduce the Sugar Duty. I know what would have been said by every hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I feel sure that the language which has been used from this side of the House in regard to these proposals is very moderate compared with what would have been used by hon. Members opposite and even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Minister of Health must know that where money 550 has been accumulated by contributions made by the men in the Service for the purpose of insurance in case of ill-health and breakdown, although at that time he did not contemplate the possibility of there being a surplus which would enable the Government to give greater benefits, it was intended that every penny piece should be used for that purpose.
Supposing in 1911 the Secretary of State for War and I and others who were in the House at that time—probably the vast majority are new Members of the House and were not here in 1911—had foreseen the possibility of something of this kind happening and that there would have been a balance of £1,500,000. Is it conceivable that then anybody on the opposite side of the House would have said that that money should go to the Exchequer? Not at all. I have not the faintest doubt that my right hon. Friend would have said that in such an event you must give larger benefits, and you would not have said that this balance must pass into the Exchequer. There is not a member of the party opposite who would not have said that you must give larger benefits to the soldiers and sailors, and that is what they would have done. Taking that into account you cannot treat this sum of money as being in the nature of a windfall for the general taxpayers. You cannot do it. The mere fact that the State has contributed makes no difference, because here the State is purely an employer of labour. What would have been said if the coal owners had made a proposal of this kind in order to enable them to carry on? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a railway company!"] I think a railway company furnishes a better example.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
In essence, that would be the same thing, because the State is the employer, and, so far from this money being a windfall, it is the wreckage of a great storm. I ask the Minister of Health if he will not promise to confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, of course, with the Prime Minister, in order to sec whether the Government cannot reconsider the position. It is no use saying that you are giving benefits out of the £400,000. That is practicaly only one-fourth, or a little over, of the total amount which 551 is in the Fund, and if you are giving one-fourth of a fund which belongs really to the ex-service men as a whole and taking three-fourths away from them, that is not conferring any benefits upon the ex-service men. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health began his remarks by giving details of the benefits which were going to be conferred out of this £400,000, and I am sorry to say that some hon. Members were rather taken in by that statement. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that the other three-fourths of the Fund would be taken away and that many other benefits for which the War has created the need could have been dealt with by utilising the whole of this Fund. This Fund is bigger because of the War, and the need for it is greater because of the War. The Fund was created by the War and the need was also created by the War. It is the shaking they have received in the War that has reduced these men to this condition, and that has made it necessary that something should be done to deal with them; and, if not dealt with by funds of this kind, they have to fall back upon the charity of the nation. Is it too late to ask the Secretary of State for War, that if he cannot give an answer now, he will, at any rate, between now and the next stage confer with his colleagues as to the possibility of using the whole of this Fund either for the purpose of such schemes as have been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) or deal with the cases put by the British Legion of the men who, after seven years, find themselves wrecks and have nothing whatever allowed them.
§ Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON
I happen to be one of the very few Members of this House who have been contributors to this particular Fund, and I should like to put forward the view of the contributors. When I first listened to the discussions, I was not aware of the very grave injustice that was proposed to be done; in fact, I had almost forgotten I was a contributor to this particular Fund. My view of the matter seems to be that of the main part of the contributors. There is a population of 85,000 in my constituency, and they contain a very high percentage of contributors to this Fund. May I say that, in spite of the fact that so 552 many of the contributors are ex-service men, I have not received a single communication from any ex-service man protesting against the robbery or confiscation which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) alleges is taking place in regard to this Fund. Therefore, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the opinion of the defrauded contributors is very much the opinion of the defrauded contributor who is now addressing the Committee.
May I put forward one criticism which I think is applicable to certain proposals in this Bill? The object of this proposal is to endeavour to help the lower-paid workers in this country and particularly the unemployed workers to get into employment. That is to say, it is an attempt, a very small one I admit, to relieve industry and to enable men to obtain employment. Does this Measure really effect this object? Does the mere change in the position of this fund really lighten the burden of the workers in the industries of this country? So long as that fund is not spent, it is doing just as much good to the workers and the industries as if it is transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is the spending of the fund that injures the workers. It is not the mere accumulation of it, it is not the mere book transfer of this accumulating fund into the hands of the Exchequer, but it is the risk that it may induce a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have now, full of bright ideas, I am sorry to say, to think, as he is only too prone to think, that he has another million and a half that he can use for measures of what are termed social reform.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
In spite of the petulance with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health defended this proposal, and in spite of all the specious arguments that have been put forward by him and by the Secretary of State for. War, the case still remains the same from every point of view. The hon. Gentleman told us it was taken for granted that the men of the Army and the Navy have no claim upon this fund whatever, and a moment or two ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)stated that there was no legal claim, that statement was received with acclamation 553 on the other side of the Committee. Even supposing it were true that there is no legal claim to this fund on the part of the men concerned, at least it is equally true that the Government have no legal claim to it. As a matter of fact, they are attempting, by means of this Bill, to establish a legal right to it, and the fact that they have had to bring in a Bill, to get an Act of Parliament, to legalise this act of confiscation, as I call it, proves at least that their claim to the money is not a particularly good one at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman told us that no suggestions have been put forward so far as the disposal of this surplus is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) told us that many of the men who contributed to this fund were no longer in the Army at all; they had passed out. It is perfectly true that some passed out by discharge, but, as has been pointed out on several occasions, many have passed out through the gateway of death itself, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has stated, is how the magnitude of this fund has arisen.
