The first Amendment, standing in the name of f he Lon Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) amounts to a direct negative of the Clause, and is therefore out of order.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, to leave out the words "or is made thereafter."
I move this Amendment formally, as we expect later on to have a debate on the Clause itself, when the point that I desire to make will be dealt with.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
There is one somewhat technical point that I wish to raise on this Amendment. When we look at the repealing Schedule, we find that 2924 among the Acts which are to be repealed is Section 220 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, and when we look at the repealing Schedule to the Act of 1927, we find that the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, is also repealed. Therefore, it would seem to me that, whatever may be the powers under the Interpretation Act of 1888, or any other Act, to keep alive an Order already made, it cannot be that the Minister can hereafter make an Order under an Act, or under a Section of an Act, which has itself been repealed. Clause 17 of this Bill says that:The provisions of this Act shall apply as respects any Poor Law union with respect to which an order under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Art, 1926, or Section two hundred and twenty of the Poor Law Act, 1927, constituting an appointed board of guardians for the union is in force. …Is it not the case, therefore, that the effect of repeal from the date of the commencement of this Act will be to bring to an end Section 220 of the Poor Law Act of 1927? This matter is dealt with to some extent in the Interpretation Act of 1888, Section 35 of which deals with the effect of repeals of future Acts, and says that, when an Act under which an Order has been made is itself repealed, the repeal will not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. I submit therefore, that it cannot be that thereafter there will be power to make another Order.
I am raising this point, which it is as much in the interest of the Minister as of the Opposition to take, because it seems that my hon. Friends are going to argue the merits of these matters later on, and I suppose that, if they were gross obstructionists, as they are sometimes in heated moments suggested to he, they would be very pleased to see this Clause go through in such a form as to be unenforceable. I suggest, simply in the interests of clarity, that, whatever is going to be done by this Clause, you cannot at one and the same time repeal the Act under which existing Orders are made and also provide for the making of other Orders thereafter, because, "thereafter" being after the commencement of this Act, the Act under which the Orders have been made will have ceased to exist; and, although an existing Order may be kept alive for certain purposes under the Interpreta- 2925 tion Act, it would be quite improper for any fresh Order to be made. There may or may not be an answer to this point, but I thought it my duty to bring it before the Committee, because it seems to me to be a point of substance, and, as I see it at present, fresh drafting will be required.
I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point, but I think I can give him an answer which will be satisfactory to him. If he will turn to Clause 114 of the Bill, which deals with repeals, he will see that the proviso to that Clause states that repeals of the enactments mentioned in the Schedule shall not take effect until the date fixed as the appointed day for the corresponding part of this Act. Therefore, while it is quite true that Section 220 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, is repealed by this Bill, the repeal does not take effect until the 1st April, 1930, and the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking exception in Clause 17 deal with the period between the present date and the 1st April, 1930.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
Does that mean that, if Section 220 of the Act of 1927 stands, every six months an Order must be laid before the House continuing the guardians in office? If not, is it not necessary to repeal Section 220 of the Act of 1927 before Sub-section (3, a) of Clause 17 can come into effect? We ought not to have two contradictory provisions in an Act of Parliament.
No; the same answer applies to that question also. Section 220 of the Act of 1927 only remains in force until the 1st April, 1930. As long as it is in force, there must, of course, be an Order every six months; but the Section will be repealed on the 1st April, 1930, and then Clause 17 will come into operation.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. BARKER
I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "until," to insert the words:such date as he may declare not being later than.The object of the Amendment is to leave the fixing of the date to the discretion of the Minister of Health instead of fixing it by Statute at 1st April, 1935. If the Clause is passed without 2926 Amendment, the appointed guardians cannot be abolished before that date without legislation. The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to enable them to be abolished at an earlier date if the Minister of Health deems it necessary or desirable. The area I represent is one of the most heavily rated in the country. The rates are estimated to be 150 per cent. higher than they were in 1914. There is probably more poverty there than in any other area in Great Britain, bad as the other areas may be. We have somewhere about 0,000 unemployed. The elected guardians borrowed over £1,100,000, with the sanction of the Minister of Health. They had not been able, up to September last year, to pay off any principal, or even any interest on the loans. The present hoard have borrowed £75,000 and paid off £15,000, so that the area is £00,000 more in debt than it was before the appointed guardians took over their responsibilities.
There are several areas which, for some reason or another, have been disfranchised. There is an old axiom that taxation cannot be imposed without representation. The Minister has violated that canon and, for some reason known to himself, has disfranchised very large areas. The object of the Clause is to continue the disfranchisement of these areas until 1935, and the Amendment will leave it to the discretion of the Minister to discontinue the appointed guardians and to resume the functions of representation. It is a very reasonable Amendment. I protest with all the emphasis I can against the disfranchisement of these areas. It is a reflection upon the Government of the gravest kind that they should deprive these areas of their elected representatives. We have no redress of any kind whatever. The appointed guardians are administering the law in a most harsh, if not brutal fashion. The condition of the area is known throughout the whole of the country. Scarcely a week passes but some distinguished persons visit it and condemns the guardians' treatment of the poor. There is no reason why these areas should be selected for this special kind of treatment. They have committed no crime. The only offence that can be imputed to them is that they are very heavily in debt. Every loan that was made—I think there were about 20 altogether— 2927 was made entirely with the sanction of the Minister, and if the Minister objected to the scale of relief it was altered at his behest every time. The guardians resented their removal in the strongest possible way. They asked the Minister to see them so that they could give him a personal explanation.
I do not think the hon. Member can go into the merits of the Act that enables the Minister to appoint guardians on this Amendment. He will be quite in order in stating that it should not continue.
§ Mr. BARKER
I want to ensure that these guardians shall not be entrusted with power until 1935. That is the object of the Amendment, and if you are going to rule out of order any reference that can be made to the administration of these appointed guardians, how am I going to justify the Amendment, which you yourself, Sir, have accepted? I do, not want to disobey the Ruling of the Chair, but this is a very serious matter indeed for us and for many other areas, and it is a gross reflection upon someone that the area I represent should be disfranchised. I have here a most remarkable document. The Minister of Health is not a stranger to it. It shows the condition of the area. It is signed by 10 ministers of religion, including a Roman Catholic priest and two Anglican vicars. It is dated July, and says the situation was then so serious and the impoverishment of the people so acute that the area could not recover a measure of prosperity without substantial Government aid. It gives a number of cases showing the poverty of certain of the people. We have the case of a widow with six children whose total income is 36s., out of which 15s. has to be paid for rent, leaving 21s. to mainain the family, which is 3s. a head. That is a typical case, and we have others of a similar character.
If the Minister went himself and saw what I see every time I go home, he would be shocked. Last Saturday, a child went through the town with no stockings on her feet and with her boots all burst out. There was frost and snow on the ground. We took her into the Distress Committee Rooms and put new hoots on her. If we had not casually 2928 seen her in the street, she would have been walking about during the bitter winter and might possibly have contracted pneumonia and died. There are hundreds of cases of that character in the area, and, as the member representing it, I object as strongly as I can to its being disfranchised and: put under these irresponsible appointed guardians. I am not prepared to agree that this kind of thing should continue until 1935. It means that if we have a change of Government these people cannot be removed until we have legislation, and that will mean increasing the difficulties of the next Government, whatever Government it may be. Surely, if this matter is left to the discretion of the Minister, it is as much as the Minister could possibly ask. Why he should want it enacted by Statute that these guardians could not be removed unless the law were repealed passes my comprehension.
To penalise a neighbourhood because the collieries are not working is an outrageous and a monstrous thing, and should not be allowed to continue. This area has always been splendidly administered, and it is not the fault of the area that all this volume of unemployment is there. An area of this character should have the utmost possible freedom conceded to it, and not be disfranchised, and and have its misfortunes added to by being insulted in this way. The testimony that can be given from independent sources would convince this Committee that to-day the area is seething with destitution and misery. The Minister has taken up the attitude that the people in the area must get out of the area, but he does not say where they are to go. He shows no way out of this business. He is starving these people through these appointed guardians, and making their life nothing but a living hell. As long as I am in this House I will use all the power I have to condemn this action of the Minister in insulting some of the best people who ever lived in this country.
