HC Deb 12 December 1927 vol 211 cc2041-59

I beg to move in page 3, in line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the word "in" in line 39.

My object is to try to reduce by one of the number of penalties that are to fall upon the head of the unfortunate councillor. The Minister proposes to deprive him of his civic right to become and remain a representative for five years. That is fairly stiff to begin with. Then he goes on to surcharge him by way of fine for sums exceeding £500, and then, finally, he must strengthen the means of extracting the money from him by making it recoverable as a civil debt, in order, in fact, that he may make the councillor or alderman bankrupt. When he gets him down like that he will then say that he will have done with him altogether. But this extraordinary culmination of penalties seems to argue an entirely different standpoint to that of any we have had before. Of course, this Bill is directed almost entirely against the poor man. If he is a poor man he is to be made a bankrupt. I remember a line in Proverbs about the poor man who was the saviour of his city. But if he comes up against the Minister of Health the poverty of the poor man is to be his destruction. There is now the deliberate idea of bankrupting a person. All through the discussions on this Bill we have been trying to level up things; to get a little justice between persons of different financial standing. That is a point that is realised very often in the Law Courts, sometimes one way it is true and sometimes another. But all the way through here the Minister has attempted to do an injustice to the poor man. When we came to the £500 we pointed out that £500 is nothing to many hon. Members on that side of the House, but it is a great deal of money to people on this side. The vast majority of borough councillors in East London and in industrial neighbourhoods who belong to the Labour party cannot stand a surcharge of £500. When we proposed that it should be divided up amongst them that was rejected. The Minister is to have his pound of flesh out of every one of them, and his policy is so effective that he will bankrupt them. The reason for that is not mere vindictiveness on the part of the Minister. I am sure that the Minister is much too clever to go in for mere wanton pursuit. There is a reason behind it just as there is behind every provision in this Bill, and that is a political reason.

It is not as a rule the custom of many hon. Members on the other side of the House when they reach the House of Commons to continue to be members of their local authorities, but there is a large number of Members on this side who endeavour to carry on their work in this House and on municipal bodies. The great advantage of this procedure of the Minister will be that not only will he be able to eliminate these people from local councils, but by pursuing them into bankruptcy he will be able to get rid of such Members in this House as are on local councils. The result will be many by-elections in constituencies represented by Members on this side. There are two things in this Bill. One is a class attack on the poor man as a poor man, and the other is a set attempt to injure political opponents, and to endeavour to prevent the onward march of Labour, whether on the local councils or in Parliament. I think that is a bad misjudgment, and in this case I suggest it is rather insulting. The law of this country has never been that when you have a charge involving no moral offence you should deliberately pile up penalty on penalty, and pursue men and women to the utmost extremity of taking all their goods.


I beg to second the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated, and the Minister has occasionally agreed, that the present system works well, and that there are very few cases where there is any reason to complain. Now we come to a very old provision of the law. If you do not pay your rates, for instance, the law provides that your effects can be arrested, a man can be sent to prison for a short period, and then you have purged your offence. Now as to the law with regard to surcharges. If you are surcharged £50 or £5,000, at present the sole penalty is that your household goods are sold up, and, if that is not sufficient, you spend a certain period in prison and are then released. There is rough justice in that. Makers of the old law realised that those were not crimes for which a man should be ruined, that the sale of the household goods was a heavy enough penalty, and it was roughly proportioned to his means. Now the Minister is changing the present law, which provides for the household goods being taken to a plan by which all that you possess may be taken. That is an excessively cruel plan. We know, for instance, that very small people are on some of the borough councils, tradespeople, struggling people, people of quite small means, and it is a frightful danger that public life may bring you into absolute ruin and bankruptcy. We have pointed out several times, and I would repeat, that the crime itself is one on which there is some doubt, that there is also doubt as to the person on whom the auditor may fix. Where the crime is so indefinite, and where the person who may be fixed upon as a criminal is so uncertain, it is a horrible thing to say that the penalty is to be absolute financial ruin. This Bill enables the Minister to sell up and to discharge from public life persons who have been guilty of a surcharge up to £500, for £500 is enough to bankrupt any working man or any small shopkeeper. Anyone who knows how close some of the smaller shopkeepers live to the edge, as it were, knows that the loss of £500 would ruin many of the businesses.