§ Captain A. EVANS
May I say that the relatives of those men who unfortunately fell in the War are represented in the general taxpayers of this country?
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
It is perfectly true that a large number of men did pass out in that way, but they left widows and orphans behind them, and I am going to make a suggestion, in addition to those that have been made already, as to a method whereby this fund might be used with benefit to those who were left behind, which would probably meet the wishes of those who have gone, and would be of benefit to the country as a whole. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) indicated a very excellent way in which much of this money might be used. I suggest that the whole of the money might have been erected into a compassionate fund to meet the cases that were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). Every Member of the House must, in the course of his duties here, receive piteous appeals on behalf of broken men for something to be done to assist them in the deplorable condition in which they find themselves. We go to 554 the Ministry of Pensions and ask for some consideration, but we are turned down on the ground that Committee after Committee has rejected this appeal, and the Minister himself, although he has, it may be, the best of motives, can do absolutely nothing.
I think it is not denied that the seven years' limit Fs not sufficient to cover all the cases that might arise, and there 's ample ground for making compassionate allowances to some of these broken men. Here is a Fund of £1,100,000, which would bring in a certain amount of money per year, and that could be devoted to relieving the worst cases of these men who have suffered so badly. I have in my own constituency cases of the most piteous description, of men whose reason has become partially unseated because of the conditions under which they were during the years of the War. Their condition has become worse as the years have gone by, but nothing can be done now; the Ministry and the Government can do nothing. It is a disgrace that this money should be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer while it might be used for such purposes as this.
There is another method in which the money might be used. The men who have died have left widows and orphans, and the widows, in order to bring up their children, are finding it a somewhat desperate matter to hold their own. Here are these children, the children of soldiers who have died, bright boys and bright girls, who have not much chance of coming through from the educational point of view. If this £1,100,000 were invested or established as a fund, it would bring in at least £55,000 a year, which would form the basis of a bursary fund to enable the sons and daughters of soldiers killed in the War to receive an education of a higher character, which would give them a better start in life. That would be something of value to the country, and would, I am sure, be in accord with the wishes of those who contributed to the fund. It would be a greater service to the State than any thing for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can use this money by taking it in the way in which he is doing. That is a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration, and if the Parliamentary Secretary has done me the honour to listen to it, I commend it to his consideration, as being at least something which 555 would be of benefit to those who have contributed to the fund and to the families they have left behind, and which would be beneficial to the State.
I suggest once more that the Government's treatment of this Fund is bad from every point of view. It cannot be defended. The Parliamentary Secretary has done his level best. He has even tried to deny the first principles of insurance in the lame attempt he made to defend this iniquitous proposal. We ought to hesitate before we do this thing with this money. Within a stone's throw of this House there stands your Cenotaph, the national memorial to the men who fell in the War. Every year there is enacted there a harrowing ceremony of a religious character. Orphan children are brought there, sorrowing women are bought there, tears are shed, floral wreaths are placed there, and on that stone there is inscribed the words:They died that we might live.Yet, here we sit to-night, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer attempting to take one million pounds from the men who subscribed this money, while the survivors of the War tramp the streets, or draw pictures on the pavement, begging for coppers to keep their souls alive in their bodies. It is a disgraceful thing. Here is the party opposite, with its large majority, that is going to trample in a few minutes over every argument we have put forward, who have denounced us, who have appealed to the soldiers to have nothing to do with us on the ground that we are anti-patriotic and opposed to the best interests of our country, who appeal to them to support the Conservative party because the Conservative party is pledged to the Services to maintain them, Here we sit, and we are going to pass this Act —at. least, it is not going to be passed with our consent—to rob the dead of the funds they left behind, while the families of the dead are almost starving in the midst of plenty.
