§ 55. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a meeting of 200 Members of this House it was decided to ask him to receive a deputation in connection with pre-War pensioners; and whether it will be convenient to receive such a deputation, representative of all parties in the House?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENThe hon. Member has called my attention to this fact, and, as I have informed him on two occasions, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling on this matter is exceptionally widespread in all parts of this House, and that many Members of all parties desire to lay certain aspects of the case before him; and does he not think it a pity that the traditional and constitutional practice, whereunder Members of the House have always had willing access to Ministers, should be departed from in this case?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI do not think that any deputation could put before me any facts relating to this matter with which I am not perfectly familiar. We dealt with this matter when we were in office in 1924, and we said then, and we still hold the view, that it cannot be reopened.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEDoes the right hon. Gentleman remember Clause 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISONCan the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any precedent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer refusing to receive a deputation from a meeting of 200 Members of this House?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI have said in this House on many occasions that I do not pay a great deal of regard to precedents. Every case must be considered on its own merits.
§ Major COLFOXIf the Clydeside group were to exert their influence, would the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the first available Parliamentary opportunity—if possible, on the Consolidated Fund Bill.