The first point is that you make the penalty the complete financial ruin of the poorer people who have been guilty of a surcharge of very much less than £500. We have had it said that £500 surcharge—the Minister has chosen to draw that line—ought not to disqualify a man from serving for years on a public authority, but if he is a poor man it will disqualify him as long as he remains a bankrupt. If we do say that a surcharge of less than£500 ought not to deprive a man from serving on a public authority, we ought not to disqualify a man from sitting on a public authority because he is a working man or because he is a struggling tradesman. The rich man can pay £500, and perhaps a little more, but It will have to be a very rich man to repay the whole surcharge, which would depend upon the size of the local authority. A very small error will accumulate to a monstrous sum. Where you come to the member of the rich authority, it is not only the poor man, but the rich man in his castle as well as the poor man at his gate whom this hits, because very few rich people, even, would be able to meet the surcharge on a rich authority. It might be, as it was in one case, not £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000, but £100,000 or £200,000. That is the point which I want to press.

There has been no reason shown for altering the existing law. You have disqualification if the surcharge is over £500, and you have the financial penalty by which you can take a man's goods. Why must you add to that, bankruptcy for the poor man? You find no safety in the fact that the auditor may surcharge the whole council, as the charges, jointly or severally, take from everybody according to their means, and turn them all out naked to the world with all the savings of their life stripped from them. You are doing something more. You are not merely making these people incapable of sitting on their local authority, you are making them incapable of sitting in Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. Now we have got to the bottom of this Bill. Although the Act in such circumstances would provide an automatic disqualification from a local authority by taking the whole of a man's property, in this way you can make the man incapable of sitting in this Assembly for the whole of his life perhaps. We all know that the Minister had his eye on Members of Parliament. We all know that he has been continually pained and troubled in his mind that he has had no more power than to take away their goods from them. Now he says: "Give me power to ruin my opponents. Take all they have got from them. Hound them out of public life."




It is perfectly true.




Rubbish? What is the point of altering the law? The Minister has said, in the first place, that he is dealing with political questions and policy.




Add to that what is also said, that there are very few cases, and those mostly in the London district. What does that mean? The Bill is directed against the very few cases in London. That is the Minister's statement. It will apply to a great many cases in the country. I ask: What is the object of altering the law so as you can take a man's goods and all that he possesses? What is the risk, except that the Minister dislikes the persons in various London districts and desires to drive them out of public life? He is not content with disfranchising them so far as local authorities are concerned. He is taking power in this Clause to drive them out of Parliament. Do not tell me that the Minister, whose talents we all know so well, is acting inadvertently. I have never accused him of carelessness or want of intelligence. I know too well that this Bill, the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act are all part of one great encircling scheme directed against the political and industrial members of the working class. No one can be such a child as not to see how these things hang together. The Minister has partly brought forward and partly inspired the whole calculated scheme of attack. This is not a careless Bill, but is a carefully thought-out Bill designed to hamper the political activities of those who represent the workers, and the workers themselves, in precisely the same same way as the Trade Unions Bill hampered their industrial activities.