I do not believe that the financial condition of this country is so desperate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need lay his hands upon this Fund. The newspapers are telling us now that London is looking forward this summer to the most brilliant season that London has seen for some considerable time. What does a brilliant season in London mean, 556 so far as the newspaper Press is concerned? It means the lavish expenditure of money; it means that there is ample money to be spent upon luxurious entertainments; it means that there is money to be spent in establishing this brilliant season. I am under no delusion. I am making no appeal to the Government; they are doing exactly what they were expected to do, that is to say, they are looking after the men who fill their war chest for them, they are looking after the men who sustain their party, they are looking after the rich men who contribute to their funds and whom they are protecting from the expense of the meager—
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
Yes, Sir; I was led away for the moment by a feeling of deep indignation at what is being done, because I know that, if this money were established as a fund that would help the men who were broken in the War, there are men in my constituency to-day who could put in a legitimate claim for assistance, and whose lives might be brightened because this Fund was there at their disposal. I say it is a most iniquitous thing that this great city can look forward to a brilliant season while we sit here taking from the men who have contributed to this Fund which their meagre savings have made. I hope that that will be remembered in the future. I do not see why we should attempt to ask the Government to save themselves; the sooner the wretched Government goes down the better. A short time ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was regarded as a great acquisition to the Conservative party. They thought they had made a great capture when they bought him in the way that they did. They will find that he is about the dearest thing they have picked up. He is mow there, with his Under-Secretaries and colleagues in the Cabinet—bond-slaves to him—working his wicked will so far as this Fund is concerned, in order that he may balance his wretched Budget in a way that is designed to save the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poorest, and the most helpless of the poor.
§ Mr. SPENCER
There is a passage in one of Charlotte Bronté's books, 557 "Shirley," where Shirley asks Helstone, the vicar, what are the politics of Moore, the hero of that book, and Helstone says,They are the politics of a tradesman, narrow, selfish, and unpatriotic.7.0 P.M.
I think that that is a very fair description of the Government's attitude towards this Fund. It is certainly very narrow, it is certainly very selfish, and it is certainly very unpatriotic. Let us take for a moment the Government's interpretation of the Act of 1911. What the Government arc saying, in effect, is that in 1911 certain contributions were made by the Government to two separate funds. In the first place, they made a contribution to the societies of certain sums of money, but there were certain men belonging to the Army who were so broken in physique that the insurance societies would not take them. Therefore, a special fund had to be set up so that those men should be protected. What is the argument which is being used to-night? It is that the 2d. which the State contributed to the workman employed in industry was a contribution that could not be recalled.
On the other hand, the Government are saying, with regard to the 1½d. that has been contributed to a Fund which is going to assist the soldier, that they have a right under certain circumstances to reclaim it. Last night the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) used a very incomplete and, if I may say so, from this point of view, a very sad simile. He said that this Fund was something similar to a fund that might have been built up out of the savings of the family to which the father had made some contribution. The simile may be all right if you take it as far as it goes, but what is the completeness of the simile? The father is making certain contributions —the father being the State—but he is making the contributions to the stronger part of the family and to the weaker part of the family. He has put his weekly contributions into the savings banks of the weaker part of the family and of the stronger. He is now saying to the weaker part, "I am going to take these savings back again." I beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Measure that he dare not go to the approved societies and say to them, "I 558 am going to take the contributions that I have made to the strong societies."
Therefore, I say that the Government's interpretation of the Bill which was passed in 1911 is certainly a most narrow one. The contributions differ, one going to the societies and the other going to the funds. It stands to common sense that if you cannot recall the contribution the State has made to the societies, logically you cannot recall the contribution which has been made to the Fund on behalf of a section of men who could not be taken up by those societies. It is very selfish to take those contributions. A very great deal has been made from the other side with regard to the benefits which we legally provide, and it has been said more than once, "Whose funds are these? Who have made the contributions?" Nobody knows better than the hon. Gentleman who has made the contributions to the societies. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the surpluses that exist to-day in the societies have not been contributed by men who are already dead? As a matter of fact, there are thousands of men who have paid contributions to societies who have never drawn a single penny piece and who are dead. Does he say those funds belong to them?
What he does say, in effect, is that those funds which the societies hold are held in trust by the societies for the benefit of those who have legitimate claims. If that be his attitude with regard to the funds that are held in trust by the societies, I put it to him that that should be precisely the position of the Government with regard to these funds. They should hold them in trust for those people who have made the contributions. Every man who has made his contribution to this particular fund would be a potential beneficiary. It would be better for him if he made no call whatever upon the fund. It would mean, as far as he was concerned, that he had escaped illness or anything which rendered him liable to become a subject of the fund. I am quite certain that if he could make his voice heard to-night he would definitely say: "I gave my contribution on behalf of those who have sustained some cause, either disease or some other affliction, which entitles them to have this benefit." Therefore, I suggest that in doing what the Government are doing they are proving that they are very selfish indeed. They are certainly going to the weaker 559 side and are taking out of the savings of the weaker members of the family the contributions they have made towards them.