I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of the appointed guardians, or, indeed, to reply to the somewhat intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker).
I think they were somewhat intemperate, but I am 2929 not complaining. What I want to do is to remove certain misapprehensions which, it appears to me, are in the hon. Gentleman's mind as to the effect of the Amendment or as to the effect of the present Clause. In the first place, he says that the effect of this Clause is to continue the appointed guardians until the year 1935. That is not so.
But that makes all the difference. The hon. Member must not assume that the appointed guardians will in all cases be continued until 1935. It says "the Minister may make an Order." Not that he "shall" make, but that he "may" make an Order. Therefore the first point is that the Clause does not say that the guardians are to continue until 1935. It merely says that the Minister may make an Order.
§ Mr. LAWSON
If the right hon. Gentleman does not make an Order before 1935, can he make an Order afterwards?
But if an Order were made not later than 1930, the Order would be made at once. That brings me to the second point. The hon. Member said that once an Order was made it could not be revoked except by fresh legislation. I think he is mistaken there again, because if he will look at Clause 109, he will see in Sub-section (2) of that Clause the words:Except, as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, any order or scheme made under this Act may be altered or revoked by an order or scheme made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original order or scheme.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
It is so difficult to reconcile that with Clause 17, Sub-section (2, b), which says that when once made it "shall" remain in force.
That relates to the relief of the poor. That is the Poor Law Act, 1927. It does not apply to the Order.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
That is our difficulty. This particular Clause says that when the Minister has once made an Order it shall remain in full force under the Act.
That is the Poor Law Act. I do not think that that affects what, I said just now, that any Order under the Act, except so far as expressly provided elsewhere, may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order. Therefore, I put to the hon. Member this point. Supposing that I am the Minister who makes this Order. It is left entirely to my discretion under this Amendment whether I snake the period five years or something less. In that case, if I did make the Order, I should make it for a period of five years—for reasons into which I need not go now—as the time which would be suitable or proper, but if the contingency arose which he had in his mind, supposing this Government went out of office and were succeeded by another whose policy was quite different, it would be open to the Minister under that Government to make a fresh Order to revoke it altogether.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
It is a very difficult Clause to understand. It says expressly that power is given to the Minister to provide that the Order shall not come into operation until 1925, and that when he has made the Order, the Poor Law shall stand until 1935. In view of the Minister's explanation I should like to ask him whether he would not consider amending the words of this Clause. The fact that the Measure says he may extend the Order up to 1935, that the Poor Law shall remain in force until 1935, places the Order on an entirely different footing from any other. With the best will in the world, one cannot read it otherwise than as giving the Minister the choice either of allowing Part I of the Act to come into operation or of making an Order extending the period to 1935.
The hon. Member rose to ask a question of the Minister which I permitted, but I cannot allow her to make a speech. If I had realised that she wished to make a speech I should not have called her at that moment.
I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but my reading of the Clause as it stands is that, obviously, if an Order is made, then as respects the area for which the Order is made, the Poor Law Act, 1927, must remain in force until the date when the Order is annulled. The prolongation of the Poor Law Act is part of the Order. It says that the Order may provide that the Poor Law Act shall remain in force.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, on the Report stage, he will put in the words "Up to 1935 or such shorter time as the Minister may think fit."?
I do not at present see any point on which there is any doubt, but I will see whether there is any question which can be cleared up.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I do not intend to enter into the fine technical points which the Minister has raised. The right hon. Gentleman will not question for a moment that the effect of this Clause is to give him power to hold the Clause from operating so far as the appointed guardians are concerned. He asks that he should have the right to continue the appointed guardians as they are at present, if he so desires it. He excludes the appointed guardians from the operation of this Clause. What we want to do is to hinder him from operating a Clause of this description. The Committee knows very well that when the Guardians (Default) Act was brought before the House, even his own side were rather shocked by the drastic attack on democratic principles that ran through that Act. He made an arrangement whereby he had to come to the House every six months to ask for the right to continue the Order, and he had to lay the Order on the Table for 21 days. He has power, under this Clause, to make an Order to continue the appointed guardians, but after 1930 he has not that power.
Why are these appointed guardian areas excluded from the general plan of the Bill? Why, if he does not contemplate using it, does he put this Clause in the Bill, seeing that it contemplates the continuation of the punishment of the people fin these areas. It does not merely mean that he thinks the guardians who were originally in office when 2932 the Default Act was passed are unfit to act, and it does not merely disfranchise the electors who formerly elected the guardians, but it actually questions the ability of the county councils to run these areas.
I think the hon. Member is going rather far from the Amendment. The general discussion should be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The question as to whether the power to continue the guardians is to be given or not should be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," but not on this Amendment, the effect of which is to give the Minister power to shorten the time.
§ Mr. LAWSON
The effect of the Amendment is to limit the Clause, which says that the Minister "may."
I think the hon. Member has misread the effect of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to shorten the time. The effect of the next Amendment would be to shorten the period.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
I am in the same position as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. The Minister of Health knows that for a long time I and a number of my colleagues have been endeavouring to persuade him to dispense with the Commissioners of the Poor Law so far as the West Ham Poor Law area is concerned, but he has refused. In face of what the right hon. Gentleman has said on more than one occasion, and in face of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I am of opinion that as soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman will issue an Order that the present Poor Law Commissioners, so far as West Ham is concerned, are to remain in operation until 1935.
That is exactly the point of the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and which is to leave out the words "thirty-five" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty." That point, therefore, can be raised on the next Amendment.
§ Mr. THORNE
With respect, I submit that that does not touch the question which I have raised. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the Minister will have discretionary power to make an Order that the Poor Law Commissioners shall operate until 1935. We wish to prevent him from doing that. Assuming that he was not prepared to issue an Order at once, I am convinced that if, after the next General Election, his Government come back to office, he will keep the Commissioners operating until 1935. I am not quite sure where West Ham stands. He referred to the part or whole of the union. I am not sure whether he has decided to cut one part of the union adrift, or otherwise. I see the danger in this Clause, and the
§ Amendment would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from doing what we fear. Owing to the fall of the guillotine at 10.30, we shall not be able to discuss Clause 17 in all its bearings, otherwise I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would be in for rather a rough time. I should like to have an opportunity to discuss the deletion of the Clause, because I and my colleagues have sonic awkward things to say in regard to the Poor Law Commission at West Ham.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 198.2935
|Division No. 90.]||AYES.||[8.47 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Hardie, George D.||Riley, Ben|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Sexton, James|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South;||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barr, J.||Hollins, A.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shinwell, E.|
|Bellamy, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kelly, W. T.||Strauss, E. A|
|Buchanan, G.||Kennedy, T.||Sullivan, J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Kirkwood, D.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lansbury, George||Taylor, P. A.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawrence, Susan||Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, John James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Compton, Joseph||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lindley, F. W.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Longbottom, A. W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lowth, T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lunn, William||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Mackinder, W.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||MacLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Day, Harry||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Dennison, R.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||March, S.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Dunnico, H.||Maxton, James||Westwood, J.|
|Edge, Sir William||Montague, Frederick||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Murnin, H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gillett, George M.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wright, W.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Astor, Viscountess||Berry, Sir George|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Atkinson, C.||Bethel, A.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Apsley, Lord||Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bevan, S. J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bennett, A. J.||Birchall, Major J. Dearman|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hacking, Douglas H.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hamilton, Sir George||Philipson, Mabel|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R,||Hanbury, C.||Preston, William|
|Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Harland, A.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hartington, Marquess of||Ramsden, E.|
|Buchan, John||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Burman, J. B.||Haslam, Henry C.||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Henderson. Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chis'y)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cassels, J. O.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Hills, Major John Waller||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hilton, Cecil||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sandon, Lord|
|Cockerill, Brig-General sir George||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Savery, S. S.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)|
|Colfox, Major Win. Phillips||Hume, Sir G. H.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Conway, Sir w. Martin||Hurst, Gerald||Smith-Carington, Neville w.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Iliffe, sir Edward M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Iveagh, Countess of||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lamb, J. Q.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Little. Dr. E. Graham||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Loder, J. de V.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Looker, Herbert William||Thorn, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lougher, Lewis||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Ellis, R. G.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Manninaham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Margesson, Captain D.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Forrest W.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Meyer, Sir Frank||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.||Wells, S. R.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J.C. T,||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Withers. John James|
|Goff, Sir Park||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Grace, John||Nuttall, Ellis||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Oakley, T.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Oman, sir Charles William C.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Pennefather, Sir John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Penny, Frederick George||Major Sir William Cope and Captain|
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, to leave out the word "thirty-five" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-one."
