HC Deb 05 May 1936 vol 311 cc1580-647

That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of His late Majesty the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year):— For the King's Civil List: £410,000, subject, as respects the periods specified in the first column of the Table appended to this Resolution to the reductions specified in relation to those periods respectively in the second column of that Table; For retired allowances: Such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted, on a scale and in accordance with conditions approved from time to time by the Treasury, by his late Majesty or His present Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Household of His late Majesty or His Present Majesty; For Civil List pensions: Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted or hereafter to be granted; For His Royal Highness the Duke of York: £25,000, so, however, that in respect of any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty or any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, no payment shall be made unless the net revenues of the Duchy for the year fall short, as respects the first period, of £25,000, and as respects the second period, of £50,000, and in the event of such a deficiency the rate of the payment shall not exceed an amount per annum equal to the deficiency; For the benefit of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York and the children of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York: £25,000, to be payable only in the event of His Royal Highness the Duke of York predeceasing His Majesty and only in respect of any period during which one of the children of Their Royal Highnesses is the Heir Presumptive to the Throne.

In the event of His Majesty's marriage:— For Her Majesty the Queen in the event of her surviving His Majesty: £70,000; For the benefit of the sons of His Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being: £10,000 in respect of each son who attains the age of 21 years, and a further sum of £15,000 in respect of each son who marries; For the benefit of the daughters of His Majesty: £6,000 in respect of each daughter who attains the age of 21 years or marries; and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise be then determined.

The sum payable under this Resolution for the King's Civil List in respect of the period before the beginning of the present financial year shall be in addition to the sum issued in that period for the King's Civil List under the Civil List Act, 1910. for expenditure on works; and the sums payable under this Resolution for His Royal Highness the Duke of York shall be in addition to any sums payable to him under section five of the said Act.

Periods in respect of which reductions are to be made in the King's Civil List. Rate of reductions per annum.
Any period during which His Majesty is unmarried. £40,000
Any period in the life-time of His Royal Highness the Duke of York during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty. An amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year, less £25,000.
Any other period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty. An amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year.

In moving the Resolutions connected with the Civil List, I understand that the customary procedure is that we have a general discussion upon the proposals of the Select Committee, and that afterwards we discuss the Resolutions separately and any Amendments which the Chairman may call upon the Resolutions. The Resolutions are designed to cover the recommendations of the Select Committee, whose report is in the hands of hon. Members and deals in considerable detail with the matters which we have to consider. The Committee will be glad to note from paragraph 3 of the report that the Select Committee have been afforded every facility for the acquisition of such information as they desired on any subject relevant to the matters under their consideration. In view of the detail in the report, I do not think that I need cover every point in it, and I shall confine myself to pointing out certain leading features of the report, and in particular those which are concerned with the changes which are proposed from the Civil List of 1910.

These changes are considerable, and they arise partly from the fact that His present Majesty is unmarried and partly from the fact that the Select Committee have taken the opportunity of trying to adjust certain anomalies which they found in the disposition of the Civil List. Perhaps the first thing the Committee will like to consider is the net effect of these changes on the total amount of the Civil List, and they will find this set out very succinctly and clearly in paragraph 25 of the report, on page 12. They will see that whereas the Civil List of 1910 amounted to £470,000, the new Civil List only amounts to £410,000. That shows, apparently, a saving of £60,000, but part of that saving is more apparent than real, because it is due to certain transfers from the Civil List to the Exchequer and certain other transfers in the opposite direction, and if you take account of the transfers from and to the Civil List or to the Exchequer you will find that there is a true saving of £36,900 a, year, but that is only a minimum, because the actual present saving will amount to a great deal more than that sum.

First of all, owing to the fact that His Majesty is unmarried, no provision at present is required for Her Majesty the Queen as was made in the last Civil List, and although provision is made for such a contingency in the present List the amount which was formerly set aside for the benefit of Her Majesty the Queen, namely, £33,000 from the Privy Purse and another £7,000 from Class II making £40,000 in all, that amount will remain undrawn as long as His present Majesty remains unmarried. Arising also from the fact that His Majesty has no children, being unmarried, there is no Prince of Wales and, consequently, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall are for the time being vested in His Majesty. As long as that is the case His Majesty has expressed his desire that these revenues should be used in relief of State funds. That means that another £79,000 will be available, first to relieve the Civil List of a charge of £77,000 for His Majesty's Privy Purse, leaving another £2,000 which will be available for the relief of another class on the Civil List. The effect of the wishes of His Majesty that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall should be utilised in this way is so important in its effect upon the proposals of the Select Committee that I should like to deal with it in further detail later on, but I will at the moment deal with some minor changes which are recommended in the report.

Hon. Members will see that in paragraph 1 there is set out the various classes on the Civil List as they existed during the late reign, and they will see that there are six different classes. Let me say a word about each class. In Class II are the salaries of His Majesty's Household and retired allowances and two changes have been proposed. The first change referred to in paragraph 15 on page 8 affects three officers of the Household. These officers are really political appointments, and as it is pointed out in the report the duties they have to perform are analogous to those of Junior Lords of the Treasury, and it really is an anomaly that the salaries of these three officers should be considered to form part of the Civil List.


Have they not duties at the Palace as well which ordinary Whips do not perform?


They would be paid a salary merely if they were political officers, and the duties they perform at the Palace are not of such an onerous character that they are the main part of their duties. The Select Committee, therefore, propose that the salaries of these officers shall be transferred to the Parliamentary Vote. That does not necessarily mean that the salaries will remain at the figure at which they have hitherto stood; that will be a matter to be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate to be presented later. The second change is described in paragraph 16 and relates to the pensions awarded to the members of the Royal Household. The practice in the past has been that pensions were paid according to a scale, and although there have been instances where further payments for special reasons have been made over and above these scales, the extra has always been charged to His Majesty's Privy Purse. It is now proposed to alter the practice. Anything given over and above these scales will still be a debit against His Majesty's Privy Purse, but with regard to the main charge for pensions it will be seen from the report that it has been customary for pensions granted by previous Sovereigns to fall on the Consolidated Fund.

The Consolidated Fund has also been responsible for so much of the pensions granted by the reigning Sovereign to officers of the Household as is due to their service under the preceding reign, and the remainder of the pensions charges, namely, the charge due to services during the existing reign, has been borne on Class II. That has not been altogether a convenient arrangement, because it has been necessary to provide in the Civil List for a liability the extent of which could not possibly be estimated at the beginning of the reign. There is no charge at the beginning of the reign, and the amount of the charge at the end must depend on the length of the reign. In the reign of His late Majesty a pension charge which began with nothing at all ended up with so large an amount as £16,000 a year. It is thought that it would be more convenient that the Consolidated Fund should take over the whole of the charge from the beginning. It is a charge which during the late reign averaged £7,000 a year, and that charge was allowed for by the Select Committee in a reduction in the Civil List by that amount. The actual charge on the Exchequer is not altered in any way; it is merely a question whether the amount should appear in the grant for the Civil List or on the Consolidated Fund. The Select Committee thought it would be better to transfer it to the Consolidated Fund.

Class III, which concerns the expenses of His Majesty's Household, is dealt with in paragraph 19. Hon. Members will see how the economies which were made by His late Majesty King George in the expenses of the Household owing to his careful administration have reduced the amount which was originally fixed in the Civil List at £193,000 to about £134,000 in a normal year. If hon. Members will look at the first account on page 15 they will see there set out how these figures came down. His present Majesty signified to the Select Committee his wish that the economies made by his father should, at any rate, for the moat part, go to the benefit of the Exchequer and not to his own benefit; and the Committee have expressed their appreciation of his action in that matter. The Committee felt that they did not wish the whole of the economies which were effected in the late reign to go to the benefit of the Exchequer, hut, nevertheless, they found themselves able to make a reduction here on account of these economies of £46,200 in the Civil List.

It is true that in this particular class we must set off against that the two additional charges which are referred to in paragraph 18. It is now proposed that certain King's Plates run for in Ireland shall be transferred to the Civil List in order to mark the personal connection of His Majesty with these particular events. Also the practice in respect of telephone and telegraph charges in the Palace, it is proposed, should be assimilated to that which obtains in the Departments and that certain charges which have formerly been debited to the Departments should now fall on the Civil List. The result is to add £6,000 to the class with which I am dealing, and which shows an economy of £40,200. I am sure the Committee will appreciate the spirit in which His Majesty has approached the whole subject, that he did not wait for the Select Committee to make any suggestions but himself expressed his desire that economies made by his father should be allowed for in the new Civil List.

Class IV, which deals with works is to be abolished altogether. It deals with interior repairs at Palaces. The Office of Works represented to the Committee that as they already deal with outside repairs and decorations it really complicates their book-keeping if the cost of work inside, which is done by the same people and under the same responsibility, has to be kept separately from that of the work outside. The Committee has adopted that view and propose to transfer this charge of £20,000 from the Civil List to Civil Votes. Class V refers to Royal bounty, alms and special services, and will be unchanged; and Class VI, the un-appropriated class of £8,000, is abolished altogether.

Let me come back to the question of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. As long as there is no Prince of Wales these revenues are vested in His Majesty, and I wish once again to emphasise the fact that by His Majesty's gracious wish and express desire the whole of the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall now amounting to about £104,000 are to be applied to the relief of the amount of the Civil List, and even though those revenues should be increased by His Majesty's own administration of the Duchy, nevertheless he is not suggesting that any part of them should accrue to himself. That is the way in which His Majesty desired to deal with the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.


Is it the whole of the revenues or is it all the revenues except the addition which is to be made to the revenues of the Duke of York?


The additional allowance which is to be made to the Duke of York is to be the first charge upon this £104,000. I was just going to explain that point. His Majesty, in his Gracious Message on 11th March, expressed a wish that suitable provision should be made for the Duke of York as the Heir Presumptive to the Throne and also for his family in certain events. Accordingly the Committee, in paragraph 11, have made provision for an additional sum of £25,000 to be made for the Duke of York so long as he remains the Heir Presumptive; but His Majesty has signified his intention of providing this £25,000 out of the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall so long as those revenues are vested in himself. Therefore, that would be the first charge on the £104,000, leaving £79,000 as the balance of the revenues.

Now, the Privy Purse in Class I amounts altogether to £110,000. In accordance with previous practice, £33,000 of that sum will be set aside for Her Majesty the Queen, and that amount will remain undrawn, as I have already said, so long as His Majesty is unmarried. That leaves £77,000 as the Privy Purse of His Majesty, and that sum will he provided out of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall—the £79,000 remaining after provision is made for the Duke of York. That leaves a balance of £2,000 which, by His Majesty's desire, will go to relieve Class Therefore the whole of the £104,000 will relieve State Funds in the way I have described. Although His Majesty is unmarried, hon. Members will remember that in his Gracious Message he expressed his desire that the contingency of his marriage should lie taken into account, and that suitable provision should be made for Her Majesty the Queen and for the members of His Majesty's family in the same way as the House of Commons has been willing to provide in similar circumstances in previous reigns. That desire has been dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Report, and it will be seen that the proposals of the Committee in those two paragraphs deal with tile contingency of the Queen and the members of His Majesty's family, with the exception of his eldest son, and the case of the eldest son, who would, of course, be Duke of Cornwall and entitled as such to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, is dealt with in paragraph 11.

Unless there were some special provisions made, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, on the birth of the Prince of Wales, would accumulate during the minority of the Prince, and the result of that would be that when the Prince attained his majority these accumulations would have reached a very large sum and would provide an income which would be in excess of the requirements of the Prince of Wales. Accordingly, His Majesty, taking that into consideration, made proposals which are the subject of recommendations by the Committee and are to be found in paragraph 11. Under these proposals, the first charge during the minority of the Prince of Wales upon the revenues of the Duchy will continue to be £25,000 for the Duke of York. After that it is proposed that from the residue a voluntary contribution to the Exchequer should be paid equal to the amounts of Income Tax and Surtax chargeable for the time being upon an income of the same size in private hands. The total of that at the present time is £45,000. Then there follows a, further charge of £25,000 which it is intended shall make provision for the maintenance and education of the infant Duke and also shall enable an annual sum to be paid to trustees for the purpose of making provision for the Princess of Wales if subsequently the Prince of Wales should marry. The idea of the Committee is that the provision should follow that which has been made on previous occasions, and for that purpose they have been advised that it would be desirable that a sum of not less than £10,000 a year should be set aside. Therefore, this sum of £25,000 would cover not less than £10,000 as an annuity to be paid to the trustees of the future Princess of Wales, and the remainder would be the sum available for the maintenance and education of the Duke.


What kind of education?