I think anyone who has studied the present position with regard to the enforcement of surcharges in some of the cases which we have mentioned to-night will agree that some alteration in the law is necessary. If there be a conspiracy in this matter, certainly the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) must be in it, because he has been one of those who has pointed out the necessity of dealing with a situation of this kind. He has said: We know perfectly well that, if a board of guardians be surcharged, and if it refuses to pay, and find its way into prison, the Ministry of Health has the board of guardians in prison, and it has a policy of surcharges which it must enforce, at any rate from the point of view of its own dignity. A deadlock takes place; no money is paid, the taxpayer is not relieved, the boards of guardians are 'Poplarised,' and in the end the situation is the same, the only victim is the poor Ministry of Health, which is given an absolutely impossible law to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol. 170.] It is to deal with that situation that this Clause is being introduced into the Bill. This Clause is, at any rate, an endeavour to deal with that situation, and, I think, a perfectly fair one. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), has given the House the impression that in cases where members of authorities are surcharged the next thing that happens to them is that they are committed to prison, sold up, and bankrupted. That is not the state of things at all. The only event in which members can come under this particular Clause is when they fail to satisfy either the Court or the Minister that they ought to be fairly excused wholly or partially from personal liability in respect of the surcharge. The hon. Member who spoke just now gave the impression that members of local authorities are in the hands of the Minister of Health in this matter. Nothing of the kind. If it is over £500, they have to go to the Court, and if it is under £500 they have the option of deciding whether they go to the Court or to the Minister. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who would not say that, if there were a reasonable case the Courts would excuse them, as has constantly happened again and again when the Minister has exercised his jurisdiction.

We have not heard a word to-night about the poor ratepayer whose money is being expended and wasted. Is he not entitled to some consideration? You have the two stages which I have mentioned: the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon has pointed out, when the only victim was the Ministry of Health, and the next stage, where the member of the local authority is unable to satisfy the Court or the Minister that he should not be fairly excused from the particular act that he has committed. Then under all these circumstances the hon. Member wants to persist in the procedure by which the only remedy is to attach the goods of the person affected, or they go to prison for a short period. We have had some experience of that. We know what happened in Poplar when that remedy had to be applied. That was no effective relief. There were members of the board who had property and yet could not be attached. Why should not members of the board who had stocks and shares be attached? The present procedure is perfectly ridiculous. If, in such a case, a member of the local authority is not able to satisfy the Court that he has reason that he should be fairly excused, the whole of the remedy of the law ought to be available. People should realise that, if they are members of local authorities, they are there as trustees; and, if they fail to act reasonably, they must suffer the full penalty of the law. They are the last people who ought to complain. No other members of local authorities up and down the country are finding any difficulty in this matter. A few local authorities in London first adopted the particular policy, and now they come complaining to the House when the matter is put on a proper footing. The difficulty of it has been pointed out by their own leaders, and, under these circumstances, they ought to be the last people to complain. Other members of local authorities are able to carry out their duties properly, and there is no reason why the law should not be put right. The great majority of the House will realise that it is doing the fair and right thing, and will not inflict any unnecessary hardship or injustice on anybody who desires to carry out public duties properly and fairly.


Does the hon. Member suggest that only London boards of guardians have been surcharged to any extent?


No, I say that they are the only boards of guardians and other authorities that are really affected by this Bill. A large number of people have been surcharged from time to time, but they have been able to satisfy the Minister in nearly every case that they have been acting fairly and reasonably.


Yesterday afternoon, at the beginning of this Debate, I and my hon. Friends were accused of inconsistency in changing our ground. The speech that we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary is entirely different from the speech which supported this proposal in the early stages of the Bill. Clause 3 and the Amendment that we are discussing now happen to be of particular importance to hon. Members on this side of the House, and it is, I think, unfortunate that hon. Members, who have taken little part in this Debate, should make interruptions; of a discourteous kind when my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) was speaking on some- thing with which she is closely connected. We have had, not for the first time, from the Parliamentary Secretary extracts from speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald), almost always quoted irrelevantly. The speech that my right hon. Friend made in 1924 had nothing whatever to do with the bankruptcy of people in the situation that has arisen out of the Poor Law. If I remember the right hon. Gentleman's argument aright, it was that a situation had arisen of such a character—partly because of the action of previous Ministers of Health and partly because of the economic circumstances that had arisen—that, in the present state of tendencies there was bound to be a deadlock. That has nothing to do with whether you are to put people through the Bankruptcy Court, with all that that implies. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us now that that is the only fair way to deal with the situation. But that is not the argument that was used either on the Second Reading or in the Committee stage. The argument then was entirely different. It was an argument addressed to mankind in general, an argument which showed the humanitarian instincts of the Minister of Health. It was with a desire to prevent these people being hampered and humbugged and their furniture being sold up. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "What about the poor ratepayer?" The Minister, on Second Reading, did not argue about the poor ratepayer. The whole of his argument was that if you put these people in a position where you sold them up and put them in prison, the poor ratepayer was not a penny better off. The whole purpose of it was to show that the punitive method of dealing with these people did not help the ratepayer. Then how is bankruptcy going to help them? It is not going to help them at all. It is not the poor ratepayer that the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned about; it is the large ratepayer It is the small handful of large ratepayers that he is concerned about. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to cheap martryrdom. It is not cheap martyrdom for the individual to go into prison.