This is a very curious Clause. It does not say that the Minister may make an Order at any time, but that he may either bring the whole Bill into operation or make an Order saying that the Act shall not come into operation until 1935; that the 1st of April, 1935, shall be the appointed day that the Poor Law Act of 1927 shall continue in force until that date; and that the administrative scheme 2936 shall be prepared between April, 1934, and April, 1935. Taking these three things together, taking the extreme mandatory form of the Clause, it seems as if the Minister's own hands were tied very tightly. I want to ask him whether he will consider re-drafting this Clause and give himself or his successor rather more liberty. Suppose the Minister makes an Order prolonging the life of the appointed guardians up to 1935; then in West Ham, Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty, there will be a little island of the old Poor Law in the middle of a reformed scheme of Poor Law relief.
2937 Take my own constituency. To the people in the West Ham Union, Part II of this Bill will not apply. The Poor Law guardians will remain guardians. The Poor Law rate under the Act of 1927 will be levied within the old borders of West Ham and nowhere else in the county of Essex. The same will be the case with the other two exceptional or victim unions. But Part VI, the de-rating, will take effect; the provision with regard to the new block grants for urban districts and so forth will take effect; and the position of ratepayers in parts of the West Ham Union will be extraordinary. Take the two fringes of the West Ham Union, Leyton and Walthamstow. They belong to Essex. Their Poor Law burdens are to be spread over the whole of Essex. As long as the West Ham Union remains in being these two urban districts will continue to bear their very heavy share of the Poor Law. They will suffer losses from de-rating, and being urban districts they will be only compensated by the flat rate of grant which is calculated for urban and rural districts that do not bear any burden of the Poor Law.
It is a very strange state of affairs. As long as Part I remains in force, as long as the appointed guardians continue, the poor rate for the exceptional union will remain the same. The new scheme for grants will come in, and with regard to the urban and rural districts the new grant is calculated on the assumption that they will be relieved by their poor rate being spread over the whole of the county. I noticed that the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking at Wanstead, carried to his constituents the glad news that the scheme of the Minister of Health would give 5s. and more relief of rates to his constituents. A very pleasant thing it was for any Member to go and tell his friends. But that cannot take place under Clause 17. The greater part of the excessive rates of Wanstead and Walthamstow and Leyton comes from the fact that they carry so great a part of the burdens of so poor a unit. Until the appointed guardians have said good-bye that relief cannot come. Looking at the figures it appears to me that the greater part of that 5s. relief to Leyton and Walthamstow, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency, was due to the spreading of the rates. At present they 2938 carry a very large part of the expenditure of West Ham.
That is the sort of difficulty which will occur in any necessitous area which is prolonged under its own set of guardians. It will in addition receive only the grant suitable to urban districts which are not burdened with their own poor. The financial position is the most curious and despairing in the wide world. I do not understand what is to be done with regard to the rates in those districts that have remained little islands of the old-fashioned Poor Law in the middle of the new Poor Law scheme, with the whole system of rates and grants altered, as they are altered, under Part VI of this Bill. I do ask why, with every other board of guardians abolished, with all these excellent ladies and gentlemen for whom everyone has a good word having to go out of force pitilessly in 1930—I ask why these persons appointed by the Minister are to remain in power for seven years. I could perfectly well understand the Minister continuing them in force till 1930. You do not want to have a new guardians election when the guardians are done, hut why keep the appointed guardians alive for seven years? Why should their life be prolonged for that time and all the old boards of guardians who have done so well be turned out in 1930?
There is another point. Seven years is a very long time. There will be very important questions connected with the transfer of property to be settled. In my own union, the union of which East Ham is a part, very expensive buildings have been built by the common contribution of all four districts. Under this scheme that union will be broken up, part of it going to Essex and part of it, apparently, to the county borough union. There will arise difficult questions as to the shares of the localities in the property. They have contributed equally to buy it. The amount that they have given has varied according to their resources, but not according to their needs. No one knows better than the Minister with what a jealous eye local authorities regard the disposition of their property. I do say that A is quite improper that three gentlemen appointed by the Minister, strangers to the locality, not representing the ratepayers, should have power to 2939 deal, over the heads of the ratepayers, with property that has been paid for by the ratepayers. I cannot see the least justification for it. There are, and there will be, the urban districts, the county of Essex, and the county boroughs. Why should not these authorities settle among themselves, without the appointed guardians coming in at all, who shall have each piece of property, and what the claim of those who surrender their management and rights of the property shall be? These people will be charged with the disposal of a great quantity of ratepayers' property without consultation with the ratepayers.
I come back to the point, however, that it is for the Minister to justify his Clause and to tell us why these people are to be treated with such special favour and kindness, and why their areas are to be continued for seven years, and to have this exemption under the scheme. It is for the Minister to tell us how he imagines that a locality of that kind can continue as a little island in the middle of the county under the unreformed Poor Law, while the whole of the rest of the county is going on under the new scheme. I have never heard a more unbusinesslike proposal. It is not as though the year 1930 were to-morrow. There is a year in which to make schemes, in which to settle this question of getting some sort of elected persons into the saddle. We, therefore, press the Minister on this matter, not merely from the point of view of preference for elected guardians, not merely from the point of view of democracy, but from the point of view of businesslike procedure, to agree to this Amendment.
For my purposes it makes very little difference whether the year 1930 or the year 1931 be taken. In fact, although in deference to a point of Order, the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has substituted another date, yet I think she will herself agree that all her arguments are applicable to the date 1930. Indeed I think it is obvious that it would not be worth while continuing the guardians for a single year. Either we must abolish the guardians at once and allow their areas to come into the general provisions of the scheme, or else a reason- 2940 able time must be allowed for arrangements to be made. The hon. Lady in her interesting analysis of the situation has again denounced the unbusinesslike methods of a proposal which is not in fact the proposal contained in the Clause. I think once again she has read the Clause too hastily and has too hastily assumed something which it does not really express.
That is not the point I am discussing at the moment. I want to address myself not to whether the Clause should be wiped out or not, but to the arguments used by the hon. Member for East Ham North. She has pointed out that if, under an Order made by virtue of this Clause, the present union of West Ham were to continue as it is to-day, a very difficult question would arise with regard to the finances of the various authorities concerned. Why does the hon. Member assume, even if an Order were made, that it would necessarily prolong the existence of the present union? That is not what the Clause says. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the Clause she will see that under Sub-section (2):The Minister may, by order declare that as respects the whole or any part of such union,
It is not to be assumed, even if an order be made, that such an order will necessarily preserve the present union in its present form. Supposing such an order were made to split up the union of West Ham and to separate off the parts of the union which are outside the county boroughs of West Ham and East Ham and turn those parts over to Essex, then the comforting words said to have been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his constituents, might not be found so far from the truth as the hon. Member supposed. Once again I submit that the hon. Member had no right to assume, as she did continually in her speech, that an order made under this Clause would apply to all three areas which have now appointed guardians. The position in the three areas is very different and it is by no 2941 means certain that the same order would apply to all three. An order may be made in one case and not in another.
It is quite certain, for instance, that the situation in West Ham is very different from the situation in Chester-le-Street. In the case of Chester-le-Street, the effect of allowing the general provisions of the scheme to come into force would be that the area of charge for Poor Law would be spread over the whole county; in other words, it would be enlarged and the functions now performed by the various boards of guardians in the county would be transferred to the county council. It is at once apparent that you have an entirely different situation in West Ham, because, there, under the normal provisions of the scheme, the area of charge for Poor Law would not be enlarged. On the contrary, it would be narrowed. It would be diminished. According to the general plan of the scheme the county borough is a self-contained unit, and the county council is a self-contained unit. Therefore, if no order were made under this Clause, in West Ham for example, West Ham itself would have the functions of the guardians transferred to it, and East Ham in its turn would have the functions of the guardians transferred to it, and the rest of the union would go under the Essex County Council. It is quite obvious that the financial implications in the two classes of case are quite different. While I am not saying now what orders will be made or will not made, I beg of hon. Members opposite not to proceed on the assumption that these cases are alike, and that the same procedure will necessarily be followed in those areas which may be dealt with under this Clause.