My third point is that it is very unpatriotic indeed. If there be a section of the community whose advantages they should have fortified it is this section. The approved societies are well able to take care of themselves. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has pointed out that there are instances where there have been an undue call upon the funds. In those cases, probably there is a deficiency. Generally speaking, there are large surpluses. Taking it all over the average, they have not had undue risk. Where they have had undue risk they have had to curtail their business. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, those are people who should have received his special attention and should be the subject of his special care and generosity. When I first listened to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, I thought it was a really good case he was making out. I feel certain, on grounds of reason and justice, the Government themselves have not gone into the case at all. I am certain the logical conclusion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was that these sums should not be misappropriated by the Government—I use no stronger term than that—but should be used in the interests and for the advantage of those who have made the contributions. Whether the Government do so or not, it does not matter to this side, but, so far as right and justice is concerned, it is on the side of those who have been standing for those who made contributions.
§ Mr. ERNEST EVANS
Some Chancellors of the Exchequer have been able to conjure with figures. Others have been able to conjure with words. The present Chancellor seems to have been able to conjure with his colleagues. He has induced them to support this part of a Bill which is properly described as a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. As a result of discussions which have taken place during the last three days, there have emerged quite evidently facts which can no longer be contradicted. It must be 560 admitted, for example, that this is a Fund which was definitely intended and definitely earmarked for the benefit of certain people. It cannot be denied that in normal circumstances the existence of a surplus in this Fund would be utilised for the benefit of those people for whom the Fund was created. It must also be agreed that the Government itself has done nothing towards the creation of this surplus. If you look at the Report of the Actuary on this part of the Bill, on page 11, it sets out the various causes which are responsible for the existence of this surplus. The first is that the rate of interest has been in excess of that assumed; the second is that the cost of administration has been less than was expected; the third is the utilisation of a margin, which, in the case of approved societies, was carried to contingency funds; the fourth is reserves arising out of a large number of deaths; the fifth is special contributions, and the last is because maternity benefit was less than anticipated. Not one of those causes which are responsible for the existence of this surplus owes anything to any action on the part of the Government. In other words, the surplus is a surplus which has been created by the normal working of this Fund which was established for certain definite objects.
It will not be denied that now the greater part of this surplus is being diverted from the purposes for which the fund was created. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has taken part two or three times in the course of these discussions, and he has contented himself with two attitudes. In the first place, he has said that all this talk on the part of the Opposition is with the obvious intention of creating dissatisfaction in the Forces of the Crown, and in order to suggest that they are being unfairly treated. So far as I am concerned, the last thing I would ever want to do would be to create dissatisfaction in the Forces of the Crown, and, if our attitude is being taken with the object of suggesting they are being unfairly treated, we are only suggesting what is a fact. They are being unfairly treated. £1,000,000 is being taken away from a Fund which was established for the purpose of creating benefits for those people. When the right hon. Gentleman is not opposing us in that fashion, he is 561 opposing us by his second explanation which is that the Government are at one and the same time taking away £1,000,000 out of the Fund and making those people better off than they have ever been and than they are entitled to be. The former part may be true, but the latter part is an extraordinary statement to make. If these men are not men who are entitled to the Fund I should like to know who are entitled to it. At the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman is deriving a benefit which he is unwilling apparently to give to the contributors to this Fund—rest and sustenance, after the labours of the day.
He started by saying they were going to give them all this, and it was only when they were pressed that we discovered that what the men are to have is not anything special, but the benefits of the average approved society. When you find a fund sufficiently large to give them those benefits and ether benefits and to inaugurate schemes of great value, such as that suggested by the hon. Member who spoke from the bench below me early this afternoon, then we are entitled in the name of those people who cannot protest themselves to protest strongly against the action which the Government are taking. I saw in yesterday's papers that the Prime Minister had been speaking with great interest and his customary charm on the subject of optical illusions. All I can say is that those men will have to suffer from a very considerable optical illusion before they will see improvement in their state which the apologists of the Government have sought to hold out.
§ Mr. J. JONES
Those of us who are not so well acquainted with the administration of the National Health Insurance Act but are members of approved societies in our own particular districts know that there are on the funds to-day large numbers of men who properly ought to be benefiting by this Act. We have in the country 7,000,000 men who joined the Forces. A large proportion of them are to-day derelicts, and, although they are not benefiting by the Act, those of us who are members of trade unions and approved societies are compelled, to the best of our ability, to assist them in the struggle with which they are faced. I cannot pretend to be an actuarial expert, but the Fund, after 562 all, was originally held out as an inducement to men to help their country in the hour of danger. They were told that all accumulated reserves would go to the advantage of the men concerned. Members of approved societies were asked to get men to become members of His Majesty's Forces, because they were going to be protected in their hour of danger and disaster.