I should not look forward with any pleasure to whatever little posses- sions I have being sold. If it comes to cheap martyrdom, if punishment is to be regarded as a halo, surely the device of bankruptcy means a larger halo than ever. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to destroy the halo. Surely he is increasing the size and make of the halo. He is making martyrdom something really worth having and the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary will not hold water for a moment. If you want to see cheap martyrdom which was accepted for years and years it was when the marble clock was taken from the mantlepiece of the Nonconformist who was a passive resister against the Education Act of 1902. But the type of martyrdom which results in people going to prison and having their furniture sold is not cheap martyrdom. We are told that the local authorities are in the position of trustees for the public. In what manner can local authorities be expected to be better trustees if they have held over them the threat of bankruptcy? It does not achieve that purpose. In the last resort, the only guarantee the mass of the public have against bad government is to choose the public representatives rightly. No measure of bankruptcy, no punitive provision of this kind can possibly get down to the roots of this problem.

But even greater injustices enter into this question. People may be rich enough to escape, but their crime is no less than that of the poor man. Both the rich man and the poor man have been surcharged for the same offence, and yet because one of them is rich he may be able to escape bankruptcy, and the poor man cannot. If it were merely a question of bankruptcy, merely a question of selling up all that a man has, it would not be so bad, but the truth is that certain definite social consequences flow from bankruptcy. It means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North has said, not only disqualification from sitting on any local authority for five years but that they are deprived of the opportunity of sitting on any local authority so long as the bankruptcy hangs over them. Not only that. There are Members in this House to-day who, if this Bill be put on the Statute Book, may find themselves deprived of the right to remain Members of this House, because under this Bill it is almost certain that there will be members of local authorities who will be surcharged. They will be bankrupted because they are not wealthy men. They should have been able to enjoy their representation in the House so long as they retain the confidence of their electors.

This provision, which means bankruptcy, is really a class distinction. That seems to me even more unfortunate than the other arguments against it. If people are proved guilty of an offence, the question of their wealth or their poverty ought not to determine the measure of their punishment. That, I think, is perfectly fair. I do not think any hon. Member of this House, if he looks at it fairly, would say, because a person is well-to-do, he ought not to suffer the same as a poor person for an identical offence. Yet that is the effect of this Clause, and we desire to move this Amendment to remove it and make the penalty more according to the ability to bear the brunt of it. My submission is that this institution of bankruptcy as a possible punishment is indefensible, unfair, and differentiates between the rich and the poor. We learn that this Bill is already in operation to-day, and it means that the poor people, reluctant as many of them are because of the sacrifices they are called upon to make, are beginning to consider twice and thrice before they join a public body because of the possible consequences. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they would try to look at this thing objectively, they would see that this punishment of bankruptcy is most unfair, vindictive, and almost inevitably bound to mete out far heavier punishment to poor people than to rich people. As we have more poor people on this side of the House, it means on the whole that bankruptcy is going to be a punitive move to be applied to members of my own political party, and will not act against members of the political party opposite. I wish hon. Members would really look at it from a serious point of view. I can conceive of nothing more unfair than to make money the final test whether a man is to remain in public life or not. I hope Members of the House will go into the Lobby on this occasion at least in support of the Amendment.