§ Mr. THORNE
Has the Minister not power, if he thinks proper, to cut away Leyton and Wanstead and keep the others intact?
That might be the inevitable effect with regard to the West Ham Union if this Clause does not come into operation.
§ Mr. THORNE
Then you chop out the two divisions in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency, and they get the benefit while we are penalised.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I was not discussing the position of the exceptional areas because I say that the Minister can make such arrangements as he sees fit under Clause III. But Clause 111 is Clause 111 and this is only the question of keeping the permanent guardians in force. That is another thing and I was most careful in dealing with it—
§ Miss LAWRENCE
But the Minister's argument was that the exceptional area might not be cut out. He can do that under Clause 111 without keeping the appointed guardians in force. I did not discuss Clause 111. The point of this Clause is whether it is necessary to keep the appointed guardians alive or not.
§ Mr. LAWSON
The right hon. Gentleman told us a good many things but he has not told us why he put this Clause into the Bill. The object distinctly is the continuance of the appointed guardians and that is the root of the matter which we want to discuss, and I understand that the discussion on the previous Amendment was limited in order that we might devote some time to this question. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to use the power of this Clause, I cannot see why the guardians need not he appointed through the public assistance committee. I should have thought that his experience of the appointed guardians has not been as happy and as successful as he expected. At any rate, in respect to the guardians in my own Division, they have now got to the stage that they dare not even report upon their proceedings. At least, in the other two areas where appointed guardians are in operation they have thought they were called upon to give an account of their stewardship to the House of Commons, but in Chester-le-Street they do not even think it worth while to give the Minister a report, though I really wonder whether that is the case and whether the Minister has not really got a report. On the last occasion when he issued one, the report published by the Chester-le-Street guardians was in some respects pathetic, while in others it was comical, to the degree that the Press extracted from it a considerable number of paragraphs for the entertainment of the public.
2943 The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us to-night whether he is satisfied with the results of these appointed guardians. Is he satisfied for instance with the administration in Chester-le-Street, where two men who have had no experience of public life whatever get £500 a year each? Is he satisfied with a state of things where his guardians give 12s. a week to a woman and 2s. for each child in a family? The House and the country have been greatly moved by the condition of things in the distressed areas, so much so that I venture to say it is that spirit of good will which has ultimately compelled the Government to act in respect to those areas. It is typical of this country, and I believe that, if we could get a decision from the country as to what is happening in these areas where the appointed guardians are operating, the Government would be shamed into sending these guardians about their business, just as they have been shamed into acting in regard to the distressed areas.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman many times—and sometimes it has been the Parliamentary Secretary, usually after 11 o'clock at night, when he has given a reply worthy of a debate after 11—whether he agrees with the granting of the allowances which I have mentioned, which are the usual allowances, with rare exceptions, namely, 12s. a week for a woman, 2s. for each child, and nothing for an able-bodied man. These people with whom we are dealing are not the old, outcast, unemployed wreckage that used to be dealt with by the Poor Law, in the years gone by; they are some of the best heads of families in the county. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some reasons for putting this Clause in the Bill. If these appointed guardians are retained in office, they will have to dispose of the property of the ratepayers, they will have to do business with the county council, turn over the properties, make arrangements for the transfer of the staff, and many matters of that kind.
The provisions for the transference of property are dealt with under the Bill—it is not a question of discretion left to the appointed guardians—and in regard to the officers, they would not be transferred in this case.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the ordinary boards of guardians will have no say as to how the property is to be transferred, that it will be done over their heads?
§ Mr. LAWSON
It is very difficult to understand, but I thought that what was saying was one of the things that was agreed upon on all sides.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I understood it was clear that the guardians had to make the arrangements for the transference, and, if that is the case—and we are not going to accept that it is not the case—then, of course, all that happens is that you continue these guardians, who cannot write a report, for the purpose of dealing with other people's property. I think the Committee is entitled to fairly clear reasons why this Clause is put into the Bill at all if it is not the intention of the Minister to continue the operations of these appointed guardians, and if he is going to continue them, then I ask him to justify the operations of the guardians in Chester-le-Street, Abertillery and elsewhere which result in giving people the allowances that I have mentioned. Finally, I will ask him, if he wants to carry out the expressed intention of this Bill and to have efficient administration, to clear these people out of office as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) talked about 1930, but I want to see the end of these people, as I dare say she does too, by the end of 1928. We have had enough of them. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes points out that we do not write to him. I do not send any letters to him now, because the letters that I used to send were sent back to the guardians, who replied to him, and it was a case of "As you were." We have had to resort to other means; we have had to take surreptitious means to get people's claims dealt with, to such an extent did they badger people.
§ Mr. RENNIE SMITH
This particular Clause 17 is a blot on the escutcheon of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to 2945 have forgotten that we are discussing a Local Government Bill, and an impartial observer trying to work out the effects of the Bill would draw, as one of his first conclusions, that a Bill which is intended to reform local government would, essentially, reform those parts of the country where local government has come to an end, and that it would be essential to have these three areas restored to an effective system of local government. That would really be the first test of the efficiency and success of any scheme for the reform of local government. The Minister knows that I am not one of the unhappy people who have to represent these three areas which have lost the historic right of local government in the course of the lifetime of the present Ministry. I have not that unhappy responsibility, and I am not in the position, therefore, to implement the details so ably put forward by the two hon. Members who have spoken from a very bitter, intimate, and prolonged experience with regard to two of these three particular areas.
I do want, therefore, to submit to the Minister that, looking at these things on general ground, he is attempting, first, to say to the Committee: "I have been using these dictatorial rights with regard to these three areas for the purpose of local government, and I propose under this great historic Bill for the reform of local government to retain these powers, and, if I can, to inhibit or make it as difficult as possible for the nation to resume local government in these three areas until 1935." I submit that it is not an over statement, but the language of moderation, to say that Clause 17, looking at the Bill in terms of general principle, is really a very nasty blot on the escutcheon. In replying to matters of detail, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address the Committee on the main intentions that lie beneath this particular Clause.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
In the early part of the Debate, when the Minister got up to reply, he said that one of my hon. Friends had made a very impassioned speech. I want to suggest that, if he were representing the Divisions we are representing, he would be quite as impassioned as we are and quite as angry. I am snore than convinced that, if the Birmingham Board of Guardians was operating in the brutal 2946 manner that the Poor Law Commissioners in West Ham are operating, he would be as impassioned as we are. He knows perfectly well that in the union areas of Birmingham the poor people are very much better treated than they are in the Borough of West Ham here the Poor Law Commissioners are operating.
I have risen for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, but, although I am supporting it, I do not think it will have the desired effect. As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that if the Clause were removed altogether, it would not give what we want, because, as long as the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act of 1926 is in operation, you have all the powers given to the Poor Law Commissioners in operation, because you have only to extend them for six months and on to 12 months. We want the complete abolition of these Commissioners. Take their extravagance! It may seem rather strange, but I am more than convinced that, if the Borough Council of West Ham were looking after its own poor, we could actually save more money than these Commissioners. I am up against this extravagance because, bad as the old board was before 1926, you have only to look at the report and you will find salaries and wages at that time were £70,000 per annum. If you look at the report for 1928, you will find that salaries and wages are £93,000. That is a jump of £23,000. Where has the money gone? I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to get up and contradict it if he can. We could have saved that 23,000, or at least a part of it, in West Ham.
You can rest assured that as long as the Poor Law Commissioners are operating in West Ham or anywhere else, and you deny the right of the people to elect their own guardians, we shall certainly enter our most emphatic protest. I repeat that, as soon as this Bill is through, although I am not a prophet, I can see both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary making an Order at once for these Poor Law Commissioners operate until 1935, but long before 1935 the pair of them will be removed from that bench. We shall then have the opportunity of revoking the Order and sending these Commissioners about their business, so that the people will then have the right to elect their own representatives and to deal with their own poor in their own 2947 way. I say unhesitatingly that the way in which these Commissioners ale operating in West Ham is absolutely brutal. I could send the right hon. Gentleman cases which I receive day by day, but I have got sick and tired either of reporting them to him or to the Poor Law Commissioners, because it is absolutely useless. Therefore, we want to get rid of these Commissioners, and, whether this Bill is passed or not, as soon as we get over to the other side of the House—and we will get there some day—it will be revoked, and we shall give people their democratic right. You talked about democracy the other day, but there is nothing democratic about you to-day, and we shall revoke the Order.