What do we find now'? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not treated the Committee with the respect due to it in being continuously absent from the Debate, because he is the father and the mother, and I believe eventually he will ho the grandmother, if not the great grandmother, of this Bill. He knows full well that the amount of money he is going to get as the result of this Clause will not enable him to secure any real economy. He will not be able to reduce the Income Tax. He will not he able even to save his own face when he addresses his constituency. It reminds me very much of the position of the man who went into a graveyard, pinched a wreath from a grave, and won the first prize at a flower show. We are told to-day that all the men who are supposed to benefit by this economy are going to have their benefit guaranteed to them. How are the benefits going to be guaranteed? The poor will have to keep the poor. In my own district we have hundreds of men receiving assistance from the Board of Guardians through the Relief Committee. Before the War, and when they joined up in 1914, as the result of appeals made by Members of all parties, they were young, strong and healthy, but to-day they are in the wards and in the various departments of our workhouse and infirmary. They are disqualified under the existing Insurance Acts. They are not supposed to be entitled to pensions, because they have gone beyond the statutory period for benefit. These men are being kept by the local authorities.
This is part of the policy generally pursued by the Government that the poor must keep the poor. I am not troubling about the £1,000,000. I am troubling more about the £2,000,000 we pay to the parties at the other end of the social scale for the right to live in our own country. If you want another £1,000,000 take it from them. The whole position is that you take it from the workers all the 563 time. The £400,000 is going to be given as a kind of bribe. Out of the £1,500,000 £400,000 is to be handed back. Then hon. Members opposite will go to East Ham and say "Look at what we have done." They do not tell you whom they have done. "We are giving you £400,000 more than you had before. We promise that you will get something later on if you will only be good." No Government of modern times finding itself in financial difficulties has ever been so contemptibly mean as this Government has been in dealing with these matters. The whole Bill will only bring in £10,000,000. There is one man in the country to-day who can boast that he had last year a total income of £5,000,000. Of course, he paid Excess Profits Duty upon it. So would I if I had it.
§ Mr. JONES
No, but the gentleman is in question, because he is one of the people who will benefit as the result of this so-called economy. If it was not for the pinching of £1,000,000 from the poor, he would have to pay out a little more, and, therefore, he will be a strong supporter of the Government. I only want you to recognise the fact that you cannot keep on for ever. In the language of Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
§ Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose tin Ms place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 132.565
|Division No. 151.]||AYES.||[7.21 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Clarry, Reginald George||Harland, A.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.||Couper, J. B.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Henderson, Capt. R, R.(Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Atkinson, C.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Balniel, Lord||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Barclay. Harvey, C. M.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Holt, Captain H. P.|
|Bethel, A.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Betterton, Henry B||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Drewe, C.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Duckworth, John||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney N.)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Elliot, Captain Walter E||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Ellis, R. G.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Elveden, Viscount||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||England, Colonel A.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Fairtax, Captain J. G.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Jacob, A. E.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Fermoy, Lord||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Burman, J. B.||Finburgh, S.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Forrest, W.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gaibraith, J. F. W.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Goff, Sir Park||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Grace, John||Loder, J. de V.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Gretton, Colonel John||Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Macintyre, Ian||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|McLean, Major A.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Remer, J. R.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Remnant, Sir James||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Malone, Major P. B.||Ropner, Major L.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Waddington, R.|
|Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Meller, R. J.||Rye, F. G.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull).|
|Merriman, F, B.||Salmon, Major I.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wells, S. R.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Sandeman, A. Stewart||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Sandon, Lord||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Shaw, H. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsfld.)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Oakley, T.||Shepperson, E. W.||Withers, John James|
|Penny, Frederick George||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Skeiton, A. N.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Philipson, Mabel||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Pilcher, G.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Preston, William||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Major Cope and Captain Margesson.|
|Radford, E. A.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Ramsden, E.||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sexton, James|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlilery)||Hayes, John Henry||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smillie, Robert|
|Broad, F. A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey Rotherhithe)|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snell, Harry|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Buchanan, G.||John, William (Rhondda West)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clowes, S.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kenyon, Barnet||Sutton, J. E.|
|Connolly, M.||Kirkwood, D.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lee, F.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lindley, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Crawfurd, H, E.||Livingstone, A. M.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Mackinder, W.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dennison, R.||MacLaren, Andrew||Varley, Frank B.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||March, S.||Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Montague, Frederick||Warne, G. H.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morris, R. H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gillett, George M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Westwood, J.|
|Gosling, Harry||Murnin, H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Owen, Major G.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Paling, W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."568
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 141.569
|Division No. 152.]||AYES.||[7.30 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Goff, Sir Park||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Grace, John||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Fronts)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Greenwood, Rt. H n. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Pilcher, G,|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gretton, Colonel John||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Preston, William|