The ordinary normal education. On the present revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, a surplus of £9,000 would be allowed to accumulate during the minority of the Prince of Wales. I think I have gone through all the important features of the proposals of the Committee. I observe that there are some Amendments on the Paper to the First Resolution, but I think I had better reserve anything I may have to say until I hear what hon. Members opposite may say to the Committee on the subjects of those Amendments.

6.25 p.m.


On a point of Order. I would like to refer to the Chancellor's suggestion that there should be a general discussion. As my hon. Friends and myself are responsible for some Amendments, I would ask you, in preference to that course, whether you would indicate which of the Amendments down on the Paper you propose to call. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if that were done now.


It is my intention in due course to call first the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should say that as that Amendment would obviously restrict the extent of the Debate, I do not propose to call it until a convenient time when the discussion seems to have proceeded far enough with regard to the Resolutions in general. After that, I propose to call the last two Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and other hon. Members.


Further to my point of Order. There are two important issues raised in the first two Amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. First, there is the question of whether it would not be more suitable if the House agreed to our proposal with regard to His Majesty's Privy Purse, that a certain use should be made of the Royal Palaces as national hospitals for sick persons; and, secondly, there is the important question of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster; and as the third Resolution proposes an amendment of the law with regard to the Civil List and the hereditary revenues and Grants for the Royal Family, I submit that those are two important Amendments. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be possible for you to reconsider your decision not to take them.


I am afraid I cannot do that, because I have given very careful consideration to those two Amendments, and I must make it quite clear that they are definitely out of order.

6.28 p.m.


Further to the point of Order. The occasions on which this House has an opportunity of dealing with the emoluments of Royalty are few and far between. The right of this House to deal with those matters is not denied, and having regard to the infrequency of those opportunities, I wish to ask whether you would see that the Committee has the most complete freedom to discuss every aspect of these Amendments. This is our one and only opportunity of discussing these matters and I suggest to you that, since the matters which we bring before the Committee in these Amendments are of considerable importance, we should have the opportunity of moving the Amendments and having a Division on them and not merely referring to them in a casual way in the course of a general Debate. I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether you are Ruling them out of order for the Committee to discuss?

6.29 p.m.


I am afraid I cannot assist the hon. Member by telling him what Parliamentary opportunities he may or may not have. It is my duty here to keep the Debate within the limits of the Standing Orders and Rules of Procedure in regard to this Committee of the House, and as the hon. Member will probably agree, it is quite clear that under our procedure the two Amendments to which he refers are definitely out of order. In the circumstances I should have no power to do what he asks even if I wished to do so.

6.30 p.m.


I feel sure that I am expressing the general view of the Committee when I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained these proposals in a manner which has made their import perfectly clear. I thank him for that, and also for the objective manner in which he hasp dealt with this subject. I rise to explain, quite simply and as briefly as I can, the views of the Opposition with regard to this settlement. I preface my remarks by pointing out that it cannot be expected that we on these benches should approach this matter from precisely the same standpoint as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The close contact which many of us have with homes in which there is a great shortage of all the necessaries of life, and in which individuals suffer great hardship and poverty, forces some comparison with the large figures presented to us in these Resolutions.

Moreover, the system of society which, on its main lines, finds favour and support from hon. Members opposite is thought by many of us to be wrong and indefensible and we are sent here as representatives for the express purpose of taking steps to change that system. We recognise, however, that not only is the Crown above and outside all party differences and all questions of party outlook but that, in our Constitution, it is one of the bulwarks of democratic government. We also recognise that today the Monarch is not merely King of these islands, but a central pillar of the British Commonwealth, to a far greater extent than has ever been the case in previous times. Finally, we know that we have in our present King a man who has a more direct and intimate association and sympathy with the common people than, perhaps, any monarch since the days of Charles II.

Quite bluntly, we on these benches are not in favour of expensive and extravagant ceremonial. Equally, we know that you cannot run royalty on the cheap. We regard royal palaces, royal entertainments and royal farms as national institutions and their upkeep as being rightly a national charge. It was from this angle that the members of our party who sat on the Select Committee approached their task. We regarded it as our duty to ask for a great deal of information and it is only right to say that that information was frankly accorded to us. Speaking for myself, and I believe for those of my colleagues who served on that Committee, I was satisfied that the waste and extravagance and the emoluments of sinecures which were characteristic of courts in days gone by, had to a great extent been eliminated. If there are still any economies to be effected advantageously, I believe they are small in extent and will not make a great deal of difference to the total amount.

In the report of the Select Committee it has been made clear that it is by the express wish of His Majesty that the effects of the economies made in the last reign are almost wholly to inure to the benefit of the public purse. We appreciate His Majesty's decision in the matter. We further acknowledge with appreciation the proposal of His Majesty to hand over the whole of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, so long as he has no son, and that after the birth of a son a certain part of those revenues should also inure to the benefit of the Exchequer while that son is in his minority. It is on that basis that the Chancellor's figures are constructed, and desirous as we are of upholding the honour and dignity of the Royal House, we give them our support, and I am authorised to say that my colleagues on these benches approve of our decision.

The Committee should realise however that these provisions do not constitute the whole of the picture. Reference is made, in the course of these definite proposals, to the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Committee will have realised that no provision of any kind is made, directly and separately, for the Prince of Wales on his attainment of his majority. That is because it is out of the Duchy of Cornwall and not directly out of revenue that it is proposed to find the means of providing him with an income. In addition to the Duchy of Cornwall, there is the Duchy of Lancaster. The precise position of those great estates has been the subject in the past of a great deal of constitutional discussion. I will only say now that these estates are clearly differentiated in many ways from ordinary private property. But they have never been surrendered with the Crown lands. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster have been vested in His Majesty the King for the time being, while the revenues of the Duchy of Corn wall have been vested in the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall. That has been so even during the minority of the Prince in previous reigns. These revenues have then been allowed to accumulate for the future benefit of the Prince.

I wish to direct the consideration of the Committee to the consequences of the present position. As I have said, it is unchallengeable that the Crown stands above and outside party differences. I believe it will be accepted in all parts of the House that it is most desirable that that position should be maintained. I am sure there is a general wish that nothing should arise to prevent the continuance of that situation. In former years Parliament concerned itself little if at all with economic issues. At that time, the ownership of property was unchallenged, and the position of these Duchies presented no difficulty. To-day, economic issues are in the forefront of our political discussions and the precise rights of property are hotly debated on the Floor of this House. We have to remember, not only the position as it is to-day but the position as it is likely to be in years to come. The settlement which we are making now is not like the arrangements that are made in the ordinary course of Supply, to come up year by year. These arrangements are designed to last for the whole reign of the Sovereign, and in every part of the House we all desire and hope that that will represent a very great number of years. It is not possible to forecast the attitude of future Parliaments on many of these large questions concerning property. Great changes are taking place in public opinion and it is exceedingly possible that they will be reflected in the Debates in this House.

Let me take one illustration. We were informed by the Government at the General Election that one of the changes about to be brought into effect was the unification of mining royalties. We now know that by unification they meant nationalisation. It is possible, when that subject arises in the House, that there will be Debates, possibly acrimonious Debates, regarding the precise method of compensation or whatever it may be, which will be proposed in connection with that subject. I am not revealing any secret when I tell hon. Members that a very substantial part of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster is derived from mining royalties. The House is bound to consider very carefully whether it will be in any way embarrassing if the interests of His Majesty are directly involved in our discussions at that time.

I do not want to go into further detail with regard to the other classes of property which are involved both in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, but I think it is clear that questions will arise in this Chamber, as time goes on, which will cause a certain amount of difficulty and may jeopardise the position which I have described of the Crown as being outside and above all questions debated in this House. That is in spite of the fact, which I think we all recognise, that the administration of the two Duchies has been carried out, at the express wish of the late King George so far as the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned and of the present King, as Duke of Cornwall, in the days when he was Prince of Wales, with great liberality and in the very best way that property could be administered.

There is another aspect of this question which also deserves attention. The fixed provision that we are being called upon to make in these Resolutions is only a part of the real revenues of His Majesty and of any future Prince of Wales. The receipts from the other part are dependent on these estates and are necessarily, therefore, of a fluctuating character. For a considerable number of years there has been an upward tendency, but no one would be prepared to say precisely what will be the future changes that will take place. There may be further growth, there may be fluctuations and in certain circumstances which we cannot foresee—such, for instance, as the calamity of a great war—there might even be a very considerable falling off. The Committee have certainly to consider whether it is desirable that there should be this rather uncertain part of the revenues falling to His Majesty and to the Prince of Wales, and whether it is not better that these things should be dealt with in a different way. I have spoken mainly of the Duchy of Lancaster, but similar considerations apply to the Duchy of Cornwall, although there are quite distinct differences.

I will not, in this general Debate, go in detail into the proposals which were put forward by my colleagues and myself on the Select Committee. They are contained on pages 42 and 43 of the report. I will confine myself now to saying that the effect of these proposals would not be to change the immediate revenue of His Majesty at all, but would be to stabilise it; and that, so far as the Prince of Wales—if there be a Prince of Wales—is concerned, the effect would be to make some alteration, but I think that it would leave him with adequate resources to meet the requirements of the case. It may he said that there is a certain impracticability in handing over the revenues of these properties to the benefit of the Exchequer, but I would remind the Committee that the effect of the proposals which we are now discussing is, at any rate for a certain period, to hand over to the Exchequer the entire revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall. Therefore, the principle about which I am speaking is, in fact, embodied for a limited number of years in these proposals with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall now before us. My hon. Friends and I have put down an Amendment in the shape of a token reduction. Our object in taking that course is to give an opportunity to the Committee to express its opinion on the proposals which find their place in the last two pages of the report of the Select Committee. At the appropriate time the Amendment will be moved in order that that opinion may be registered.

I have purposely followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in putting these views and statements before the Committee in an entirely objective manner because I thought, as no doubt he did, that that was the most seemly and fitting way to address myself to the question. Whatever may be the outcome of our deliberations, I am certain that we shall all agree that the strong hold that His Majesty has on the Empire is not in the splendour of his palaces or of his court, but the fact that he reigns in the hearts of his people, and not less in the hearts of the poorest and humblest than in those of the highest in the land.

6.52 p.m.


The fact that in this House, elected on a universal suffrage, and including in its membership a strong and vigorous representation of the Socialist party, there has been almost as close an approximation to unanimity as there has ever been in the many debates which have taken place on the main issues which we are discussing today is a striking proof of the attachment of the British people to the Throne. Far from cooling with the passage of time, that attachment has grown ever warmer as successive monarchs have increasingly entered into the work and lives of the people. It is worth observing that no prince in our history has ever ascended the Throne who was known personally to so large a number of his subjects both at home and overseas, who had won so large a measure of personal respect and good will, and who had already rendered as Prince of Wales such varied and memorable services to the country, as the present King. Recent political and constitutional developments, and in particular the Statute of Westminster, have left the Crown as the one constitutional link between the members of the British Commonwealth of free nations and have thereby thrown increased work and responsibility upon the King; and the importance of maintaining the unity of that commonwealth, which preserves freedom, justice and peace over one-fifth of the surface of the globe, was never more apparent than in the troublous and dangerous times through which the world is now passing.

At home it is impossible to assess the value of the stimulus which royal interest and patronage give to every kind of humanitarian, literary, artistic, educational and industrial activity in this country. The honour arid renown which the late King and the present King as Prince of Wales have won for themselves in the United States of America and other countries are imponderable assets of inestimable value to the country. It is, therefore, fitting that we, as representatives of the people and also as guardians of the public purse, should approach the question of making proper provision for the maintenance of the dignity of the Throne with a vigil nit regard, as far as it may be necessary, for considerations of public finance, but in no niggling spirit, for there has been nothing niggling or grudging in the spirit in which the Royal Family has interpreted its public duties.

The proposals which are before us today are in themselves a striking illustration of the magnanimity of the King and the completeness with which he identifies his own interests with those of his subjects. The duties of his august position in relation both to the Empire and to his people have increased, whereas the purchasing power of money is substantially less than it was before the War. Yet, in the proposals which are now before the Committee, a saving of more than £36,000 a, year will be effected in the Civil List, and, in addition to that saving, £119,000 a year will remain undrawn so long as His Majesty remains unmarried—a total saving of £155,000 a year. When all the circumstances are taken into account, it is not the magnitude but the moderation of these proposals which is remarkable. It is not surprising, therefore, that, with the exception of the relatively minor issue to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has referred, the Members of the Select Committee were unanimous in approving these proposals.