§ Mr. PALING
The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) asked questions of detail about the possibility of dividing the unions, one into a county area and one into a borough. The Minister gave some explanations, but I have never heard him attempt to explain why he thinks it is necessary to keep these powers under this Clause. When the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was passed, the argument was that here were guardians who were guilty of extravagance and a great many more sins, and that, in order to rectify this and to bring expenditure in accord with revenue, you must take their powers away and put an appointed board of guardians in. I can appreciate that from the Tory point of view, but now that the guardians are going to be abolished all over the country, why on earth cannot the same Local Government Bill which applies to other boards of guardians apply also to these boards of guardians? Is the reason that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary suspect that if these appointed guardians are shifted the power to deal with the poor will then be in the hands of people of whom he does not approve? Is that the reason? Is it because, if the powers used by the appointed guardians were abolished, control would be given where the Labour party is in a majority on the council? If that is not the reason, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is. The Committee have a right to know why this Clause 2948 is put in. The Minister never attempted to give an answer. Surely, now that guardians are being abolished, it is not asking too much that they shall be abolished all over the country, and that West Ham, or the Essex County Council, or the county council in Wales, or wherever the appointed guardians are, shall have the same powers put into their hands as every other county or county borough throughout the country. If they are not to be entrusted with these powers, the least that the Committee can expect from the Minister is that he should tell us why they cannot be entrusted, and why the Government are reserving these powers in this Clause.
§ Mr. C. EDWARDS
It appears to me that this Clause is a provision of pure spitefulness. The three authorities where appointed guardians are serving simply offended the Minister, and he says: "Very well, they shall continue for another seven years." I suppose that is why this Clause has been inserted. Or is it because the appointed guardians made their own conditions when they took on the business? They knew that it would be an unpopular and a soul-destroying business. Did they impose their own conditions, and say that if they took it on, they were to be secure for so many years The Minister said that it might not go on until 1935. That is not any reason why we should have this Clause. The real intention seems to be to give these people another lease of life. Why not allow Monmouthshire and Durham, for instance, to start out on the same conditions as other counties? The Poor Law administration is being altered for England and Scotland, but three areas in the whole of the country are to treated differently. It is not fair to those counties. Powers are to be sought to enable these guardians to transfer property and so on. They may transfer property against the wishes of the county council and, if the county councils are to be the administrative bodies eventually, why should any other body have the right to transfer property or to do things which the county councils would like to regain? They might have to purchase some of this property again at very enhanced prices. It is not fair to them to be put in a different position from other counties.
Until now we have been able to discuss these matters every six months, and if 2949 we were not satisfied with the work of these appointed guardians, we had the right to discuss it. Now, however, we are to go for seven years, without having the right to raise the matter. The Minister might say that it may not be seven years, but seven years has been put in the Clause, and I rather think that the appointed guardians have laid down conditions that they are to be kept for that time. It means that in the places affected there will be administrators who will be paid for their services, while the county councillors will have to do their work for nothing. The whole things appears to be wrong from top to bottom. Then, again, there is the question of superannuation. The appointed guardians may decide upon one figure, and the county council, which is eventually to become the authority, may want another figure, so that in these counties there might be two different superannuation schemes running. That, again, is unfair. Then there are certain revenues which are to be kept by the authorities for their own purposes except in these three areas, and there are other assigned revenues which are to be abolished except in these areas, and the loss of them is to be replaced by Exchequer grants. Are those grants to be withheld from the three areas where the appointed guardians are 7 According to the White Paper, the benefit to Monmouthshire is 1s. 5d. Is that to be withheld from the district in that county where appointed guardians are serving? The Clause ought to be withdrawn, and the counties ought to be allowed to start on the same level throughout the country.
§ Mr. MARCH
I cannot understand why the Government should bring forward a Clause like this. When the Government appointed guardians in the place of the other guardians, it was because the latter were not giving satisfaction. Now that the Government are doing away with hoards of guardians entirely, surely this would be a right and proper time to dispense with appointed guardians, and allow the county councils to take over the whole control, and to get on with their co-opted people, of whom the Government seem to be so proud. The Government's object in this Clause seems to be to keep the appointed guardians in office so that there may be a possibility of their getting superannuation. I understand that they are well paid civil servants, and that they will probably have the right of 2950 having superannuation for the services they have already rendered. Will the same set of people get another lot of superannuation? If not, why are they being kept on?
Surely the county councils or the county boroughs concerned would be able to take up the responsibility of doing the work as well as other councils where the elected boards of guardians are to be dispensed with. To do the honest and right thing, surely it is better to get rid of the appointed guardians and to leave the councils concerned to get on with their work along with the other councils. Then we should probably have an opportunity of seeing how the councils work, and whether they all work on the same basis, or whether they are under-cutting or overriding one or the other. The proper way is to give them all a start together, and let them do the work which is being imposed upon them by this Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I do not want to inflict myself on the Committee if the Parliamentary Secretary will very kindly reply to the multitude of questions which have been put to him. Will he tell us why the Minister wants to retain the powers in this Clause until 1935? Does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to answer? I am waiting to hear. Well, then, I must go on. It seems to me that the policy of both right hon. Gentlemen is to allow their opponents to make speeches and then trust to their supporters who are not in the House to vote us down, although they know nothing about the point under discussion, and though the Ministers themselves have not, taken the trouble to give their reasons why the Amendment should be opposed. I admit that I was wrong just now when I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman on the question of property, and that boards of guardians have little, if any, say as to how the property shall be transferred; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that even though that is in the Act it is usual for the authority whose property is to be transferred to be considered. On that score I still think that the three gentlemen at West Ham, the three at Bedwellty and the three at Chester-le-Street are not the proper people to represent the ratepayers in that matter; and in regard to a very much more important question they are not the right people to represent the ratepayers.
2951 As the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March) has just pointed out, very big questions, big from the personal point of view, will arise in regard to officers who do not care to be transferred and who, from the point of view of age or infirmity, are eligible for superannuation. I do not think that three men pitchforked into a district are the right people to decide on what terms old officers should be transferred or superannuated. I am speaking now from the point of view of one who during a good many years has had to do with the superannuation of officers. One gets accustomed to an officer, one understands his work and, what is more, understands his worth. One understands the services which have been rendered, quite apart from their money value—services to which no monetary value can be attached; and when the time comes for superannuating those persons the people who are best able to judge whether a few years should be added to their term of service or not are not people like those who have been sent into the districts I have named, as a penalty on the localities, and who have no knowledge of the previous service of the men and women serving under them. They are not in a position to give that sort of sympathetic consideration which, I should have thought, the Minister would have been only too willing to see applied in such circumstances. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman smiling or smirking or shaking his head. I happen to know in connection with our own board at Poplar that what is worrying all the older officers is whether they will be superannuated by the Board which knows them, or whether we shall hand them over to a new authority which has no idea of the services they have rendered.
It is for these reasons that I feel it to be a real outrage to leave this power in the hands of the appointed guardians in the three unions concerned. The question with regard to these men ought to be settled at the same time as we deal with the other guardians. Up to the present, neither of the Ministers has given us the slightest reason for retaining these men in office. It may be argued, in the case of West Ham, that there will have to be some special arrangement made in regard to West Ham as a Poor Law area. About that my hon. Friends 2952 the Members for that district know better that I do, but it is certain that the Minister can just as well make this arrangement before the Act comes into operation as retain those men in office until 1935. Surely the question of dealing with part of this area will arise when the Bill begins to operate? The Minister said that he is not sure that he will be able to deal with all the three districts in the same manner; but one thing he did do, and that was to devote some of the few words which he deigned to bestow upon the Committee to dealing with the case of West Ham and the county of Essex.