|Atkinson, C.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Radford, E. A.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ramsden, E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Harland, A.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Remer, J. R.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Hartington, Marquess of||Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hastam, Henry C.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Bethel, A.||Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hartford)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rye, F. G.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hills, Major John Waller||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sandon, Lord|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hurd, Percy A.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hurst, Gerald B.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Cassels, J. D.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth, S)||Jacob, A. E.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Jephcott, A. R.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Willsden, E)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Strickland, sir Gerald|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Couper, J. B.||Loder, J. de v.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Waddington, R.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Crookshank, cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Ward, Lt.-Cot. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Macintyre, Ian||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||McLean, Major A.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Wells, S. R.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Malone, Major P. B.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Drewe, C.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Edmonson, Major A. J.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Meller, R. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Ellis, R. G.||Merriman, F. B.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Elveden, Viscount||Meyer, Sir Frank||Withers, John James|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fade, Sir Bertram G.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. U.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Finburgh, S.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Nuttall, Ellis||Major Cope and Captain Margesson|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Oakley, T.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sexton, James|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hayday, Arthur||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Barr, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, G. H.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Broad, F, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bromfield, William||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromley, J.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Buchanan, G.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, J, J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Connolly, M.||Kenyon, Barnet||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Kirkwood, D.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lee, F.||Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lindley, F. W.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Livingstone, A. M.||Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dennison, R.||Mackinder, W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Duckworth John||MacLaren, Andrew||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Varley, Frank B|
|England, Colonel A.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||March, S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Montague, Frederick||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Forrest, W.||Morris, R. H.||Warne, G. H.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Naylor, T. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gosling, Harry||Owen, Major G.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Palin, John Henry||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Greenall, T.||Paling, W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Philipson, Mabel||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Windsor, Walter|
|Groves, T.||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest. J. (York, Hemsworth)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS TOR THE NOES.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ritson, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.|
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question ' That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."570
§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 132.573
|Division No. 153.]||AYES.||[7.40 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Briggs, J. Harold||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Brittain, Sir Harry||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Bullock, Captain M.||Cope, Major William|
|Astor, Viscountess||Burman, J. B.||Couper, J. B.|
|Atkinson, C.||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Balniel, Lord||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Campbell, E. T.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Barnett Major Sir Richard||Cassels, J. D.||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert|
|Bethel, A.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Blundell, F. N.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Chapman, Sir S.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Drewe C.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Rye, F. G.|
|Dukeworth, John||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Salmon, Major I.|
|Edmonson, Major A. J.||Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Samuel, A. M (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Ellis, R.G.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Sandeman, A, Stewart|
|Elveden, Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|England, Colonel A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Loder, J, de V.||Sandon, Lord|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lord, Walter Greaves.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Finburgh, S.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Forrest, W.||MacIntyre, Ian||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||McLean, Major A.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Skelton, A. N.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Glyn, Major R.G.C.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Goff, Sir John||Malone, Major P. B.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Grace, John||Margesson, Captain D.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)|
|Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Gretton-Colonel John||Meller, R. J.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Merriman, F. B.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Meyer, Sir Frank||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Haking, Captain D.W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Harland A||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld.)||Waddington, R.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Nuttall, Ellis||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Oakley, T.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Penny, Frederick George||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wells, S. R.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Philipson, Mabel||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Holt. Capt. H.P.||Pilcher, G.||Williams, Com. C, (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Winby, Colonel L, P.|
|Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Preston, William||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Radford, E. A.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Ramsden, E.||Withers, John James|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Rees. Sir Beddoe||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Remer, J. R.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Remnant, Sir James||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Jacob, A. E.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon, Sir William||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Crawfurd, H. E.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Davies, David (Montgomery)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Barnes, A.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Harris, Percy A.|
|Barr, J.||Dennison, R.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Batey, Joseph||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hayday, Arthur|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Briant, Frank||Fenby, T. D.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Broad, F. A.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Bromfield, William||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bromley, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Gillett, George M.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gosling, Harry||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Cape Thomas||Greenall, T.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Charleton, H C.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)|