Let me turn to the only point of difference which emerged in our discussions and which the hon. Member has so clearly and ably explained, namely, the proposal that the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should accrue to the Treasury in exchange for fixed annuities. The hon. Gentleman has indicated clearly to the Committee that his proposals will not mean that any immediate advantage will accrue to the Treasury by this arrangement, because it is part of his proposals that annuities roughly equivalent to the present income from the Duchies should be paid to the recipient of that income. As regards the Duchy of Cornwall, no possible benefit could accrue to the Treasury for 23 years, that is to say, until the King has married and has had a son and until that son has attained his majority. Any increase in the revenues of the Duchy will, under the proposals of the Select Committee, reduce the amount to be drawn by His Majesty on the Civil List account.

If there were any substantial gain to the public interest in a proposal of this kind, it would have to be weighed very seriously and carefully against other considerations such as those to which I have already drawn attention in the earlier part of my speech. For example, if it could be said that the properties were wastefully or corruptly managed, that the tenants were rack-rented or hardly used, or that valuable assets were undeveloped or deteriorating, indeed, this Committee would no doubt feel that steps ought to be taken. We went carefully into all these questions. We were treated with the utmost frankness and no information for which we asked was denied us. It was clearly shown that these properties were managed with admirable prudence, enterprise and generosity, that the tenants were contented and proud of their position, and, indeed, that the position of a tenant of either Duchy was a coveted one. Moreover, it was apparent that the present King had taken a keen personal interest in the management of the Duchy of Cornwall which had, of course, been and still is his personal property, and that the notable improvement in the housing on his estates in Southwark and elsewhere were largely due to his personal initiative and stimulus. Surely it must be a good thing in the public interest that the Sovereign should be encouraged to take a personal interest in the practical management of great estates embracing properties which are widely divergent in character and which bring him into practical touch with a wide range of social, industrial, and administrative interests and services. So at any rate we thought unanimously; and it will be observed that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down falls short of proposing that there should be any change in the management of the properties. In fact he claimed, mistakenly, as I shall show presently, that his proposal would not result in any change in the management of the properties. The only change for which he asks is in the destination of the revenue.


I think that I ought to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not want to interfere with his referring to matters in the report of the Select Committee more than is absolutely necessary—that we are not discussing the report as a whole. There may be matters in that which cannot be admitted as in order in this Debate on a Resolution founded on the King's Message. The right hon. Gentleman may realise what I mean if I remind him that I have already ruled an Amendment out of order and a discussion on the lines of that Amendment would also be out of order.


I am most anxious to obey your Ruling and will strive to do so, but I imagine that you would not think it improper for me to reply to certain observations on this point by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat.


If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to reply to my hon. Friend on a matter connected with the Duchies, surely we shall have an opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman?

7.3 p.m.


That just shows that there are limits to what I can allow the right hon. Baronet to say. It is not always very easy in a matter of this kind to fix the precise limits. That is one of the misfortunes of the Chair, but I have tried to indicate as much as I can by reference to the Amendment which has just been ruled out of order. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, with great ingenuity, referred to another Amendment which is to be called and suggested that it would have a certain effect. I thought to myself at the time that if it had that effect it would be out of order. Although it is quite obvious that there must be references to the revenues of the Duchies in so far as they are taken into consideration in settling the terms of this Resolution, the Resolution founded on the King's Message does not in any way deal with any proposal to change the ownership of the properties of the Duchy, and therefore I must rule that any argument one way or the other as to whether they should be taken over under the control of Parliament or not is going beyond the scope of the Debate on this Resolution.


Has it not been the custom in past Debates to discuss the question of the ownership of the Duchies at great length on the Money Resolution?


I have looked that up very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that had I been in the Chair as long ago as 1910 and 1901, the probability is that the Debate would not have been allowed to extend as far as it did. For the protection of the Committee and the House generally it will be for me to follow the undoubted recognised procedure and confine the Debate to the Money Resolution and the matters covered by the King's Message.

7.6 p.m.


In view of what you said just now I would like to ask you whether, where there has been no change of Standing Orders, you are proposing now to correct all the past rulings of previous Chairmen? That seems to me to be the effect of the statement that has been made, and I would remind you that on the basis of those rulings certain proceedings have already taken place in connection with this and, accepting those rulings by predecessors of yours as being sound rulings, we have not taken steps on the previous stage; in connection with this matter. I hope that you are going to allow some general discussion.

7.7 p.m.


The hon. Member is a little mistaken in his facts. In the first place there has been no ruling given on the previous occasions as to the scope of the Debate. The only rulings that were given were the ruling out of order of Amendments similar to those which I have ruled out of order. As far as the Debate is concerned it is not my business to suggest whether any previous Chairman allowed the Debate to go too far or not. It is my business as far as I can to carry out the trust which is reposed in me by the House to keep the Debate within the limits of the Rules and Regulations of the House with regard to Procedure, and on that I would remind the hon. Member when he referred to Standing Orders that they are very far from being a complete code of procedure in this House. I am not in any ruling I have given making any change whatever in the rules of procedure in this House. On the contrary, I am endeavouring to follow and enforce them.


A few minutes ago you gave the ruling that you were not going to call Amendments but were going to allow a general discussion.


I made no such ruling.


If I heard you aright —and I have good hearing—you intimated that you were not gong to take Amendments just now.


I said that I should not call the Amendments which I did propose to call at some stage until there had been a general discussion, because quite obviously directly one of these Amendments is called the discussion is confined to the scope of that Amendment.

7.9 p.m.


The Money Resolution we are discussing impinges very closely on the Duchy of Cornwall and there is a reference to change in the law relating to the hereditary revenues. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are both part and parcel of the hereditary revenues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes. With all due deference to the Noble Earl the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the revenues of Lancaster and Cornwall have for many centuries been reckoned in the hereditary revenue. They may not have been in certain cases considered to be on all fours with that group of properties known as Crown Lands, but they have been considered to be part and parcel of the hereditary revenue, and therefore I hold that we should be entitled to discuss these under Section 2 of this Money Resolution.


I desire to point out to the hon. Gentleman—he knows perfectly well—that he is almost attempting to mislead the Chair by the statement he has made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] He attempted to raise in the Committee the question of whether or not these Duchies were hereditary revenues and it was held in the Committee that the hon. Gentleman was not right. I am sure that his intention was not to mislead the Committee.


The discussion is getting beyond the precise point of Order put to me by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and I had better deal with that. I have considered again very carefully the effect of the particular Resolution to which he refers, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise that it is on similar lines to one of the Resolutions which always form part of the series of the Budget Resolutions, and it has been ruled over and over again that that particular Resolution refers only to incidental changes in connection with the subject matter of the Resolutions as a whole and, therefore, having considered that matter very carefully, I can find nothing in that particular Resolution to alter the ruling which I have given.


I must ask the Noble Lord to withdraw the statement that I was attempting to mislead the Chair. I still maintain that the Duchies are part and parcel of the hereditary revenues. I specifically stated that they were not necessarily on all fours with the Crown Lands and a mere statement of opinion given inside the Select Committee is not binding on me, and I am not bound to, accept it and I resent the charge of the Noble Lord that I was attempting to mislead the House.

7.13 p.m.


The hon. Member who preceded me informed the Committee that he moved a reduction of the Vote by £1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He announced the intention of his Friends to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000, although they agreed fully with the proposals which are before the Committee except in one respect, and it was in order to draw attention to that difference of opinion that they proposed to move this reduction. That difference is in regard to the revenues of the Duchies. Although the Amendment has been ruled out of order there will be a Division. Therefore we are not allowed to discuss the matter which is to be decided in that Division.


In the reference I made to the sentence used by the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench I said that if it had the effect which he suggested, it would be out of order. In other words this particular matter which I have ruled to be out of order cannot be raised on that Amendment, and a Division would not be an expression of opinion on a matter which cannot arise on the Amendment.


In that case I will not address myself to that matter.

7.15 p.m.


As my hon. Friends and I have a somewhat similar Amendment, I hope that if they do not proceed with their Amendment—[HON. MEMBEES "We shall!"] I take it that you will be ruling the Amendment out of order if they are proceeding with it on those grounds, and I am only anxious now to protect the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name which we do not intend to move on anything like the grounds which have been suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).


I do not understand the hon. Member's point of Order. If he is again asking me to reverse the Ruling I have already given as to the two Amendments being out of order, I do not propose to do it.


I am not referring to those two Amendments but to the fourth Amendment on the Paper. I am seeking to protect that fourth Amendment in view of the statement made by you, Sir Dennis, with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench.


The hon. Member, I understand, is referring to the Amendment at the top of page 1713: In line 5, leave out '£410,000' and insert '£310,000.' and I agree with him to this extent, that if the immediately preceding Amendment were riot moved I should probably call that one; but I would remind him that the ruling I have just given with regard to the Amendment on the previous page in the name of the Leader of the Opposition applies to the next Amendments of the hon. Member and his friends.


It is quite clear that on all the matters which we are allowed to discuss this afternoon the whole Committee is in favour of the proposals which are before us—with the exception of the hon. Members of the Independent Labour party, whose views I have not heard and to which therefore I shall not attempt to reply. I should also except the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The whole of the rest of the Committee have announced, through their official spokesmen, that they support these proposals and in these circumstances I am glad to be able to add my voice in support of them, and if there is a chance I shall certainly vote in favour of them.

7.18 p.m.


I rise to oppose these grants, but I do not propose to deal with this matter from anything like a personal point of view. I want to say at the outset that I am a Socialist and a republican. I have no time for monarchy of any kind, but this country, which accepts the capitalist system and a capitalist Government, has accepted the institution of monarchy, and I do not propose at this stage to find fault with the general public who are behind the Government of the day and behind the institutions as they exist. If I were a Conservative I should he entirely satisfied with the present Royal Family. I should consider that they as a Royal Family, representing the capitalist system, and being the first line of defence in that system, are fully competent to represent it in a fairly decent manner; but I object to the lavish expenditure in the past and that is proposed to be made for the succeeding generation, by the provision of large sums of money for various members of the Royal Family. I do not represent capitalism or royalty. I represent the other end of the social ladder. I represent people on the means test, who are struggling along with inadequate wages and long hours, in many cases living in slums under conditions which are not fit for the very brute beasts of the field.

I say it is fitting that this Vote should be enthusiastically endorsed, as the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has said it will be, by all sections in this House. The Labour party, the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the National Labour party and the National Liberal party, all wings and all sections of the House, are supporting the proposals before us. They have one or two small technical objections that seem to have been ruled out by the wisdom, shall I say, of the Chairman, and to that I do not intend to object at this stage. I will only say that the sums of money which are going to be voted enthusiastically by this House ought to be looked upon with a measure of contempt when one sees the usual display of antagonism to the working class, and the methods used to push the working class into poverty and subjection. From 1910 Royalty has cost this country nearly £11,000,000 directly. Those who represent capitalism may say that they are getting full and good value for that money.

I am not interested in the Royal Family, because I do not live or have my being among that section of the ruling class. The Chancellor who is asking for this Vote is the direct representative of a man who was at one time looked upon as the republican mayor of Birmingham. He is lavish in his praise of the present Royal Family, and so also has been a Member of the Liberal party and a Member of the Labour party. Days have changed and circumstances have changed. There were periods in the past when Royal Families were in very low water, due to their lives of debauchery, and it was well recognised throughout the world that they were not fitting representatives of even a capitalist State. But to-day we are discussing people whom we all believe to be decent and to be carrying out the duties that capitalism imposes upon them in a fairly decent manner.

I remember in my boyhood days hearing lectures and reading articles from the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), one of the greatest anti-monarchists we have in the country, who is in the Labour party. I do not see him here to-night. He has written more against monarchy than any man I know. He has attacked the salaries paid to the Royal Family, but his absence to-night is a satisfactory explanation of the changes that have taken place in the Labour party. The present Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) was also one of the most ferocious—as he is in all things ferocious —in his denunciations of Royalty. I used to hear him on Glasgow Green, in the Glasgow City Hall and in the streets of Glasgow. He was always the strong man against monarchy. Well, they are both absent to-day, they are not in their seats to take part in this discussion and give us of their wisdom their contributions against monarchy; and therefore I say that the changes which have taken place in the Labour party are evidence of the changes that have gone on among the people who have won a stake in things. Instead of the Throne moving away from the Labour party the Labour party move nearer and nearer to the Throne. We find in consequence that there is no real division of opinion in this House in connection with this matter, though one or two Members here and there may say that they oppose or are going into the Lobby against the Vote. I do not grumble at that, but I do say that if they are going into the Lobby against this Vote there are many other occasions when they have gone into the Lobby against the working class, when the party whip was cracked. To-night I hope we shall have a larger Lobby when the Division is called.