2.0 a.m.


I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to several Debates during the course of the evening, and on two or three occasions he has quoted the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) in justification for various parts of the Bill and for the Bill as a whole. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been grossly unfair in so far as he merely quotes a portion of a speech which appears to suit hie particular purpose, when he must have known all the time that a different meaning altogether could be attributed to the words. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the next few sentences following the quotation that he has made so frequently during this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon continues, following the Parliamentary Secretary's oft-quoted passage: I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) if he would not help us in trying to devise that collateral security. I should be very glad if it were possible to get collateral security that would work equitably and fairly, and would be in accordance with democratic Government— May I ask the Minister if this Bill is in accordance with democratic Government? Can any part of a Bill be in accordance with democratic Government if, when people are elected to carry out the desires and aspirations of the voters, and, having done so, the right hon. Gentleman comes along and tells them "You shall be fined £20, you shall be disqualified for sitting for five years, and on top of that if you are a poor man you shall be put into the Bankruptcy Court"? Is that in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's ideas of democracy?


Yes, Sir.


I am not at all surprised at the reply of the hon. Gentleman, for his conception of democracy is very curious. I will continue the quotation I was reading. The then Prime Minister was replying to the Poplar Debate, and was following Mr. Asquith, now the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and he went on to say: And would be in accordance with democratic Government—collateral security which, in addition to the surcharge, would protect the ratepayer. I think my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the only collateral security that is going to be effective in the end is the security of an equitable Poor Law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol. 170.] If the hon. Gentleman in making his quotation would have been fair I do not think even his own supporters would have held that it justified him. The hon. Gentleman said, when replying to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, that since persons who in future might be surcharged had the inestimable privilege of appealing to the Minister or of going to the Courts, that ought to be a sufficient guarantee; that there would be few or no possibilities of either fine, disqualification, or bankruptcy taking place. On the assumption of the hon. Gentleman himself that the only people likely to be affected by this Bill are four or five London boroughs—it may be that there is something in that assumption—does he imagine that those of us who live in the provinces are feeling at all easy about the Bill? We are feeling that there is something beyond the London boroughs embodied in this Bill. We know, for instance, of many Labour town councils who have done much better work for the districts than was done hitherto, and who may, as a result of this Bill, find themselves surcharged to the sum of £500 and the several punishments inflicted in the Bill, and I want to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he attempts to apologise to the House by stating that the Bill only affects some four or five London boroughs that he is not stating the fact. The Bill will be applicable to the whole country. Authorities which have only half a dozen members will be susceptible to all the punishments embodied in this Bill. If through wages, through direct labour or indirect labour, through any one of the schemes they undertake they find, through some unfortunate circumstances that their estimates have gone astray, the auditor comes along and the Minister is not amenable to their overtures because of their political opinions—


There are the Courts.


Even the Courts may be biased. Some very curious decisions have been witnessed in this country. I have one or two cases in my mind which it would not be in order to quote. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that the possibility of fining a person £20 owing to his serving his district to the best of his knowledge and according to his judgment, in the best interests of his district should not be held over his head, in addition to disqualification from serving his district for five years, and, on top of it all, to be sent to the Bankruptcy Court because he did well. Any person accused of a violent assault would not be confronted with such a punishment as would be meted out here. One could be prosecuted for the embezzlement of £10,000 or £50,000, and he would not suffer such a punishment as is embodied in this Bill. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman by a series of actions are trying not only to destroy the value of the franchise in certain directions, but by their Trade Disputes Bill limiting industrial power they are endeavouring to deprive the electors of the value of their votes. They have only one other thing to do to complete their reforming work—reform the House of Lords, and then they will have accomplished all they have to do.


That does not arise under this Bill.