What I want to say in reply to him, and what I want to emphasize, is that the question of what to do with West Ham will remain whether there are appointed guardians there or elected guardians, and it is a question which ought to be settled whenever this Bill comes into operation. There is no reason why West Ham should not get whatever benefits there may be from the equalisation of burdens at the same moment as Poplar, its next door neighbour. For the life of me I cannot see why that should not he so, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to stand up when I sit down—and I will sit down now if he wishes for the opportunity—to tell us why these appointed guardians are to he maintained in office. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar has put forward one reason, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say upon that. Have the nine gentlemen concerned a secret agreement with the Minister for a certain term of years? Will the Treasury have to compensate them if the ratepayers of West Ham and Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street are relieved of the responsibility of continuing their salaries? We would like an answer to that question.
Further, in the case of the Durham County Council, or in the case of the council of the county in which Bedwellty is situated—[HON. MEMBERS "Monmouthshire"]—well, part of Monmouthshire,—does the right hon. Gentleman carry his objection to elected representatives of the people to the extent of saying that those who will be elected for those areas are unfit to administer the Poor Law and that he must continue the 2953 appointed guardians in office? What reason can he give to the people of these districts, except that he thinks those who will lie elected will be unfit to carry out the duties which will be imposed upon them by this Act? The Parliamentary Secretary said last night that we believed in democracy when it acted as we wanted it to act. That is exactly the position of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary, because they believe in elected representatives when those representatives do what they think is right.
The whole quarrel with regard to elected guardians arises because certain other guardians did not carry out the law in a way approved of by the two right hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned, and because they administered the Poor Law in a fashion that caused the rates to go up and entailed considerable expenditure. I am aware that these gentlemen whom it is proposed to continue in office have reduced the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief, but their policy and the policy which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has imposed upon other boards, and particularly in West Ham, Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street, in my opinion alone responsible for the position in which the people in the coalfields find themselves to-day. We should have no need or cause to go to the public for subscriptions if these nine gentlemen and others like them had done their duty. The people responsible for that state of things are the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting opposite.
Do the Government propose that the nine appointed guardians shall continue until 1935 for the purpose of continuing a policy which they dare not allow the electors to pass any opinion upon? If that is so, why should you single out the people in those particular areas and say you will retain power to do that in those areas? It is no use hon. Members telling us that we are taking it for granted that the Minister of Health is going to do certain things. We judge the right hon. Gentleman by his past record, and we know that when he takes power to do certain things, we are quite certain of the direction in which he will exercise them. The Minister of Health has never exercised his powers in order to compel the guardians to give more to the poor people. The only people the 2954 right hon. Gentleman supports are these nine appointed gentlemen who have done their level best to starve the poor in the districts which they have administered.
There has never been in the history of the Poor Law, so brutal, so callous and so sordid an administration of the Poor Law as that which has been carried out by these appointed guardians. Never in the very worst days of 1834 when out-door relief was stamped out was the condition of things worse, and that was the time when Disraeli, Dickens and Kingsley, wrote about the horrors of the new Poor Law. I think it would do the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary good to read "Sybil" and then they would be improving their minds by reading something that the great founder of modern Conservatism wrote. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite would find in the pages of "Sybil" an exact counterpart of these nine appointed gentlemen which the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary want to keep in office because those gentlemen have reduced the persons coming up for relief to a less level than what is called the worst paid independent labourer. Not merely that, hut they have said to the ex-service men, to the widows of ex-service men, to the little child who has got a grant from the State because its father was killed in the War: "Your income shall be taken into account in assessing the needs of your family." Nothing more contemptible has ever been heard of in this country. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may sneer about my statement as they please, but the people outside this House, thank God, are beginning to understand what this kind of administration means. Not only have the Government done those things to these wretched people, not only have they taken away hundreds of pounds a year in addition to the pensions they already draw, but these gentlemen have had the impudence to take away a disability allowance and take that into account in assessing the need of a family and in order to decide whether the man is destitute or not. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not say that when they were asking these men to go and fight for this country over in France and Flanders. Then they were heroes, but now you treat them worse than ever men and women have been treated before 2955 under the Poor Law. Is it to perpetuate that sort of thing that you want these conditions to prevail until 1935? Is it because you feel that these gentlemen have not done enough mischief and that the poor have not suffered enough that you propose that another period of five or six years should be allowed for this kind of thing to go on? If it is not for that then stand up and tell the House what it is for. If you do not do so, then I think we are entitled to say that the reason you will not do it is because you dare not trust the electors of those districts to continue the infamous policy that these nine appointed guardians have been guilty of for the last three years.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
The remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) induced me to consider for a moment what it was that this system of appointed guardians was introduced to supersede. The charge has been made that because we would not trust the electors in those districts that we were undemocratic. The first pamphlet which I find issued on this subject refers to Chester-le-Street. Hon. Members will recollect that the first accusation made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley against the Government was that they believed that the electors would elect guardians of his own particular complexion, not supporters of the present Government. May I point out that in 1926 the chairman of the emergency committee elected members to supplement the previous members of the board. On that occasion did the chairman elect members of the Tory party or even of the Liberal party? Not a bit of it. On that occasion the chairman suggested that the members of the Labour party on the board should be added to the committee, and not either Tory members or Liberal members. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley talks about undemocratic action and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) looks upon this Clause as the one blot on the Conservative escutcheon.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
He and, I think, some other hon. Members, gave us an account of the smallness of the relief given to women and children. I do not think that anybody on this side of the Committee would agree that the relief given is excessive, but what we do agree is that the relief is given on fair and equal terms to those who require it. Therefore, on the words of hon. Members opposite, one would at least have assumed that the former guardians gave their relief without fear, partiality or faction. What do I see? I see a resolution passed by one of these relief committees as follows:Resolved, that applicants for relief who are un-financial to their union owing to their own fault be not granted relief according to scale.The hon. Gentleman talks about the ex-service man, but, as regards the ex-service man who refuses to join a union and whose wife and children are starving, do they get any sympathy from the party opposite? Not a bit.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I make the hon. and gallant Gentleman a present of all that, but will he produce any case of an individual who was refused relief under that resolution? I have given the Government cases, and they have not answered them.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
The hon. Gentleman has seen the White Papers on the subject, and he has no right to accuse us of being unfair to ex-service men when here it appears that all that those local authorities care for is whether a man is a trade unionist or not.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
What I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do—[Interruption.] Do not let hon. Members be so eager; the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given way. The only point between us is that he has not produced a single scintilla of evidence that any individual was dealt with—[Interruption.] I am not in the House of Commons because I had a university education. I had to graduate in the school of experience, and, if I pronounce a word wrongly, it does not lie in the lips of the right hon. Gentleman to—
I cannot help thinking that we are getting rather away from the question whether these particular guardians should be continued in office.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The point between myself and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he gave way to me, was that he has read out a Resolution while I have given individual cases. I challenge the Minister to contradict them, and I challenge the hon. and gallant Member to give a single instance where an ex-service man, either in Durham or elsewhere, was refused outdoor or any other relief that he needed, because he did not belong to a union.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I think the Committee will agree that it is much more damaging to the ease of the hon. Gentleman to take the actual resolution, which distinctly says that the man shall be judged according to whether or not he is financial or unfinancial in his union. There is another case here, where a relief committee decided that, in cases where men are unfinancial to their trade union—the words "trade union" being actually mentioned—the full scale should not he granted for six weeks, but that each case should be dealt with on its merits. The hon. Gentleman can, perhaps, read into that that ex-service men will have special consideration, but I think that the ex-service man has very little likelihood of receiving any special consideration at all if he does not belong to a trade union. I have only quoted from two pages of the Report of the appointed guardians, and I think the Committee will be prepared to decide whether the appointment of these guardians was necessary. I suggest that all the fine and flowery epithets of the hon. Gentleman, and the extraordinary wave of indignation on the part of those behind him, were most misplaced. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should read "Sybil." I would suggest to him that he should take a, party upstairs into a Committee Boom on these pamphlets regarding Chester-le-Street and other places. [Interruption.]