I am opposed to these proposals. First and foremost it is proposed to provide £110,000 a year for the present King—for his personal purse. I believe that to be an outrageous sum to give to any one individual. I believe that even in face of the argument of the apologists of the Labour party when they say, "We recognise the King now as the head of the Civil Service" as a sort of salving of their consciences for the change in their outlook. Would any person in any kind of business or trust make such proposals to a Board of directors or a company as are before this House to-night—to give £110,000 to one individual yearly? Let us contrast that with what is given to an unemployed man—17s. a week. What difference is there between the two individuals? They are made of the same flesh and blood. They are both sections of the unemployed. One is in the unemployable section and another in the unemployed section.


Is not the hon. Member aware that this Vote is going to give the King nothing?


If that is the line of action, if I were allowed by the Chairman I would put that side also and prove that these lands do not belong to the Crown at all, that they belonged to the State, and that they were taken back from the State by vast sums of money that were paid to previous Kings and their sons. If that is the line of excuse, shall I say, I am prepared to meet it; but I am rather weary of all the excuses which are given as reasons when people want to justify action of any kind. It annoys hon. Members sometimes when a member of the Royal Family is contrasted with an unemployed man. Is not an unemployed man in this country as good as any monarch, as good as the son of any monarch? Is not an unemployed woman as good as the Queen? Is she not as good as any female member of the Royal Family in this country? The wealth producers, after all, produce the wealth from which everything comes, and the provision being made under these proposals to-night will be wrung, directly or indirectly, from the class who are at the bottom of the social ladder. The old woman, the old-age pensioner, will pay her pittance of taxation in various ways in order to contribute to the upkeep of these people.

Why should we discuss these proposals in the way we do, and assume that the more money we lavish on a Royal Family the more we show our patriotism, our intelligence and our appreciation of their services I The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last talked about the way in which the present Monarch has endeared himself to the hearts of the public of this country, but is it not true that necessity has driven Royalty to many extremes in order to see that the job of Royalty is not one of the past merely After all, Royalty has passed away in almost every country in the world, and I only say this in passing to those who advance that line of argument, that the two changes which I can perceive in this country, one as a danger and the other as a pleasure to me, are for Socialism or for Fascism, and neither Socialism nor Fascism as a system has any time for Monarchy of any kind.

This sum of money which you are proposing to-night, this £110,000, is first and foremost for the Monarch, to give to him, to this individual. He has only, as was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) the other night, one stomach, he can only wear one suit of clothes at a time, he has only the worth of one human being, and why should you give him a sum of money of that description, even if we recognise the argument put forward by some people that he is the head of the State? You pay to the Prime Minister £5,000 a year. He has responsibility, he has cares, he is the rceognised head of the democratic State. We pay him £5,000 a year, and out of his own pocket he pays expenses connected with his office, but we give to another individual, who has not the same cares or responsibilities, the sum of £110,000 for a purely decorative job that is kept as a symbol of a system of exploitation and robbery.

Therefore, we say that that sum of money to the Monarch cannot be justified by any human being in this House. They may attempt it, they may put on the best face they can, they may show to the House and the country that they are giving an appreciation of that one individual, but I say that it is an outrage that that sum of money should be devoted to any person by this House, and it ought to be opposed by every person who comes here directly representing people from the mine, the workshop, the factory, the field, the parish, or the labour exchange queue. If they represent that section of the people, the exploited section, they ought to stand four-square against every form remuneration by such high sums as this. But that is not the end of the story. We make provision for the wife of the King, if he should marry. We propose to give, in addition to his 110,000, something like £33,000 into—


The hon. Member is mistaken. The £33,000 is part of the £110,000, not an addition to it, but is not drawn till the King marries.


I took the figure of £110,000 from the right hon. Gentleman, and if I made a mistake, I withdraw and apologise, but I say that whether it is £110,000 plus £33,000, or whether that is included, you are making provision for the probable coming of a Prince and Princess of Wales, members of the family, and we are asked to vote sums of money for every child that comes into that Royal household and to maintain them for life. Show me the employer or the company that considers any workman or member of the staff and says, Now, Mr. Brown, your wife has had a child, and we propose to give you an addition of £1 a week in order to maintain that child." When you come to this House and make proposals of this character to increase the allowance for every member of the Household, I say it is outrageous. There is no talk about the personal means of the individual, because there must be very vast sums of money held by all these people out of the moneys paid them in the past. Out of the £11,000,000 that has gone to them in the last 25 years there must be a tremendous; accumulation of wealth.

When we come to the Prince of Wales, he is born, not into a slum, not on to a 2s. a week existence; he is born into a £10,000 a year existence, and it is proposed to create a fund that will give him at the age of 21 something like £210,000 as a gift, with the accumulated interest, and on to that £250,000 that is handed over to him direct from the State, we give an addition of £10,000, and if he marries £25,000, and something for every member of his family to keep them going on in perpetuity on the backs of the common people of this country. I say that that system of parasitical monarchy is an outrage in an age when we might have expected that Governments of this country and of the world would try to conform to the changes that have taken place in the minds of the people owing to the increased misery and poverty that are to be found in abundance.

We had the Monarch in Glasgow not so long ago. He visited slums and working-class homes, and he himself, we are told, according to reliable sources, expressed antagonism to the conditions under which the people were living. He said that scales of relief were too low and that rents were too high. When he said that, he was in effect condemning the people who represent the capitalist system of society, and we say that to treat in this way the workers who produce the wealth and make it possible for every person to live in luxury and comfort is an outrage in this year of 1936. We are opposed to it root and branch, and I say in this House that, so far as I and the party with which I am associated are concerned, we shall continue to pursue our line of antagonism to these vast sums of money being given, and we shall go into the Lobby against their being given. We are told by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that the Royal family does not cost the country anything. I want to read to him a quotation from "Textbook of English History," by Osmund Airy, His Majesty's Inspector of Schools in 1891, who says, on page 416: George' Prince of Wales, son of George III, handsome and clever, but a liar, a spendthrift, and a debauchee, like all the heirs apparent of his house, applied to Parliament to pay his debts, amounting to £250,000, which Parliament paid…. In 1796 the Prince incurred fresh debts, amounting to £700,000, which were also paid by Parliament. Here is an extract from "Our Old Nobility," page 188, regarding George The Ministry had to demand of the House £500,000 for the payment of the King's debts.


I think this is rather ancient history.


Yes, Sir Dennis, but the House is ancient, and I am dealing with an ancient institution. I am using this merely as an illustration. The total debt paid at that time amounted to £1,450,000. According to present values that will be £11,000,000. What the Crown lost at that time became the property of the State, because the State had paid the debts incurred by the Monarch and his son. Therefore, this argument that is used continually as an excuse by Ministers at that Box, that these annual payments are not costing the nation any money at all, is based on a false foundation and ought not to, be used in this House. Members will tell us all sorts of fairy tales concerning royalty that ought to be told to children of from one year to five years old, but for my part I am under no delusion. The monarchical institution is a useless thing in a modern State. It is simply a dressing for the capitalist State. I oppose it as a Republican and as a Socialist, and I shall go into the Lobby and vote on every occasion against the provision of any sums other than small sums for what are termed the heads of the Civil Service in this country.

7.40 p.m.


I hope to be in order if I make a small practical suggestion which ought, I think, to commend itself to the last speaker, because it will make quite a difference, if adopted, to the happiness of real workers. I wish to refer to Class V of these arrangements, to be found on page 11. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very interesting speech, when he came to Class V, "Royal Bounty, Alms, and Special Services," passed that by very hurriedly and merely said that it remained unchanged. I wish, in all humility, to suggest the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think fit to recommend to the House, and it may be to His Majesty, that there shall be a change there. I refer to the list of pensions granted under Section 9 of the Civil List Act, 1910, and Section 6 of the Civil List Act, 1837. The Section of that latter Act stated: Whereas it was resolved by the Commons House of Parliament, 'That it is the bounden duty of the responsible advisers to the Crown to recommend to His Majesty for grants of pensions on the Civil List such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts have merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign and the gratitude of their country'"— and so on. The figure fixed by that Act of 1837 was £1,200, and this year it is distributed in 14 pensions of not more than £100 in any case to persons who have fallen by the way and who have done distinguished service in the fields of art and science. I suggest that this is a figure which might well be raised. We are in many ways, with all our great traditions and enlightenment and our great history, still a barbarous country, if I may say so, and in nothing more, I think, than in our attitude to the arts and sciences. This is the only point at which the State does recognise in a monetary sense the triumphs of the artistic and scientific world, the world of thought and medicine and so on. Unlike the citizens represented by the hon. Members opposite, who, with all their misfortunes, are watched over by the State from the cradle to the grave, and who have pensions very often, and quite rightly—I am glad they have—the people for whom I am speaking get nothing at all, unless it be for this £1,200 a year, which is the present figure.

I am not going to tell any hard stories, though I could tell many, but I think it necessary to say to the Prime Minister, who, I believe, recommends these grants and who is doubtless bombarded on behalf of a vast number of worthy applicants who do not get anything, that I am sure that he, who takes such art interest in art, literature, and science, would say that there are many occasions when he would most gladly recommend that these pensions should be increased. I suggest that as this figure was fixed at £1,200 in 1837 it would be a graceful act, and one that His Majesty would perhaps appreciate as a kind of Coronation gesture next year, if this figure were doubled to £2,400. I would ask hon. Members to realise the smallness of the figure and to look into their consciences and see whether they are really satisfied that—if we are going to adopt the principle of recognising and assisting those, not necessarily writers but it may be doctors, musicians, painters or others who are in need and have done good work—the present amount allocated is sufficiently generous.

7.46 p.m.


The one thing that I wish to speak about, in the first place, is to ask what right has any, Government or any Parliament at any time to make provision so far in the future as is covered in this Civil List? We are dealing here with the incomes from two sections of land. It a great pity that we are not dealing with the income of all land. But here are the incomes of two sections, and a certain sum of money is involved. If it had been a question simply of dealing with provision for one person as head of the Civil List the matter under discussion would have been confined to a very narrow point. Why should any one individual in a State which calls itself a Christian State be provided for not only in regard to his own future and the future of his wife, if he marries, but even the future of any children that he may have? To-night we are dealing with a proposal of £10,000 for a son that may be born to the King if he marries. There are sons being born to-night and daughters being born to-night, the sons and daughters of men and women just as good as any of those whom we are discussing under this kind of Estimate. I know of five homes to-night where there are expectant mothers, and in those homes there is not that provision of things that there ought to be where additions to the population are expected.

It seems to me that while some people want to claim to be loyal and to use all the other nice phrases that they like to use, they became so enthusiastic that they are indifferent to the realities of life. A son or daughter born in a working-class home is just as good as any son or daughter born anywhere else, or in any palace in the world. I object to the provision that is being made in this Civil List. Out of the money that we are going to pay to His Majesty he ought to keep his wife and family, as other people have to keep their wives and families. But the Civil List is not simply restricted to making provision for the future wife and the future family. When we come to the realities connected with this Royalty business, we find that we have to pay big sums every year to each one of the relatives. Why? In a working-class household to-day, if a father, a mother, a son or a. daughter are unemployed, the relatives are called into account under the means test in order to see what they can contribute, before the State steps in and does anything in the way of benefit; but in this case no questions are to be asked, and if there is the possibility of a family coming, then he is to get £10,000 per child. He may not marry and, therefore, he may not have a family.

The report which I have read of the visits of His Majesty to certain working-class areas have shown me that if he were free and not surrounded by those who make so much of Royalty, he would be up against things that any decent fellow would protest against. What an awful time a King must have with these people all pressing round him, trying to get favours and trying to make him believe all sorts of things rather than the limitations which are to be seen in the country. If he had the freedom of an ordinary citizen he would break through all these things round about him and would see through all the people who are about him, saying: "Do not let the thing down, or you will let us down." The people who support this kind of thing called Royalty, are all of the same type. They have no real feeling about nation or country. It is a case of their vain feelings, especially the women, who say proudly that they have seen certain Royalty pass.

To-night in the east end of the city of Glasgow births are taking place in one-room tenements. In those houses the doctor in most cases will have to go out to adjoining houses in order to try and find sufficient blankets and clothing to meet the needs of the household. Yet we are sitting complacently here thinking about the future of a child who may or may not be born and making provision that in the event of the birth of that child £10,000 shall be guaranteed. If we had any Christianity at all we should not act as we are doing. But we do not do these things from the Christian basis. We are lip-service Christians only. When it comes to the question of social justice in regard to the distribution of the world's goods, and this is part of the distribution of the world's goods, we find that when the son who is not yet born attains the age of 21 there is to be an increase of £5,000, up to £15,000. We do things very queerly in this country. We have been discussing an Education Bill in Committee. We are dealing there with the question of the sons and daughters of citizens and have been trying to get provision whereby every child will at least, up to the age of 15 years, have the right to assimilate what we call our education. We have asked that in ease where the. family income is insufficient to provide the necessary funds maintenance grants should be given, in order that these children should be able to obtain these educational qualifications, but we have been told that there is no possibility of doing that, because there is not sufficient money in the country to deal with things of that sort. If there is not sufficient money in the country—I know that the distribution of the money that we are discussing to-night would not go round—since we cannot do anything for the mass, why do it for one? We hear it suggested sometimes that the people we are providing for to-night are gifted with special brains; as if they got them from some special God Almighty source.