At all events, one is obliged to read into this Bill the third stage of a proceeding which is designed expressly to cripple the opponents of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to suggest that this Amendment at all events ought to be accepted as an earnest of their desire to do the right thing, instead of attempting, as we suggest he is attempting to do, to cripple his political opponents and to prevent dozen of districts from having the advantage of the work of men and women willing and anxious to serve the people on local governing bodies.


The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in some of the replies which he has made, has spoken with unction of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) some time back. I think he has done so nine times. That made me suspicious. He seemed to think it was a conclusive answer, and that it was such an excellent reply that it was only necessary to read it. I was suspicious that there was something else which the right hon. Gentleman had said that had not been quoted. We have been to the trouble since, of course, to find out what the right hon. Gentleman did say, and we find that the construction which the Parliamentary Secretary was putting on the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a construction that it certainly would not bear and was quite opposed to the construction which the right hon. Gentleman intended. But I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary thought that his case was so bad that, bad as it might be, it was good enough for the arguments put up on this side. Another thing he is very much concerned about is the poor ratepayer. I would like to ask him whether he thinks that the adding to the measures that can be taken against the man or woman who has already committed a crime, of civil debt and bankruptcy is likely to bring any financial or monetary relief to the rate-payers.


This Bill already does so.


It is infinitesimal and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it. What he is concerned about, and what the Minister is particularly concerned about, and the Debate discloses it more and more, is this Machiavellian policy. The Minister sits there and smiles to himself and thinks "We are doing all right," but behind this, of course, is an underlying motive. It has been pointed out before that it really is not a question of suing these people for a civil debt and bankrupting them to give some financial relief to the ratepayer. The Minister is using another method already indicated in the Bill for people surcharged with an amount over £500. They can be disfranchised for five years and stopped from sitting on an authority. Now, under £500, they can be bankrupted. I think that is Machiavellian, if ever anything was. What does it really matter to the person? Does it do anybody any good to bankrupt them over a question like this? The Minister gave us some figures of cases, and it was shown that an enormous majority of them had been let off after an explanation.


I only gave the number that appealed to the Court.


In most cases, he found out that the surcharges were the result of a mere mistake. Am I not right in saying so?

Division No. 472.] AYES. [2.18 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Betterton, Henry B. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Buchan. John
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Burman, J. B.
Balniel. Lord Brassey, Sir Leonard Campbell, E. T.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Briscoe, Richard George Carver, Major W. H.

That I do not know.