|Clowes, S.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Connolly, M.||Groves, T.||Kennedy, T.|
|Cove, W. G.||Grundy, T. W.||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Kirkwood, D.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Thurtle, E.|
|Lee, F.||Ritson, J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lindley, F. W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Townend, A. E.|
|Livingstone, A. M.||Scrymgeour, E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Lowth, T.||Sexton, James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Lunn, William||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Viant, S. P.|
|Mackinder, W.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wallhead, Richard C|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Sitch, Charles H.||Warne, G. H.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|March, S,||Smillie, Robert||Westwood, J.|
|Montague, Frederick||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Whiteley, W.|
|Morris, R. H.||Snell, Harry||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Murnin, H.||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Oliver, George Harold||Stamford, T. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Owen, Major G.||Stephen, Campbell||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Palin, John Henry||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Windsor, Walter|
|Paling, W.||Sullivan, Joseph||Wright, W.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sutton, J. E.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Potts, John S.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."574
§ Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 124.575
|Division No. 154.]||AYES.||[7.51 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.|
|Atkinson, C.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Drewe, C.||Jacob, A. E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Edmondson, Major A, J.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Ellis, R. G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Bethel, A.||Elvoden, Viscount||Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Fade, Sir Bertram G.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Fermoy, Lord||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Finburgh, S.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Loder, J. de V.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Gadie, Lieut.-Col, Anthony||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Goff, Sir Park||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Grace, John||McLean, Major A.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Burman, J. B.||Greenwood, Rt. Hit. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Gretton, Colonel John||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Grotrian, H. Brent||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Harland, A.||Meller, R. J.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hartington, Marquess of||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)||Haslam, Henry C.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hills, Major John Waller||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cope, Major William||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Couper, J. B.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Oakley, T.|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester. Crewe)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Waddington, R.|
|Pilcher, G.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Preston, William||Shepperson, E. W.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Wells, S. R.|
|Radford, E. A.||Skelton, A. N.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Ramsden, E.||Slaney, Major p. Kenyon||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Remer, J. R.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Ropner, Major L.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Withers, John James|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Rye, F. G.||Strickland, Sir Gerald||Womersley, W. J.|
|Salmon, Major I.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Templeton, W. P.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Sandeman, A. Stewart||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Sandon, Lord||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Harris, Percy A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Briant, Frank||Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield||Smilllie, Robert|
|Broad, F. A.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromfield, William||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clowes, S.||Kenyon, Barnet||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Lee, F.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lindley, F. W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Livingstone, A. M.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Lowth, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lunn, William||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Mackinder, W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dennison, R.||MacLaren, Andrew||Townend, A. E.|
|Duckworth, John||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Varley, Frank B.|
|England, Colonel A.||March, S.||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Montague, Frederick||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morris, R. H.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Forrest, W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)||Warne, G. H.|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Murnin, H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gosling, Harry||Owen, Major G.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Palin, John Henry||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Greenall, T.||Paling, W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Philipson, Mabel||Windsor, Walter|
|Groves, T.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Remnant, Sir James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Ritson, J.|
§ Mr. BROMLEY
On a point of Order. In passing through the "No" Lobby, I had reason, seeing I am leaving early tonight, having remained up all last night, to consult a railway guide. I left that guide while there were still people passing
576 through from the "Aye" Lobby, and I hurried at a quick pace, with two hon. Members from this side who were consulting the guide with me. I was not "told" in the "No" Lobby, and I ask for your ruling on that point.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
I was in the Lobby. I proceeded into the Lobby at that end for the purpose of seeing a railway guide. Two hon. Members from this side were with me. They drew my attention to the fact that everyone had passed through our Lobby. I looked round. There were still some going through the "Aye" Lobby. I left and walked at a rapid pace down here and was told there were no Tellers. Although I was in the Lobby, and I passed through before the other Lobby was closed, I am told I cannot be counted.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand there have been such cases before. If the two Tellers are agreed that the hon. Member and two others did so vote, the Division list will he amended accordingly.
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think we have reached a stage where the reconsideration of the Government's position towards the Opposition should be immediately faced. It will be admitted that we have been defending this afternoon, not only an important question, bat a question that is seriously disturbing the mind of Members opposite. No charge has been made of any kind of obstruction or waste of time, nor has there been other than a genuine desire to face the facts of the situation in a Parliamentary manner. We have had no opportunities of discussing a vital part of the Clause that you, Sir, in spite of our protest, put from the Chair. We have had no opportunity of putting before the Committee many arguments on many questions vital to the interests of the people whom we represent. We protest against this conduct that is meted out to us.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in at the time. I accepted the Closure on
§ the Clause as a whole. At the beginning of the Debate on the Clause I said I would follow the same procedure that had been followed by Mr. Speaker on Report of the Ways and Means Resolution, namely, that on the first Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) a general discussion on the Clause would be allowed.