I am pleading that the Government in dealing with the distribution of moneys under its control will devote their mind to pressing needs. Imagine what is going to take place. There is to be provision of £70,000 for the widow of someone who is not yet married. Why? Why should anyone have £70,000 as a pension? We are always told in this House, when we are dealing with questions of economy especially, that the working classes while they have been in good work ought to have saved enough for the time when the rainy day comes. In the present case there is no question of what may have been saved while she may have been the wife of the King; but the moment she becomes a widow she is to get a pension of £70,000 a year. What do we do for other widows? It is these contrasts that are bound to face us in this House to-day. Most hon. Members have got it into their heads that there is some real difference between the people for whom we are now providing and the working classes. They do not realise that it is only a question of whether a child happens to be born in a poor house or a rich house. Why should the children or the prospective children of any one man receive the kind of treatment proposed, when we know what is -taking place in the country to-day? We know of adult men and women who are idle through unemployment, and yet the Government through its Education Bill before the House are trying to provide cheap boy and girl labour, while adults of the same class are unemployed. These are the things which have to be contrasted one with the other, and they will take me into the Lobby on every opportunity against every one of these proposals.

I do not believe in Royalty, and never have done. I have always been a Radical, a Republican, a Socialist ever since I have been able to think clearly about these things. It would have been good business to-night if we had been able to obtain an explanation why at any time there should be special consideration given even for houses under this Civil List. When we are presenting salaries such as are now proposed, they ought to provide their own houses. Here we have a widow's pension proposed of £70,000 a year, and we contrast it with widows' pensions of the working class of 7s. 6d., 5s. and even 2s. 6d. in some places. Every one of these things is an insult to the human being. I hope the vote will go against the Government.

8.0 p.m.


I do not want in any way to criticise the recipients of these moneys that are in the Civil List because, in the existing circumstances, and in view of the demands that are made upon them by the aristocracy of this country, probably these sums, though very large, are necessary. I do not propose, either, to raise the question which has been mentioned by the last speaker, of the desirability or the undesirability of a constitutional monarchy as a form of government in this country. At the present moment we have a constitutional monarchy, whatever its benefits and virtues may be, or whatever its disadvantages may be; there are many more important questions to be discussed than that, which is academic now, of the relative values of a monarchy versus a republic.

I desire to draw attention to one special aspect of this matter, as I regard it of very deep import ante to the future good government of this country, and it arises directly out of the consideration of the Civil List. The opportunities which we have for discussing these matters are, unfortunately, not very frequent, and therefore anyone who desires to make observations on the matter has to take the chance when he can get it. These very large sums of money have to be devoted to the Civil List because of the standards of lavishness and luxury that are imposed upon the Royal Family of this country by the traditional demands of our aristocratic society. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to discuss whether such a development was preventable or not; it is certainly of direct and immediate importance to consider whether it is any longer justified, and what its reaction is upon the government of this country.

It was stated recently in a newspaper that the effect of the withdrawal of the ban upon entertainments, which ban had resulted from the death of the late King, would be an expenditure during this season of close upon £10,000,000, in luxury articles and services of all kinds connected with aristocracy. That figure may be accurate, as a guess, or may be inaccurate, but it illustrates the very large extent of luxury expenditure which is attached to the incidence of a Court circle, and to the snobbery of those outside who ape its performances. No one would justify that expenditure on the ground that it is luxury expenditure. I think everybody in the House would agree that, while the masses go without, such an extravagance can, in itself, have no justification. It is argued that the display of Court functions, and all that penumbra of imitative events that surround them, are necessary to show the pomp and circumstance of the Sovereign, and that, in any event, the people enjoy it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that would get an echo from the benches opposite. I do not for a moment doubt that the mass of the people of this country like a good procession with plenty of bands and gold lace. Those can always be provided for them by the armed forces of the Crown and the police. Those displays have no necessary relation to the amount of expenditure which appears in the Civil List, or to the Court circle or the Palace entourage.

Of course, in the days when the rich landowners and merchants of this country had a complete monopoly of political as well as of economic power in the country, it did not very much matter that they should form a close and impenetrable circle about the Throne. Elaborate Court costumes, expensive uniforms and costly entertainments were their hobby, and were paid for by the exploitation of the workers then as they are paid for by the same exploitation to-day. The Government was always a Government by the few for the few, and it did not matter very much that one set utilised the Court to scheme against and overthrow their rivals. A few heads were lost, a few new additions were made to the Peerage; but, so far as the people were concerned, the matter proceeded much as it was before. In the depths of their poverty, they hardly felt or realised those little ripples on the surface of the national life.

To-day, things are very different. The workers, through their representatives, are in responsible positions, and the Throne should be surrounded not by one class or, rather, by one section of one class, but by persons truly representative of the people as a whole. There should be no provision or regulation, and no atmosphere, to prevent, as in fact everybody knows they do prevent, the representatives of the workers from exercising as great an influence on the Throne as the representatives of any other class. So long as the standards of this Civil List pertain it is clear that, of those two nations which Disraeli described so many years ago, and which still exist in this country, one alone can have any general access to, or influence upon, the Sovereign.


Surely the hon. and learned Member agrees that His Majesty is always accessible to his Ministers, and that, if the Socialist party were in power, he would be surrounded by the Ministers of that party, as was the case—


I am coming to deal with what happened when the Labour party were in power, if the hon. Gentleman will wait. At the moment I was pointing out that the present standards obviously do not permit free contact with the working-class part of the population, as they do with that part of the population which has the necessary means to compete in the performances which take place at that standard. It is true that what has been so accurately described as the aristocratic embrace will, no doubt, from time to time and on convenient occasions, be extended to draw choice specimens from the workers' ranks into an artificial and temporary association with those self-styled superior beings who constitute society, a sort of mariage de convenance, which is dissolved when its unpleasantness is no longer necessitated by political considerations. but both the normal expense and the exotic atmosphere of the Court make it quite impossible for any ordinary man in the street himself to be in, or to participate in, the life of the Court circle. Not even the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will deny that proposition, as the great expert in the aristocratic embrace.

Viscountess ASTOR

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman two questions, the answers to which he, as a K. C., ought to know? [Interruption.] Silence, among the comrades. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about aristocrats, does he not know that, from the foreign point of view, there is not what you call an aristocracy in England? Aristocrats come from the ordinary people. He is an aristocrat, if ever there was one. They are just ordinary people, and he knows that is so. You find that in the House of Lords, if you go two generations back. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that what he calls the aristocracy walk in and out of Court circles just because they are well-dressed and can afford it? Can he conceive of Court circles having people only for that reason?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

The Noble Lady appears, in her interruption, to be getting very far away from the Civil List.


I would not attempt to vie with the Noble Lady in regard to what is the foreign notion of British aristocracy. As to her second point, I do not imagine that the people to whom she refers walk in and out of the Court, but I imagine that the Court is the centre around which they radiate. I was emphasising that the great expenditure, of which this large Civil List is symptomatic, creates at the present time the wall around the Throne within which class privilege delights to enjoy itself, and in one of its most obnoxious forms. By large Civil Lists we encourage the creation of these surroundings for the Crown that I believe to be so dangerous to the survival of true democracy within this country. It may be argued—I say this in reply to the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) who interrupted—that the experience of the two Labour Governments has shown that it is not impossible for the present system of Court society to continue side by side with a truly democratic Government. No one wishes to deny the concessions that were made to the poverty of the representatives of the lower classes during that period, but they were concessions, and they did little or nothing, in. my opinion, to counteract the imminent dangers to democratic government which arise from the present structure of Court society. I arm certain that all those who have not since suffered from the strangulation of the aristrocratic embrace experienced during that period, must be firmly of opinion that such a state of affairs could not possibly be continued under any future Labour Government.

It is not a question of concession or toleration of the incursion of a lower class into the select and privileged area of a Court; it should be a question of the right of access, and the setting up of conditions in which that access can be a normal and ordinary event. If the Crown is to be, or to appear to be, impartial to all classes of society, it is impossible that it should remain ringed round with the present fence of privilege and wealth, which makes it quite impossible in practice for there to be any general measure of social contact with the masses and with their representatives. I believe that the constitutional monarchy can only continue to exist as a form of government as long as it adjusts itself to the changed circumstances of social and political development. Today a working-class party is the Opposition And the alternative Government, and the Court can no longer be allowed to exist as the privilege and the hobby of a few select families or a, wealthy clique of vested interests—the very thing which is encouraged by this large Civil List which is being voted to-day. If it does so continue to exist, it will spell the end of monarchy, for the Monarch will become identified with the extravagance and exclusiveness of those who surround him, and the people, in their desire to sweep away the latter, will demolish the whole structure, and the monarchy will disappear together with all those unworthy adherents who surround it to-day.

This Civil List is designed on the basis of continuing a form of social structure at the pinnacle of our national life which has no possible relationship to-day to the problems and necessities of that life, and on a basis which, I strongly suspect, is wanted neither by the Monarch nor his family. It is, indeed, a sort of false facade of luxury behind which the masses in the country continue in their poverty, and we shall be well advised, if we desire democracy to continue in this country—and I understand that to be the desire of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—to demolish this false facade, with all its tawdry and out-of-date ornaments, and build in its place an honest and dignified elevation which matches the reality of the architecture of our national life. After all, in America today every man feels that he is equal of the President, and yet he pays him proper respect and honours him; and the President does not receive a sum of two million dollars a year for his Civil List. So, here, no man ought to feel himself repulsed by the surroundings of the Monarch; and, if such an attitude and outlook were adopted in this country as I believe to be consistent with the present stage of development here, it would certainly fit in with the circumstances of our national life far more truly than that which exists to-day can ever do; and, also, there would then be no need to vote these very large sums for the purposes of the Civil List.

The belief in the Divine right, of kings has long ago passed away. The Monarch rules to-day because the people wish it, and it is essential that his office should accommodate itself the changing times, in which, to-day, the working class form an important portion of our society, just as important as any other class. I should, therefore, like to see these sums reduced, as an indication that this snobbish exclusiveness of the Court circle is to be swept au ay, with all its extravagance and waste and all its dangers to the continuance of democratic Government in this country.

8.21 p.m.


Most of us regard the possession of a constitutional monarchy as something in itself so precious that its worth cannot be assessed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. We are, therefore, prepared to grant, and to grant cheerfully, such sums as can be shown to be reasonably necessary to maintain that monarchy in a state of dignity consistent with the greatness of the State of which it is the head It appears from the Debate this afternoon that there are three of four Members of this House who do not share that view. It has been suggested to us that a monarchy is not a suitable form of Government for this country, and it has been suggested, further, that it is a great extravagance. I do not propose to pursue the question whether the monarchy is a suitable form of government for this country or not, as it seems to me to be much too wide to be discussed on the matter before us; but I would like to reply to the suggestion that it is a great extravagance.

It is not of the slightest use for the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to come here and compare, as he did this afternoon, the income of the head of the State with the income of an unemployed man. That may be very effective at a street corner, but it will not cut any ice in the House of Commons, and for this reason, that it has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. If the hon. Member desires to show that the monarchy in this country is an extravagance, he must support his argument by comparing its cost with that of any possible alternative. It so happens that we can make a very simple comparison. We have had urged upon us once or twice this afternoon the merits of republics. There is a great Republic on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States of America. The United States have a President, and it may surprise some of those hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon to point out to them that the cost, direct and indirect, to the United States of their President, is far greater than the cost of our Monarch to this country.

It is quite true that, if you have an ancient monarchy like ours, there results a certain amount of pomp and ceremony, which costs money, and that a republic can dispense with that, and that money can be saved. But is that a true comparison? You have to set against that the fact that, where there is a President, he requires to be elected, and these periodical elections are extremely costly to the State. Some very interesting figures were given recently by Professor W. F. Ogburn, of the University of Chicago, who made a very careful comparison of the trade of the United States from 1868 to 1932, a period which covered 17 presidential elections. He showed, as the result of his calculations, that the average effect of a presidential election in the United States in any year was to reduce the sum total of the trade of the United States by 4 per cent. I have not the figures before me of the total trade of the United States but it will be immediately obvious that 4 per cent. of that amount is something altogether greater than the total cost that we are asked to agree to now. I hope, if we are to have further criticism of these proposals, that it will be honest and that comparison will be made between the cost of these proposals and the cost of any possible alternative.

8.26 p.m.