Well, I think we can take it that the huge majority of the cases have been cases of pure mistake. I ask the Minister whether any case likely to be treated under this new Clause is not equally likely to be a pure mistake? Does he imagine that people go into this business determined deliberately to commit a criminal offence? He knows that this Clause will act very harshly, and for him to suggest that a man is not already sufficiently punished and that you must add to it a civil debt and bankrupt him, and that that will deter a man is to be on the wrong track. When a man is convinced that the course he has taken is right and he knows there are penalties already in existence, the added penalty of bankrupting him will not stop him from doing it. I suggest that that is not the real motive of the Minister at all. His real motive is that you should bankrupt these people and by that means stop them from serving on an authority. In the majority of these cases where they have been summoned, and in some cases sent to prison, the majority of the ratepayers have actually returned these people again. The Minister knows that they have. The ratepayers have thereby proved that the majority of them have been in sympathy with, and approved of what these people have done. Hon. Members opposite do not desire that these people should be sent back, and they are taking this course in order to prevent the ratepayers in the future from voting for these people or saying whether they believe in them. This Clause is mean and despicable. We believe it is deliberately designed to bankrupt these people in order that the party opposite shall have an advantage over their political opponents.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 49.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Rye, F. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington' Sandeman, N. Stewart
Christie, J. A. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril King, Commodore Henry Douglas Savery, S. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Knox, Sir Alfred Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sawerby)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lamb, J. Q. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Cooper, A. Duff Loder, J. de V. Shepperson, E. W.
Cope, Major William Long, Major Eric Skelton, A. N.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smithers, Waldron
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Davies, Dr. Vernon MacIntyre, Ian Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Dawson, Sir Philip Makins, Brigadier-General E. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Dlxey, A. C. Margesson, Captain D. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fenby, T. D. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Tinne, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian Moreing, Captain A. H. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Ganzoni, Sir John Nelson, Sir Frank Wallace, Captain D. E.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nuttall, Ellis Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Goff, Sir Park Oakley, T. Watts, Dr. T.
Gower, Sir Robert O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Wayland, Sir William A.
Grant, Sir J. A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Wells, S. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent Penny, Frederick George Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry, Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Harland, A. Philipson, Mabel Womersley, W. J.
Harrison, G. J. C. Pownall, Sir Assheton Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hartington, Marquess of Price, Major C. W. M. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Radford, E. A. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Raine, Sir Walter Wragg, Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Remnant. Sir James
Hilton, Cecil Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Major Sir George Hennessy and
Hopkins, J. W. W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Captain Viscount Curzon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Potts, John S.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Stephen, Campbell
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Thurtle, Ernest
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Townend, A. E.
Buchanan, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Charleton, H. C. Lansbury, George Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Wellock, Wilfred
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Westwood J.
Day, Colonel Harry Lindley, F. W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibbins, Joseph Lunn, William Whiteley. W.
Gillett, George M. Mackinder, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Montague, Frederick Windsor. Walter
Grundy, T. W. Murnin, H.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Oliver, George Harold TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, W. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes
Hardie, George D. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 473.] AYES. [2.25 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Fenby, T. D.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent. Dover) Christle, J. A Fraser, Captain Ian
Balniel, Lord Cobb, Sir Cyril Fremantie, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D Ganzoni, Sir John
Betterton, Henry B. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cooper, A. Duff Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Cope, Major William Goff, Sir Park
Brassey, Sir Leonard Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Gower, Sir Robert
Briscoe, Richard George Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Grant, Sir J. A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Grotrian, H. Brent
Buchan, John Davies, Dr. Vernon Gunston, Captain D. W.
Burman, J. B. Dawson, Sir Philip Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Campbell, E. T. Dixey, A. C. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Carver, Major W. H. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Harland, A.

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 50.

Harrison, G. J. C. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Hartington, Marquess of Nuttall, Ellis Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Oakley, T. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hilton, Cecil Penny, Frederick George Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Tinne, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Philipson, Mabel Wallace, Captain D. E.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Pownall, Sir Assheton Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Price, Major C. W. M. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Radford, E. A. Watts, Dr. T.
Knox, Sir Alfred Raine, Sir Walter Wayland. Sir William A.
Lamb, J. Q. Remnant, Sir James Wells, S. R.
Loder, J. de V. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Long, Major Eric Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Rye, F. G Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sandeman, N. Stewart Womersley, W. J
MacIntyre, Ian Sanders, Sir Robert A. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Savery, S. S. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Margesson, Captain D. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wragg, Herbert
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Shepperson, E. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. skelton, A. N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Moreing, Captain A. H. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Major Sir George Hennessy and
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Smithers, Waldron Captain Viscount Curzon.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, George D. Paling, W.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Batey, Joseph Hayes, John Henry Scurr, John
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, G. H. Thurtle, Ernest
Buchanan, G. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Townend, A. E.
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Compton, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dalton, Hugh Lansbury, George Wellock, Wilfred
Day, Colonel Harry Lawrence, Susan Westwood, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lawson, John James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibbins, Joseph Lindley, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Lunn, William Windsor, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Mackinder, W.
Grundy, T. W. Montague, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Murnin, H. Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oliver, George Harold

I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "proceedings," in line 9, to the word "shall," in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words under the enactments repealed by this Act for the recovery of sums certified by a district auditor to be due. This is merely a clarifying Amendment designed to make the meaning of the Sub-section more clear. The words in the Sub-section are not really changed by the Amendment. It is merely the order of the words that is changed to make the position of the enactments repealed by the Act quite clear.


Does this mean that it is intended to make it clearer that all the penalties intended to be inflicted shall be inflicted?

Amendment agreed to.