I think the dragging in of ex-service men by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) will be best appreciated if it is put in contrast with some of the other cases that have been referred to. I want, if I may, to make an appeal to the Minister. We have not had a word of explanation as to why Clause 17 is being persisted in, and at this I feel a little surprised and a 2958 little hurt. I desire to plead that Monmouthshire, a neighbouring county to my own, should be allowed to have a fair start. If Bedwellty, which covers a large part of Monmouthshire, is going to be taken away from the county by the operation of this Clause, Monmouthshire will be dealt with very unjustly and inequitably. If these Commissioners are allowed to continue in operation, nearly half the county will be taken away when the new Act comes into force
There is a second reason. There are in Bedwellty a very large number of old officers who will have to be dealt with in some form or other, and surely the people who have the information and knowledge with regard to the work these old officers have performed are the best persons to deal with the question of their transfer and superannuation. For these two reasons, I want to ask the Minister that all three local government authorities should be allowed to start with all the other counties and county boroughs and that he should withdraw the Clause and begin with a clean slate. Whatever our sins of commission or omission may have been in the past, there is no reason why we should continue, and there is every reason why the Commissioners should be withdrawn, and the three places should be allowed to start along with the other counties and county boroughs.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
As far as I know anything at all about Durham, the ex-service men there are the strongest supporters of the Labour party. There were ex-service men upon these very committees that passed these resolutions, and it was clone because the men who were in receipt of funds from their trade unions were having their allowance from the guardians reduced in consequence, and the whole thing was done for the purpose of equalising benefits all the way round. You could not expect anything else under the circumstances. As far as one can see, it was perfectly fair and it was clone with the knowledge, connivance and assistance of the ex-service men's organisation in the county. I will challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to go to Durham in his capacity of an ex-officer and attempt to stir up the ex-service men's organisation to vote against the Labour party, which he says was guilty of this outrageous thing.
2959 I should like to put to the Minister the extraordinary position that is going to arise, particularly in these two counties of Durham and Monmouth. I take it one of the effects of this Bill will be a kind of equalisation of treatment for the whole of the various county areas. Under the Bill, the old boards of guardians will be wiped out. In any case, there will be no re-establishment of the offending boards of guardians. An entirely new organisation will come into being. Is it to be said that you are going to have differential treatment in two parts of the same county operated by one authority? If the new authority in Monmouthshire cannot he trusted to deal with poor relief outside the present Bedwellty Union, why does not the Minister at once appoint guardians to supersede or take over the whole of the county? That seems to me to be the logic of the situation. How is he going to get over the difficulty? These new authorities are coming into being. It is fair to assume that a different policy will be pursued. Had there been an offending authority in a county like Middlesex or Surrey, or some strong Conservative county, the Minister would not have put this Clause in his Bill. He would not have done it in a Conservative county. He is really doing it because these two counties are strong Labour counties.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) has been inviting my right hon. Friend and myself to make a statement as to the whole position, and we should have been in a position to have done so if hon. Gentlemen opposite, following their tactics throughout yesterday and to-day, had not wasted considerable time. [Interruption.] They have spent their time in discussing whether "thirty-one" should take the place of "thirty-five" instead of moving as they were entitled to do, the deletion of the Clause, when a full statement could have been made. Hon. Members themselves are entirely responsible for the position in which they find themselves. As regards this particular Amendment, of course it should be understood that we are proposing to continue under the Clause the giving of powers to the Minister of Health to continue, if he so desires, the appointed guardians at the three places which were 2960 mentioned. But for the tactics of the Opposition it was my right hon. Friend's intention to have made a speech on that position. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be too confident as to what will happen under this particular Clause. They may be rather surprised if ever the occasion is permitted to my hon. Friend to make a statement in this particular connection.
I want to say one word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—the usual speech. Most of us in this Committee, I think, appreciate the value of his speeches, but it may be that certain of the officers of Poor Law unions affected may be disturbed by the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made. I want them, as far as they read these Debates, to know that any statement which the hon. Gentleman has made concerning their position is entirely without foundation. As far as the officers are concerned—whether or not boards of guardians are in existence—it will make no difference whatever to their legal rights if this Bill becomes law. If the hon. Gentleman will only devote a little time to considering Clause 99, he will find that the rights and positions of the Poor Law officers are fully safeguarded under this proposal. They are not in any way concerned whether guardians exist or not, or as to what action boards of guardians may or may not take. Their rights in no way depend upon that particular aspect of the matter.
The hon. Gentleman has devoted a good deal of time to attacking the administration, particularly of the West Ham appointed guardians, but certainly as far as the work of the appointed guardians is concerned, we have only to look at the results which they have achieved during the last few years, and compare them with the work of their predecessors to realise that they merit the approval of the great majority of the Members of this Committee. I would refer the hon. Member to a statement which appeared only a short time ago, showing that for a period up to the 28th January, 1928, of 615 cases who had ceased to apply for relief, not less than 71.7 per cent. had obtained work, and of this number who obtained work, in order that there should be no question about it, in view of the tactics generally employed by the hon. 2961 Member opposite, the names and addresses of the employers of 71.4 per cent. of cases have been duly recorded and noted. For the second period, from the 4th February, 1928, to the 28th April, 1928, of 542 cases ceasing to apply for relief, 455, or 83.94 per cent. have obtained work, and of this number the names and addresses of 76.7 per cent, of the employers have been duly noted and recorded. When we see facts like these, I think the good work of these gentlemen has been fully maintained. I ask that the Committee will reject this Amendment and show their confidence in the action of these men who, under great difficulty and in face of the attacks of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and other hon. Members, have performed a very good work.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman has taken some pains to attempt to answer a question about Poor Law officials. He did not reply to the simple point which I put—if he understood the Poor Law he would have understood it—namely, that when an old officer
§ is retiring, a board which knows his worth and his work very often asks the Minister to allow them to add an extra two or three years to his superannuation. I argued that no new body would be in a position to deal with that question as well as those who had had experience. With respect to the men who have found work, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the figures of unemployment in West Ham have gone up instead of going down. To say that these gentlemen have found work for these men is sheer undiluted nonsense. Proof of that is the fact that the Government to-morrow are bringing in a Supplementary Estimate in order to feed and clothe the people whom the right hon. Gentleman's commissioners have shoved off the Poor Law. But for the action of these gentlemen, there would have been no need for the Supplementary Estimate to-morrow.