I rise as an apostle of economy, but economy at the top this time instead of the favourite pastime of hon. Members opposite, economy at the bottom. I am not quick enough in regard to the material that is coming before the House or I would have been responsible for putting down an Amendment to wipe out the whole amount if such an Amendment had been admitted. If I were allowed to move such an Amendment, I would certainly put it forward. I want to present myself here as one who, as distinct from hon. Members opposite, is absolutely loyal to my class. The one thing that especially characterises hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is disloyalty. I do not want any hon. Member opposite to try to get me or anyone else to believe that there is anything in the nature of loyalty in connection with the Civil List. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) says that the monarchy exists because the people wish it. He is wrong. When he says that, he smashes every argument that he has been making before. The monarchy exists because for the time being it is useful to the capitalist class. I have here a song sheet that we were using on May Day. There is a verse that starts: Kings, hirelings and War Lords have long held their sway. This was written by one who for long was a Member of the House, James Keir Hardie. Thirty years ago he wrote it, when Labouchers in "Truth" was exposing the scandals and extravagance of the Court and when "Reynold's Newspaper" was the medicine of robust republicanism. But during the past twenty-five years a change has taken place. The capitalist class have seen that the monarchy might be used as a centre for reaction and for maintaining their power. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, if this aristocratic circle is maintained, the masses will rise and overthrow the monarchy. Neither he nor anyone else present here can give me a case where the masses have overthrown the monarchy but, when the masses get into motion—and they are getting into motion in this country—in every case the capitalist class sacrifices the monarchy in order to try to save themselves. I do not care what country it is, whenever the masses begin to move and begin to threaten the property interests of the capitalist class, out goes the monarchy.


We are not discussing the advisability, or otherwise, of a monarchy. The only point before the Committee is whether the provision made is suitable or not.


I want to make it clear that in putting forward such a sum as this there is nothing sincere about it. The only thing that is genuine, is the determination to maintain property and profits. Take the case of the Prime Minister. In the first debate I heard in this House, members opposite vied with each other in declaring their devotion to the Prime Minister. He it was who had made election victory possible; now they are getting ready to throw him out. Loyalty is an unknown quantity. We have seen the Prime Minister's face on all the hoardings. "Now sprawls he there and none so poor as may not kick him."

This may interest the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), who is always expressing her keen concern for the women. The Civil List proposes a matter of £30,000 for a hypothetical wife and a considerable sum for the hypothetical children of the hypothetical wife. We had a gentleman who went to South Wales to deal with real and not hypothetical men, women and children, and he decided that seven shillings a day was good enough for a miner and, if he got married, 3d. a day for his wife and, if he had any children, one or a dozen, 3d. a day extra. Yet you are prepared to present this before us. I do not know whether there is the slightest sense of shame that they can come forward with such proposals as these. I remember that on one occasion I happened to be speaking and drawing attention to the fact that certain leaders of the movement on this side of the House were associating with the enemies of the working class, and the present Lord President of the Council offered to take me to Balmoral Castle.




Give him a chance.


I will give him a chance.


We know the sort of chance to give him.


I am one of those who very willingly contribute.


I think that we would get on better without these interruptions.


The Lord President of the Council at that time proposed to take me to Balmoral Castle, but he did not take me. Another Member of His Majesty's Government at that time took a hand in that game, and I went to Wandsworth Prison instead. I was still under the care of His Majesty, but I was satisfied that I was in better company than I would have been at Balmoral Castle. We have the s allocation in the Civil List, but we still have the derelict areas, and not a penny of any kind should be spent upon anything that we could do without until the problem of the derelict areas has been solved. Here we have a proposition for £100,000, £30,000 of which is to be put aside for a hypothetical wife, so much for children and so much for relatives. The other night we discussed in this House the report of another committee which had a surplus of several millions, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were adamant against utilising that money to raise the benefit of an unemployed man from 17s. to 18s. a week. Let anyone here go anywhere in the country, and in view of the treatment of the unemployed, and the derelict areas and in view of the existence of poverty and malnutrition, justify such an unspeakable expenditure as this. I will go to any part of the country with any hon. or right hon. Member—


Will the hon. Member come to my constituency?


—and will prove that the capitalist class have never at any time been loyal to anything but property and profits, and that when property and profits are taken, they will sacrifice a Prime Minister or a Monarchy, or all and sundry, in order to regain them. They are destroying men and women in this country, and I protest against any expenditure of this kind when men, women and children are going short of food.

8.39 p.m.


I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who, if nobody else, ought to know a great deal better than what he told us to-night. He is what I call a silver-tongued revolutionary. It is by that kind of speech in the various constituencies that he gets all kinds of less intelligent people than himself to believe that what he is saying is the truth. I think that he is an ignorant man if he thinks that what he has told us to-night is in fact the opinion of even the people whom he described as the aristocratic class. I happen to have been a, British Consul in the Far East for 20 years, and during that time it was my pleasure and my duty to serve this country to the best of my ability. We Britishers who, for one reason or another, happened to be in this foreign Colony always appreciated meeting each other and talking of the old country. We all looked back upon this country and the things that were going on with the greatest of interest. There was no question of class. The hon. Member for West Fife has told us that he represents a class. In my constituency I represent all classes.


Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how he is going to connect his very interesting reminiscences in the Dutch East Indies with the Civil List Vote?


I shall connect them in my own way. The hon. Member occupies the Floor of the Chamber a good deal more than I do, and now that I have the privilege of speaking I intend to make my speech in exactly the manner that I desire.


It is perhaps the greater frequency with which I am called which enables me to deal with the matters before the Committee not as I please, but as the Chairman decides.


I appreciate that fact, but I stayed here until 10 o'clock in the morning on one occasion when the hon. Gentleman was, from time to time, probably every half hour, called to order for not being relevant. He will probably recall the occasion when that took place. I was about to say that during all the time that I was abroad we looked to this country and especially to the Monarchy. We had our daily papers, and I do not think that, during the 20 years I was out there, I took a great deal of interest in the political speeches delivered in this House, nor did I read what comrades or colleagues, as they were called, were saying. But I did read what the Royal Family were doing. That is the link which binds the whole Empire together. Last year I had the pleasure of going round the world, and at every place to which I came I found bands of Britishers who were loyal to the Crown and whose great idea was to come home for the Jubilee.


Hear, hear.


Of course, a man who makes a speech like that of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is idiotic enough to jeer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] We listened very attentively to the things which he said, and which I can assure him, whether he believes it or not, hurt many of us very much indeed.


I am very glad to hear that it is possible to penetrate to the bone through some of your hides.


Although I was 20 years out of the country, I am just as loyal as anybody else. The money which is being voted to-night is, in my opinion, fully justified. The loyalty of the people of all classes in this country to the Throne is undoubted, and they show this by the way in which they appreciate Royal processions. Although they may not have the entree, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol has said, into Royal or aristocratic circles they are enthusiastically loyal. The hon. and learned Member knows more about aristocratic circles than I do because he has a better right of entry, but, although this may be a small circle, the people, the millions, who are outside the circle are just as loyal as those within it. I think it is a pity that a man of his learning and knowledge should get up in this House and talk, I was going to say the rot but the kind of stuff he talked this evening. He knows that there are ignorant people who think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says must be the truth. I suggest that it is very far from the truth.

8.47 p.m.


When the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was speaking I intervened to say that Parliament was not giving the King anything at all. I do not wish the hon. Member and his colleagues to misunderstand me. I cannot really get into harmony with the discussion so far as it has gone. I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and I agree with almost every word lie said, and I think that when his speech is read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow it should have a salutary effect upon those who are disposed to be sycophants and lackeys. The King himself resents such persons. But I do not appreciate the relevance of what the hon. and learned Member said with regard to the Vote under discussion. The main point before us is that His Majesty the King is the owner of a vast amount of land and if he held on to his land he would be a much wealthier man than he will be if this Vote is passed by the Committee.

In a debate of this kind there is every opportunity for extremists' sloppy sentimentalities, against which every intelligent person must be on his guard. The King is asking for a Vote which will decide his salary for the years to come. I am not taking any sides on this matter, but what is happening is that certain people think this is a glorious opportunity to speak for an hour or two hours in order to make it clear to the people outside that they are identified with the interests of the working classes. That is cheap, it is mean, and it is contemptible. If His Majesty the King were to retain his ownership of land he would be a much wealthier man than this House proposes to make him by this Vote. Comparisons are sometimes odious. but I know of landholders who are wealthier than the King—who could buy him out. They are not doing anything at all for the State, and yet from my hon. Friends on the extreme Left—masters of their fate—not a word comes about the constant pillage by these owners of land in the State. That is allowed to pass, but when the King's salary comes up they think it is easy to make a contrast between the King on his Throne, the vast amount of money given to His Majesty, and the poor unemployed men outside. If they were successful in defeating the Vote is there a man or woman outside or inside the House who believes that it would benefit the unemployed men by a single farthing? Of course is would not.

Let us be quite frank. The discussion so far as it has come from hon. Members of the Left Wing is absurd. They are using the circumstances of this discussion as a stalking horse. One of them said that he was not speaking to the House of Commons but to the street corner. When a certain Vote is under discussion it would be well if hon. Members would apply their minds to the Vote, and more especially to the one which is at present under discussion. It is unique. Whether it is a President or a King who rules a. country we know that poverty and riches are there. The more I see of Presidents and dictators in other countries the less am I enamoured of the so-called democratic choice of other countries. The vote which will be given to-night will be partly handing back to the King that which he could control if he wishes. As to whether we should have a King is a. matter which can be appropriately discussed on the proper occasion.

May I be allowed to add something which is not quite relevant. I never look on a Royal procession coming to this House for the opening of Parliament but I deeply regret the military glamour of the thing. It would be well if Royalty in this country would identify itself more with the scientific, industrial and artistic activities of the State, instead of having cordons of soldiers, the rattling of sabres, gun-carriages. It would be more in keeping with the nation of Shakespeare if they were surrounded by members of the artistic and educational and craft guilds of the State, instead of a retinue of military, which is quite foreign to the character of the people of this country.

8.55 p.m.


I rise to say a word or two on this Vote, as I understand that we are debating the making of a grant for the payment of money by Parliament which will continue for all the years that this King or Monarch should live. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) referred to landlords. Unfortunately we are not to-night discussing the landlords of Britain, but if we were I should have something to say about them, their conduct and their incomes. I wish we were discussing all those ramifications. May I, however, say to the hon. Member for Burslem that we have attacked the landlords, both in speech and in literature, both at election times and at non-election times, and we have never been the slightest bit backward in attacking anyone who lives on what we term rent, profit or interest I We have constantly attacked the landlords in that category. I was not surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem, because whatever reputation he has made, be it great or small, has come through his not being a Socialist. Although he has been a nominal member of the Socialist party, he has never ceased to say that he is not a Socialist; nor has he ever claimed to be one. It is a very honest position, and one which his party appreciates. He has constantly refused to associate himself with the party and has constantly sneered at Socialist ideas. In so far as he has made a reputation, it is by such attacks. I understand that to-night we are discussing the giving of money to a landlord, who is in addition the King, and I should have thought that the person who would have led the attack would have been the hon. Member for Burslem, who was a pioneer of the single tax and anti-landlordism. To-night we are discussing a landlord; he may be the King or Monarch, but he is nevertheless a landlord, and unless the hon. Member can differentiate between one landlord and another, I am afraid he has to-night departed from the former faith he held—that of the single tax.

I would like now to discuss the question of sentimentality. It is becoming a. common thing in this House for anyone who rises in his place and makes a defence of the poor people to be told that he is a sentimentalist. We had it the other night from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in the discussion on the Budget, when he claimed advantages for certain children under the Income Tax; but when hon. Members on this side make claims for the children of the unemployed they are told that they are sentimentalists. I am often guilty of sentimentality. I hope that Labour Members in this House will never be afraid of sentiment and of stating it. There is nothing to be ashamed of in a love for sentimentality. Indeed the Labour party has built up its power—and this is not to its discredit—largely on sentiment. What has been that sentiment? In local and national elections it has constantly been on the question of the treatment of the rich and of the poor; the building of battleships and the neglect of social services; the handing out of public money to Sir Ernest Gowers and the treatment of the unemployed—I heard a brilliant speech from the hon. Member. for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on that subject; the treatment of Colonial Governors' pensions and the treatment of the poor people and their pensions—on which there was a speech the other night by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). What about the workmen's compensation? That is the sentiment which has built up and made the Labour party.