There were two Amendments. One was in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) which has not been discussed. It deals with the date and is vital from our point of view. There was another Amendment of my hon. Friends here, which was raised in the general discussion. I accepted the ruling that both. Amendments need not be put, but I was not informed that it was the intention not to have a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That is an unprecedented thing. I have known Members opposite, when on this side, take up a very strong attitude on a less important point. This appears to us to be a continuance of the scandalous treatment meted out to us. This is not the first occasion that a direct insult, more or less, has been hurled at us, merely because we are fighting this Clause, and for that reason I beg to move to report Progress.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Sir J. SIMON
(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Might I ask whether, under the Rules of the House, it is competent for the Chair to announce that it will put a Question without debate unless it is the opinion of the. Chair that the Motion has been made in abuse of the Rules of the House.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 127: Noes, 228.581
|Division No. 155.]||AYES.||[8.7 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W,||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Briant, Frank||Cape, Thomas|
|Ammon, Charles George||Broad, F. A||Charleton, H. C.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bromfield, William||Clowes, S.|
|Barnes, A.||Bromley, J.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Barr, J.||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Connolly, M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Buchanan, G.||Cove, W. G.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kennedy, T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kenyon, Barnet||Snell, Harry|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Kirkwood, D.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lee, F.||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lindley, F. W.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Dennison, R.||Livingstone, A. M.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lowth, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lunn, William||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mackinder, W.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Gillett, George M.||MacLaren, Andrew||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gosling, Harry||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Greenall, T.||March, S.||Thurtle, E.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Montague, Frederick||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morris, R. H.||Townend, A. E.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Groves, T||Murnin, H.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Naylor, T. E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Guest, J. (York, Kemsworth)||Oliver, George Harold||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Owen, Major G.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Palin, John Henry||Warne, G. H.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Paling, W.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Hayday, Arthur||Ponsonby, Arthur||Whiteley, W.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Potts, John S.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Ritson, J.||Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hirst, G. H.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scrymgeour, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Sexton, James||Windsor, Walter|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wright, W.|
|Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Nowton)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sitch, Charles H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Sir|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Smillie, Robert||Frederick Hall.|
|Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cope, Major William||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Apsley, Lord||Couper, J. B.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V L. (Bootel)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Atkinson, C.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Balniel, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Holt, Captain H. P.|
|Barnett. Major Sir Richard||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Bethel, A.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Birchall, Major J, Dearman||Drewe, C.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Duckworth, John||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)|
|Blundell, F N.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Ellis, R. G.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Elveden, Viscount||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||England, Colonel A.||Hide, Sir Edward M.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Fermoy, Lord||Jacob, A. E.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Finburgh, S.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Burman, J. B.||Forrest, W.||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Galbraith, J. F. W.||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Campbell, E. T.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Goff, Sir Park||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Grace, John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gretton, Colonel John||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Charter is, Brigadier-General J.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Chilcott. Sir Warden||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gunston, Captain D. W.||MacIntyre, I.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||McLean, Major A.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harland, A.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Remer, J. R.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.||Remnant, Sir James||Templeton, W. P.|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Malone, Major P. B.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Meller, R. J.||Ropner, Major L,||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Merriman, F. B.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Waddington, R.|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.||Rye, F. G.||Wallace, Captain D, E.|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Salmon, Major I.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Wells, S. R.|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Nuttail, Ellis||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Oakley, T.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Shepperson, E. W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Simms, Dr. John M, (Co. Down)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Skelton, A. N.||Withers, John James|
|Philipson, Mabel||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Pilcher, G.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Preston, William||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Radford, E. A.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Ramsden, E.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Rees, Sir Beddoe||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Strickland, Sir Gerald||Major Sir Harry Barnston and|
I desire to inform you, Sir, that I propose taking the necessary steps in the Parliamentary way to ask this House to express its opinion of your partial and biased conduct.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
On a point of Order. I am not doing this either to inconvenience yourself as the Chairman of Committees, or to hold up the House. I am doing it on a matter on which I feel strongly, and I am in no way confident, and I want you to help me. You were kind enough to indicate to me a few moments ago that by a consultation between the two Tellers there was a way of putting my vote in order. I am informed by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), who was one of the Tellers, that, after my request to you, and your very fair ruling, he was unable to get in touch with the Government Teller until after you had called another Division. On that account the names of myself, the bon. Member for Newcastle and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) have been refused on the Division list. I ask you whether it is quite fair to one who has religiously stuck to his duties here last night and to-day to be treated in that way because of the inability of one Teller to find the other?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not sure whether I have any power in the matter, but I will gladly consult Mr. Speaker and 582 see if it is possible to amend the Division list and insert the hon. Members' names, or whether it is possible to add something by way of correction. That is the most I can do.
§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
Is it not the case that the Tellers ought not to have left the Lobby until they were satisfied that everyone eligible to vote had left, and that by leaving they are themselves to blame?
§ The CHAIRMAN
That may be. Undoubtedly there has been a mistake. I cannot say whose fault it is, but I will see what can be done to put the matter right.
§ Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household)
May I say that the Whips of the party opposite came and told us that they were all out, and that in the reason why my hon. Friend and I reported.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
The Labour party Whips must certainly have known that we were not all out. I do not for a moment wish to doubt the hon. and gallant Member's statement, but there has been a mistake somewhere. The hon. Member for Newcastle and myself were standing at the Table, and the hon. Member for Blaydon was at the desk writing, so that it was impossible for us to have been passed over knowingly. I 583 do not suggest that the hon. and gallant Member is not saying what he believes to be quite accurate, but a mistake has been made somewhere. For my part I accept your ruling and your generous indication that you will deal with the position.