§ Question put, "That the word thirty-five' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 148.2965
|Division No. 91.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Carver, Major W. H.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Cassels, J. D.||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Albery, Irving James||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fielden, E. B.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Forrest, W.|
|Apsley, Lord||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Astor, Viscountess||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Chapman, Sir S.||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Ganzonl, Sir John|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Christie, J. A.||Gates, Percy|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Clarry, Reginald George||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bennett, A. J.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Goff, Sir Park|
|Berry, Sir George||Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Bethel, A.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Grace, John|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Colman, N. C. D.||Grant, Sir J. A.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cooper, A. Duff||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Bird, E R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cope, Major Sir William||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Couper, J. B.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Bowyer, Captain G E. W.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hacking, Douglas H.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hamilton, Sir George|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Harland, A.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Dixey, A. C.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Eden. Captain Anthony||Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Buchan, John||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Bullock Captain M.||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Burman, J. B.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Ellis, R. G.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Hills, Major John Walter||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. G.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Nuttall, Ellis||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Oakley, T.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Pennefather, Sir John||Templeton, W. P.|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Parkins, Colonel E. K.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Kennedy A. R. (Preston)||Perring, Sir William George||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.|
|King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Phillipson, Mabel||Tinne, J. A.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Pilcher, G.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Waddington, R.|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Preston, William||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Loder, J. de V.||Price, Major C. W M.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Long, Major Eric||Radford, E. A.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Raine, Sir Walter||Warrender, Sir victor|
|Lougher, Lewis||Ramsden, E.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Lynn, Sir H. J.||Rentoul, G. S.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Wells, S. R.|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Ropner, Major L.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Rye, F. G.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Salmon, Major I.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Withers, John James|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Sanders Sir Robert A.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Sanderson. Sir Frank||Womersley, W. J.|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Sandon, Lord||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Savery, S. S.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)||Wright, Brig.-General W. D.|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Shepperson, E. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Skelton, A. N.||Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Duncan, C.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Dunnico, H.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Edge, Sir William||Kennedy, T.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Baker, Walter||Fenby, T. D.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Gardner, J. P.||Lansbury, George|
|Barr, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Lawrence, Susan|
|Batey, Joseph||Gillett, George M.||Lawson, John James|
|Bellamy, A.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lee, F.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lindley, F. W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Briant, Frank||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lowth, T.|
|Broad, F. A.||Griffith, F. Kingsley||Lunn, William|
|Bromfield, William||Grundy, T. W.||Mackinder, W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)||Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Buchanan, G.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hardie, George D.||March, S.|
|Cape, Thomas||Harney, E. A.||Montague, Frederick|
|Charleton, H. C.||Harris, Percy A.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hayday, Arthur||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Murnin, H.|
|Connolly, M.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hirst, G. H.||Oliver, George Harold|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Owen, Major G.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Hollins, A.||Palin, John Henry|
|Dalton, Hugh||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Paling, W.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Potts, John S.|
|Day, Harry||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Dennison, R.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Riley, Ben|
|Ritson, J.||Stephen, Campbell||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. F O. (W. Bromwich)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah|
|Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Strauss, E. A.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Sullivan, J.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Sutton, J. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Saklatvala, Shapurji||Taylor, R. A.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Sexton, James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Williams, David (Swansea. E.)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Thurtle, Ernest||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond.||Tomilnson, R. P.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Shinwell, E.||Townend, A. E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Windsor, Walter|
|Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Viant, S. P.||Wright, W.|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wallhead, Richard C.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Stamford, T. W.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
§ It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively, to put forthwith the Question on, an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary2966
§ to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 146.2969
|Division No. 92.]||AYES||[10.41 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Goff, Sir Park|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Chapman, Sir S.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Albery, Irving James||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Grace, John|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Christie, J. A.||Grant, Sir J. A.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Clarry, Reginald George||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Apsley, Lord||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Astor, Viscountess||Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Colman, N. C. D.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hacking, Douglas H.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cooper. A. Dun||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cope, Major Sir William||Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Couper, J. B.||Hamilton, Sir George|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Berry, Sir George||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Harland, A.|
|Bethel, A.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Bevan, S. J.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Dixey, A. C.||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Brass, Captain W.||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Hilton. Cecil|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Eden, Captain Anthony||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Holt, Capt. H. P.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Ellis, R. G.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thTd., Hexham)||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Buchan, John||Falls, Sir Bertram G.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Fielden, E. B.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Burman, J. B.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Forrest, W.||Iveagh, Countess or|
|Campbell, E. T.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)||Ganzonl, Sir John||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Gates, Percy||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Loder, J. de V.|
|Long, Major Eric||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Philipson, Mabel||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Lougher, Lewis||Pilcher, G.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Power, Sir John Cecil||Templeton, W. P.|
|Lynn, Sir R. J.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Preston, William||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Radford, E. A.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Raine, Sir Walter||Tinne, J. A.|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Ramsden, E.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Rentoul, G. S.||Waddington, R.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Ward. Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Ropner, Major L.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Rye, F. G.||Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Salmon, Major I.||Waits, Sir Thomas|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wells, S. R.|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Sandeman, N. Stewart||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayn)||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Sandon, Lord||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.||Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds. Central)|
|Morrison H. (Wilts. Salisbury)||Savery, S. S.||Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Murchison. Sir Kenneth||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Withers, John James|
|Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Shepperson, E. W.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Skelton, A. N.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Oakley, T.||Smithers, Waldron||Wragg, Herbert|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wright, Brig.-General W. D.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Pennefather, Sir John||Spender-Clay. Colonel H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||of Titchfield.|
|Perring, Sir William George||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||March, S.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Montague, Frederick|
|Baker, Walter||Griffith, F. Kingsley||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Grundy, T. W.||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Barr, J.||Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)||Murnin, H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Bellamy, A.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hardie, George D.||Owen, Major G.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Harney, E. A.||Palin, John Henry|
|Briant, Frank||Harris, Percy A.||Paling, W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hayday, Arthur||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Bromfield, William||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Brawn, Ernest (Leith)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hirst, G. H.||Potts, John S.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hollins, A.||Riley, Ben|
|Cape, Thomas||Hore-Belisha. Leslie||Ritson, J.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Compton, Joseph||Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Connolly, M.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Crawfurd, H. E||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sexton, James|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Kelly, W. T.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Kennedy, T||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kirkwood, D.||Shinwell, E.|
|Day, Harry||Lansbury, George||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Dennison, R.||Lawrence, Susan||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Duncan, C.||Lawson, John James||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Dunnico, H.||Lee, F.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Edge, Sir William||Lindley, F. W.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Longbottom, A. W.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lowth, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Lunn, William||Strauss, E. A.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mackinder, W.||Sullivan, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||MacLaren, Andrew||Sutton, J. E.|
|Taylor, R. A.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Thurtle, Ernest||Wellock, Wilfred||Windsor, Walter|
|Tinker, John Joseph||Welsh, J. L.||Wright, W.|
|Tomlinson, R. P.||Westwood, J.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Townend, A. E.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Viant, S. P.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
§ Clauses 18 (Transfer of functions under Registration Acts), 19 (Conversion of registration officers into salaried officers), 20 (Power to increase statutory fees), 21 (Schemes for the administration of Registration Acts in counties and county boroughs), 22 (Salary of Registrar-General), 23 (Amendment of law as to method of giving information of birth or death), 24 (Application to London),2970
§ 25 (Construction and citation), 26 (County roads), and 27 (Transfer to county councils of functions with respect to highways in rural districts).
§ Question put, "That Clauses 18 to 27 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 150.2973
|Division No. 93.]||AYES.||[10.51 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Harland, A.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Albery, Irving James||Colman, N. C. D.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Cooper, A Duff||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cope. Major Sir William||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Apsley, Lord||Cooper, J. B.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Henn, Sir Sydney H. '|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hilton, Cecil|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Holt, Captain H. p.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. [Hertford)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Berry, Sir George||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Bethel, A.||Dixey, A. C.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon Herbert||Hudson. R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Ellis, R. G.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Falls, Sir Bertram G.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Fielden, E. B.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Forestier-Walker, Sir L||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Loder, J. de V.|
|Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Ganzonl, Sir John||Long, Major Eric|
|Buchan, John||Gates, Percy||Looker, Herbert William|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Lougher, Lewis|
|Burman, J. B.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Goff, Sir Park||Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Gower, Sir Robert||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Grace, John||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Grant, Sir J. A.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Grotrian, H. Brent||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Christie, J. A.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hamilton, Sir George||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hammersley, S. S.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Ropner, Major L.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E, A.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Rye, F. G.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Salmon, Major I.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Waddington, R.|
|Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Sandon, Lord||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Oakley, T.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Savery, S. S.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Pennefather, Sir John||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Shepperson, E. W.||Wells, S. R.|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Skelton, A. N.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Perring, Sir William George||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Philipson, Mabel||Smithers, Waldron||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Pitcher, G.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Preston, William||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Withers, John James|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Radford, E. A.||Storry-Deans, R,||Womersley, W. J.|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Ramsden, E.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Tasker, R. Inigo,||Wragg, Herbert|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Templeton, W. P.||Wright, Brig.-General W. D.|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Griffith, F. Kingsley||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Potts, John S.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Baker, Walter||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Riley, Ben|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hardie, George D.||Ritson, J.|
|Barnes, A.||Harney, E. A.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)|
|Barr, J.||Harris, Percy A.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hayday, Arthur||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Bellamy, A.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hirst, G. H.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Briant, Frank||Hollins, A.||Sexton, James|
|Broad, F. A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shinwell, E.|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kelly, W. T.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Compton, Joseph||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Connolly, M.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cove, W. G.||Kirkwood, D.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lansbury, George||Sullivan, J.|
|Crawfurd, H. E||Lawrence, Susan||Sutton, J. E.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawson, John James||Taylor, R. A.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Lee, F.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lindley, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Longbottom, A. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Day, Harry||Lunn, William||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Dennison, R.||Mackinder, W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Duncan, C.||MacLaren, Andrew||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Viant, S. P.|
|Edge, Sir William||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||March, S.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Maxton, James||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Fenby, T. D.||Montague, Frederick||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Forrest, W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, J. P.||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Naylor, T, E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Oliver, George Harold||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Owen, Major G.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)||Palin, John Henry||Williams, David (Swansea. East)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)||Windsor, Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)||Wright, W.||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.|
|Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|