As the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, the money which it is proposed to give to a particular man is given from the land. It is given from the social wealth of the community. Call it what you will, it is created by the labour of the people. That sum of £110,000 comes from the social wealth of the people and is to be devoted to one particular man. Can he use it? Does he need it? He is one man having only one man's needs—one stomach, one pair of boots, one suit of clothes. I say frankly that if I had a regard for the King I would oppose the granting of this sum, because I believe that the ownership of vast sums of money such as that, is as cruel to the man who owns them as they are to the poor who give them. It gives to him a sense of importance, a sense of power over his fellow human beings, that is neither good for him nor good for the common people. We object to granting this sum. It is a sum which no human being can reasonably use on his needs. It is a sum which no man can spend unless he does one of two things, either does not spend it and places it in savings or uses it in luxuries that are indefensible. Not only do we make that provision of £110,000, but we make provision for every other relative of the King.


Why do you not attack Westminster?


We will attack this fellow because that is our job to-night. Let Westminster come on to-morrow and we will attack him as well. Let me say here that we will never do what the hon. Member for Burslem has done; he is an anti-Socialist who joined the Socialist party. He is not sitting on the Liberal benches where he ought to be. Hon. Members may say that to-night we are talking sloppy sentimentalities, but we do draw attention to this contrast because, if my information be correct, we are on the 20th May to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, and the 1,500,000 human beings affected by them. Then the House will discuss how little they can give and not how much; they will discuss how they can cut down every item. I see that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is in his place. In the Budget Debate he said that we are spending too much on the social services and that they should be cut down. That was not sloppy sentiment, but an attack on the poor. It is only sentiment when you make a defence of the poor, but attack them on as miserable and niggardly things as you can, and you are doing a statesmanlike thing.

When a Labour Government occupied those benches opposite, I was told that it was paying all it could afford in pensions and unemployment benefit. In the words of a prominent member of the Labour party "every penny in the till" was being paid out in that way. But at the same time they could afford to pay this sum, which I think is an outrageous sum to pay to one man. You can walk around it as you like and consider it from any point of view. You can tell me, as the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party told us, about the King's great gifts. Personally, I do not think he has all the gifts he is alleged to have. I read about him going down a mine and knowing all about miners; driving a train and knowing all about railway engines, kicking off at a football match and knowing all about football. To talk about the King in that way to intelligent people is only to lower him in their eyes. He cannot know anything like all that he is supposed to know.

I would say this of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever his future may prove to be, he is one of the ablest men in this House. There is no doubt about his ability, but to say that he has all the virtues and all the capacity would be ridiculous. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is an eminent King's Counsel and has great legal ability but nobody would claim for him a tremendous all-round ability, which he does not possess. It is nonsense to claim for this man that he is good at this and good at that, when everybody knows it is not the case. I understand that the Monarchy has, of recent years, improved out of all knowledge. I am told that in the old days the Liberals, led by Sir Charles Dilke, were republicans and at one time, round about 1910, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) voted in this House to have this salary reduced by £25,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not know the King then!"] Possibly he did not. Then the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister and is now Lord President of the Council voted for £25,000, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who was Minister of Education in the Labour Government, also voted for it. He was a Liberal then but since he has gone from Liberalism to Socialism he has advanced from £25,000 to £109,000. The Labour party of those days composed almost exclusively of trade unionists—men like David Shackleton, George Barnes and Arch—every one of them voted for £25,000 in 1910. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trade union rate !"] It may have been the trade union rate but it was more than ample.

Let us look at the realities. Could any man go down and defend this proposal in the constituencies which we represent to-day—and despite all the opposition of the Labour party and of the National Government we held our seats? We may be right or we may be wrong, but at least we represent the people of our divisions. On that there can be no challenge. Does the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Weir) challenge it?


I did not challenge it.


I say we represent our divisions despite the determined opposition of the hon. Member and the whole of his party, and despite occasional things similar to that for which he apologised yesterday, used against us. He was only caught yesterday. He has a record in that unequalled in this House—


When the hon. Member says "the whole of the party," does he intend to include myself and other hon. Members?


I did not mean that; I only meant the Scottish party.


But the hon. Member who interrupts is the hon. Member for the Scotland division.


May I say that I did not interrupt the hon. Member at all? He attributed to me an interruption by somebody else.


Then in the same generous way as the hon. Member apologised yesterday, I apologise to him now. But to return to what I was saying we do represent our divisions and I have to go down there to see teeming thousands of people living in overcrowded conditions on incomes that are outrageous. When we talk about brave people let us think of the treatment we are giving to men who risked their lives in the War and men whose sons were killed in the War. We insist on counting every penny piece of pension that a widow gets in order to make her live on as little as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all know it."] I do not think the hon. Member does know. I do not think that some hon. Members know anything about it. But to-night they could not go down to any great industrial centre and defend this proposal. I was speaking to the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) and what do I find that he was charged with at the last Election? He was hunted round about Dundee by his opponents—and they were not Communists at the last Election—and he was challenged to say why he was in favour of granting all this money to the King while the poor were being treated as they are being treated. That has been an issue in every place. We will vote against this proposal and every proposal of the kind, because we believe that the voting of this money is wrong and indefensible. It is socially wrong, and we propose to take every step to oppose this and similar grants.

9.14 p.m.


For some reason which I find it difficult to understand the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) launched an attack on me with reference to my speech on the Budget Resolutions. Had the hon. Member done me the honour of listening to that speech—


I did.


Had he listened to it with attention—and I see no reason why he should not have done so—he would have known that, whatever else I said, I did not say what he attributed to me. My plea on that occasion, for better or for worse, was not that money should be taken from the poor but that it should be distributed to them differently. I think from what I heard that the rest of the hon. Member's speech was as inaccurate and as inconsequent as his reference to myself.


I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "£410,000," and to insert "£409,000."

I formally move this Amendment for a token reduction, for the reasons which I have already explained in the general Debate.

Question put, "That '£410,000' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 102.

Division No. 163.] AYES [9.15 p.m,
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Entwistle, C. F. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Everard, W. L. Moreing, A. C.
Albery, I. J. Fildes, Sir H. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Fleming, E. L. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Foot, D. M. Morrison, G A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Furness, S. N. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Apsley, Lord Ganzoni, Sir J. Munro, P.
Aske, Sir R. W. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Nall, Sir J.
Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gluckstein, L. H. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Goldie, N. B. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Balniel, Lord Goodman, Col. A. W. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gower, Sir R. V. Owen, Major G.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Palmer, G. E. H.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J Peat, C. U.
Bird, Sir R. B. Gridley, Sir A. B. Penny, Sir G.
Blaker, Sir R. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Petherick, M.
Blindell, Sir J. Grimston, R. V. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bossom, A. C. Gritten, W. G. Howard Porritt, R. W.
Boulton, W. W. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Procter, Major H. A.
Brass, Sir W. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Radford, E. A.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Guy, J. C. M. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hamilton, Sir G. C. Ramsden, Sir E.
Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury) Hanbury, Sir C. Rankin, R.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Hannah, I. C. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Burghley, Lord Harbord, A. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Burgln, Dr. E. L. Harris, Sir P. A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Burton, Col. H. W. Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Remer, J. R.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Carver, Major W. H. Hepworth, J. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Cary, R. A. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Castlereagh, Viscount Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ropner, Colonel L.
Cautley, Sir H. S. Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Holdsworth, H. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Holmes, J. S. Rothschild, J. A. de
Channon, H. Hope, Captain Hon. A O. J. Rowlands, G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hopkinson, A. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Christie, J. A. Hore-Bellsha. Rt. Hon. L Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Hulbert, N. J. Salmon, Sir I.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hunter, T. Salt, E. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) James, Wing-Commander A. W. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth) Sandys, E. D.
Craven-Ellis, W. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Scott, Lord William
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Seely, Sir H. M.
Crooke, J. S. Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities) Selley, H. R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Kimball, L. Shakespeare. G. H.
Cross, R. H. Kirkpatrick, W. M. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
Cruddas, Col. B. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Latham, Sir P. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Leckie, J. A. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Dawson, Sir P. Leech, Dr. J. W. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Denville, Alfred Lewis, O. Smithers, Sir W.
Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F. Liddall, W. S. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Dodd, J. S. Lindsay, K. M. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden E.)
Donner, P. W. Lleweilln, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Spender-Clay Lt,-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Loftus, P. C. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Drewe, C. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Duggan, H, J. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Duncan, J. A. L. Magnay, T. Sutcliffe, H
Dunglass, Lord Maitland, A. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Eastwood, J. F. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Eckersley, P. T. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Markham, S. F. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Ellis, Sir G. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Touche, G. C.
Elmiey, Viscount Maxwell, S. A. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Emery, J. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Wells, S. R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Wakefield, W. W. White, H. Graham
Walker-Smith, Sir J. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Ward, Irene (Wallsend) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert
Waterhouse, Captain C. Womersley, Sir W. J. Ward and Commander Southby.
Wayland, Sir W. A. Wragg, H.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M. Hardie, G. D. Parkinson, J. A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Potts, J.
Banfield, J. W. Hicks, E. G. Price, M. P.
Batey, J. Hopkin, D. Pritt, D. N.
Bellenger, F. Jagger, J. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benson, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Ritson, J.
Bevan, A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Broad, F. A. John, W. Rowson, G.
Bromfield, W. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Brooke, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Short, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, F. B.
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Burke, W. A. Kennedy. Rt. Hon. T. Stephen, C.
Cape, T. Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Compton, J. Leach, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lee, F. Thorne, W.
Daggar, G. Leonard, W. Thurtle, E.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Logan, D. G. Tinker, J. J.
Day, H. Lunn, W. Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Walkden, A. G.
Ede, J. C. McGhee, H. G. Walker, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McGovern, J. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) MacLaren, A. Watson, W. McL.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. MacNeill, Weir, L. Westwood, J.
Frankel, D. Mainwaring, W. H. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W. Markiew, E. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Gardner, B. W. Marshall, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Garro-Jones, G. M. Mathers, G. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Maxton, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Green. W. H. (Deptford) Messer, F.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Griffiths, J. (Llaneily) Muff, G. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

9.25 p.m.


I beg to move, to leave out lines 22 to 38.

If hon. Members will look at the Resolution they will see that these lines are those which make provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of York, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York and their children. I do not propose to go over all the arguments that have been put in connection with the general question. What was said with regard to the provision for the King applies no less to the provision for the Duke of York. It cannot be said that as the Duke of York has become Heir Presumptive his needs have in any way increased. It is wrong for this House to vote away these vast sums of money for people in that position. It has already been pointed out that these positions are mainly decorative, and have none of the responsibilities of the head of the Government, and yet these large sums of money are being spent on them. Along with members of my party I feel strongly on this subject, and I have great pleasure in moving the deletion of these lines in order that no additional provision should be made for the Duke of York. More than adequate provision was made in the Civil List of 1910, and I hope that hon. Members will vote with us against this extravagance and this unjust addition to the burdens of the common people.

9.27 p.m.


The hon. Member has made it clear that he moves this Amendment as part of the general line that he and his friends are taking on the whole question of the Civil List. It is, therefore, perhaps not necessary to look closely into the effect of this particular Amendment. I would like to make one observation on a remark of his, that the position of the Duke of York as Heir Presumptive did not justify any addition to the annuity already provided for him. That statement cannot be substantiated. As Heir Presumptive, the Duke of York, in effect, holds the same position as the Prince of Wales held, and the same duties are expected of him. He cannot be Prince of Wales himself, but he occupies the position that would be occupied by a Prince of Wales if there were one. Something more is expected of the Prince of Wales than is expected of other members of His Majesty's family, and in the circumstances it is only reasonable that, as he is not Prince of Wales and cannot enjoy the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, this modest addition should be made

to the annuity already given him to enable him to maintain the state and functions which he would have to carry if he were Prince of Wales.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 22.

Division No. 164.] AYES [9.30 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Dower, Capt. A. V. G. John, W.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Drewe, C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Duggan, H. J. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Albery, I. J. Duncan, J. A. L. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Dunglass, Lord Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Eastwood, J. F. Kerr, J. C. (Scottish Universities)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Eckersley, P. T. Kimball, L.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Ede, J. C. Lamb, Sir J. O.
Apsley, Lord Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Latham, Sir P.
Aske, Sir R. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Leckie, J. A.
Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton) Ellis, Sir G. Lee, F.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Elmley, Viscount Leech, Dr. J. W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Emery, J. F. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Entwistie, C. F. Lewis, O.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Liddall, W. S.
Balniel, Lord Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lindsay, K. M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Everard, W. L. Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Fildes, Sir H. Loftus, P. C.
Benson, G. Fleming, E. L. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Foot, D. M. Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Bird, Sir R. B. Fremantle, Sir F. E. MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Blaker, Sir R. Furness, S. N. MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Blindell, Sir J. Ganzoni, Sir J. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Bossom, A. C. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McKie, J. H.
Boulton, W. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Magnay, T
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Glucksteln, L. H. Maitland, A.
Brass, Sir W. Goldie, N. B. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Goodman, Cot, A. W. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gower, Sir R. V. Markham, S. F.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Browne, A. C. (Balfast, W.) Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Maxwell, S. A.
Burghley, Lord Gridley, Sir A. B. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Burton, Col. H. W. Grimston, R. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Gritten, W. G. Howard Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Carver, Major W. H. Guest, Hon. J. (Brecon and Radnor) Moreing, A. C.
Cary, R. A. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Guinness, T. L. E. B. Morrison. W. S. (Cirencester)
Cautley, Sir H. S. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Muirhead, Lt.-Col, A. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Guy, J. C. M. Munro, P.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hamilton, Sir G. C. Nail, Sir J.
Channon, H. Hanbury, Sir C. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hannah, I. C. O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Christie, J. A. Harbord, A. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Clarry, Sir Reginald Harris, Sir P. A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hartington, Marquess of Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Owen, Major G.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P Palmer, G. E. H.
Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Peat, C. U.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Hepworth, J. Penny, Sir G.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Petherick, M.
Craven-Ellis, W. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Crooke, J. S. Holdsworth, H. Plugge, L. F.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Holmes, J. S. Porritt, R. W.
Cross, R. H. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Potts, J.
Cruddas, Col. B. Hopkin, D. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. Hopkinson, A. Price, M. P.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Procter, Major H. A.
Dawson, Sir P. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Radford, E. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Ramsden, Sir E.
Denville, Alfred Hulbert, N. J. Rankin, R.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hunter, T. Rathbone, J. R (Bodmin)
Dodd, J. S. James, Wing-Commander, A. W. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Donner, P. W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Remer, J. R. Short, A. Touche, G. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Simpson, F. B. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Ropner, Colonel L. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Wakefield, W. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) Smith, L. W. (Hallam) Walkden, A. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Rothschild, J. A. de Smithers, Sir W. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Rowlands, G. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H. Wayland, Sir W. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Stourton, Hon. J. J. Wells, S. R.
Salmon, Sir I. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) White, H. Graham
Salt, E. W. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Strickland, Captain W. F. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B. Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Sandys, E. D. Sutcliffe, H. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Scott, Lord William Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Wragg, H.
Seely, Sir H. M. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Selley, H. R. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Shakespeare, G. H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar) Tinker, J. J. Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.
Bevan, A. Kelly, W. T. Pritt, D. N.
Brooke, W. Leonard, W. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Stephen, C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) MacLaren, A. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) MacNeill, Weir, L. Westwood, J.
Gallacher, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Wilkinson, Ellen
Griffiths, J (Llanelly) Marklew, E.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Maxton, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

9.40 p.m.


I beg to move, to leave out lines 39 to 52.

The effect of this Amendment would be to make no provision for the hypothetical widow of his present Majesty. It is proposed to make a provision of £70,000, in the event of His Majesty marrying, for Her Majesty the Queen in the event of her surviving His Majesty. So this is really the widow's pension for the hypothetical wife of his present Majesty. I wish to say that in moving this Amendment I do so with pleasure, because since coming back to this House I have pressed upon the Government the need for the improvement of the present system of widows' pensions, and I have not received the slightest sympathy from any Member of the Government to whom I have addressed questions on the subject; yet in spite of the miserable allowance of 10s. a week to all those thousands of other widows in the country, we are being asked to vote £70,000 for this hypothetical widow, and I certainly will not be a party to such a proceeding.

9.42 p.m.


I think the description of the effect of the Amendment which has been given by the hon. Member will be sufficient to condemn it in the eyes of the majority of the Committee. The effect of it really does not stop at the annuity to the Queen if she should survive her husband. It would also destroy the provision that would otherwise be made for the sons and daughters of His Majesty other than the eldest son.

9.43 p.m.


Would it not be better to wait at least until we have some widows and sons and daughters for whom to make provision? What is the point of bringing forward this proposal now? It is bad enough to have to provide these enormous sums when we are told that they are necessary, but how on earth can anybody explain that it is necessary to provide for a lady who, as far as we know, does not exist, and for children who certainly do not exist. It does seem to me to be asking a great deal of this Committee. Parliament has never refused to make provision for the Royal Family when there is any necessity to do so, but not even the Chancellor can suggest that there is any particular necessity to provide for a contingency which so far has not arisen. I suggest that for the sake of His Majesty it would be very much better to withdraw this part of the proposal. I cannot think that the King will be particularly pleased to find this sort of thing being discussed. I should have thought it would have been more delicate, from the point of view of His Majesty, to have waited until there was some necessity to make this provision.

9.45 p.m.


I think the hon. Lady might well have addressed her questions to her own leader and other members of her party. Of course, the answer to the question is very simple. We make provision at the beginning of the reign for all the contingencies, in connection with the Civil List, which might occur in the course of the reign. We do not propose to wait until the contingencies

arise and then make provision for them; we make provision for them at once. If they never do arise, no money will have been provided, but if they should arise, there is provision for them.

9.46 p.m.


Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the propaganda that can be made out of such a proposition as this, and that we will make the very most of it?

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 17.

Division No. 165.] AYES [9.45 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Courtauld, Major J. S. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Craven-Ellis, W. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Crooke, J. S. Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Albery, I. J. Crookehank, Capt. H. F. C. Guy, J. C. M.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Cross, R. H. Hanbury, Sir C.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Cruddas, Col. B. Hannah, I. C
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. Harbord, A.
Apsley, Lord Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Harris, Sir P. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Dawson, Sir P. Hartington, Marquess of
Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton) Day, H. Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Denman, Hon. R. D. Heneage, Lteut.-Colonel A. P.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Denville, Alfred Hepburn, P G. T. Buchan-
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hepworth, J.
Balniel, Lord Dodd, J. S. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Donner, P. W. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Beaumont. M. W. (Aylesbury) Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Benson. G. Drewe, C. Holdsworth, H.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Holmes. J. S.
Bird. Sir R. B. Duggan, H. J. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Blaker. Sir R. Duncan, J. A. L. Hopkin. D.
Blindell, Sir J. Dunglass, Lord Hopkinson. A.
Bossom, A. C. Dunne, P. R. R. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Boulton, W. W. Eastwood, J. F. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E.W. Eckersley, P. T. Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Brass, Sir W. Ede, J. C. Hulbert, N. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Hunter, T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. James. Wing-Commander A. W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Ellis, Sir G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Eimley, Viscount John, W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Emery, J. F. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Entwistle, C. F. Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Bull, B. B. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Burghley, Lord Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Keeling, E. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Everard, W. L. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Burton, Col. H. W. Fildes, Sir H. Kerr, J. Graharn (Scottish Univs.)
Butler, R. A. Fleming, E. L. Kimball, L.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Foot, D. M. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Carver, Major W. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Latham, Sir P.
Cary, R. A. Furness, S. N. Leckie, J. A.
Castlereagh, Viscount Ganzoni, Sir J. Lee, F.
Cautley, Sir H. S. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Leech, Dr. J W.
Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Gluckstein, L. H. Lewis, O.
Channon, H. Goldie, N. B. Liddall, W. S.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Goodman, Col. A. W. Lindsay, K. M.
Christie, J. A. Gower, Sir R. V. Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Loftus, P. C.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Colman, N. C. D. Gridley, Sir A. B. Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) MacDonald, Rt. tin. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Grimston, R. V. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Gritten, W. G. Howard Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Groves, T. E. McKie, J. H.
Magnay, T. Ramsden, Sir E. Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Maitland, A. Rankin, R. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Markham, S. F. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Remer, J. R. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Maxwell, S. A. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Sutcliffe, H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Ropner, Colonel L. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Rothschild, J. A. de Tinker, J. J.
Muff, G. Rowlands, G. Touche, G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Munro, P. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Tryon, Major Rt Hon. G. C.
Nail, Sir J. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Salmon, Sir I. Wakefield, W. W.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Salt, E. W. Walkden, A. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Sanderson, Sir F. B. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Sandys, E. D. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Owen, Major G. Savery, Servington Waterhouse, Captain C.
Palmer, G. E. H. Scott, Lord William Wayland, Sir W. A.
Peat, C. U. Seely, Sir H. M. Wells, S. R.
Penny, Sir G. Selley, H. R. White, H. Graham
Petherick, M. Shakespeare, G. H. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Short. A. Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel G.
Plugge, L. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Porritt, R. W. Simpson, F. B. Wragg, H.
Potts, J. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Pownall, Sir Assheton Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Price, M. P. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Procter, Major H. A. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Radford, E. A. Smithers, Sir W. Commander Southby and Dr.
Raikes, H. V. A. M. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Morris-Jones.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Bevan, A. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Malnwaring, W. H. Wilkinson, Ellen
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Markiew, E. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gallacher, W. Maxton, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pritt, D. N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kelly, W. T. Smith, E. (Stoke) Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.
Leonard, W. Stephen, C.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 17.

Division No. 166.] AYES [9.58 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Crooke, J. S.
Aciand-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Adamson, W. M. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Aibery, I. J. Bull, B. B. Cross, R. H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B. kn'hd) Burghley, Lord Cruddas, Col. B.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Burton, Col. H. W. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Butler, R. A. Dawson, Sir P.
Apsley, Lord Campbell, Sir E. T. Day, H.
Aske, Sir R. W. Carver, Major W. H. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Cary, R. A. Denville, Alfred
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Castlereagh, Viscount Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Cautley, Sir H. S. Dodd, J. S.
Bainiel, Lord Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Donner, P. W.
Bonfield, J. W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Channon, H. Drewe, C.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Benson. G. Christie, J. A. Duggan, H. J.
Birchall. Sir J. D. Clarry, Sir Reginald Duncan, J. A. L.
Bird, Sir R. B. Clydesdale, Marquess of Dunglass. Lord
Blaker, Sir R. Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P. Dunne, P. R. R.
Blindell, Sir J. Colman, N. C. D. Eastwood, J. F.
Bossom, A. C. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Eckersley, P. T.
Boulton, W. W. Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Ede, J. C.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
Brass, Sir W. Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Courtauld, Major J. S. Ellis, Sir G.
Broad, F. A. Craven-Ellis, W. Elmiey, Viscount
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Emery, J. F.
Entwistle, C. F. Leech, Dr. J. W. Ropner, Colonel L.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ross. Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lewis, O. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Everard, W. L. Liddall, W. S. Rothschild, J. A. de
Fildes, Sir H. Lindsay, K. M. Rowlands, G.
Fleming, E. L. Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Foot, D. M. Loftus, P. C. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Fremantle, Sir F. E. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Furness, S. N. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Salmon, Sir I.
Ganzoni, Sir J. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Salt, E. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross) Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Sanderson Sir F. B,
Gluckstein, L. H. McKie, J. H. Sandys, E. D.
Goldie, N. B. Magnay, T. Savery, Servington
Goodman, Col. A. W. Maitland, A. Scott, Lord William
Gower, Sir R. V. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Seely, Sir H. M.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Selley, H. R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. Shakespeare, G. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Markham, S. F. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Gridley, Sir A. B. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Short, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Mathers, G. Simon, Rt Hon. Sir J. A.
Grimston, R. V. Maxwell, S. A. Simpson, F. B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Groves, T. E. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Guinness, T. L. E. B. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Smithers, Sir W.
Guneton, Capt. D. W. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Somervell. Sir D. B, (Crewe)
Guy, J. C. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Hamilton, Sir G. C. Muff, G. Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hanbury, Sir C. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Hannah, I. C. Munro, P. Strauss. E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Harbord, A. Nall, Sir J. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Harris, Sir P. A. Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hartington, Marquess of O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Sutcliffe, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Orr-Ewing, I. L. Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)
Hepworth, J. Owen, Major G. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Paling, W. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Palmer, G. E. H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Holdsworth, H. Parkinson, J. A. Tinker, J. J.
Holmes. J. S. Penny, Sir G. Touche, G. C.
Hopkin, D. Petherlek, M. Tree, A. R. L. F,
Hopkinson, A Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Tufnell, Lieut.-Corn. R. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Pilkington, R. Wakefield, W. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Plugge, L. F. Waikden, A. G.
Hulbert, N. J. Porritt, R. W. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Hume, Sir G. H. Potts, J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hunter, T. Pownall, Sir Assheton Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. Price, M. P. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Procter, Major H. A. Wayland, Sir W. A.
John, W. Radford, E. A. Wells, S. R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gh'n) Raikes, H. V. A. M. White, H. Graham
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Ramsden, Sir E. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Rankin, R. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Keeling, E. H. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Womersfey, Sir W. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Reid. W. Allan (Derby) Wragg, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Remer, J. R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Kimball, L. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Latham, Sir P. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Leckie, J. A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Commander Southby and Captain Hope.
Lee, F. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bevan, A. Kelly, W. T. Stephen, C.
Daggar, G. Leonard, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J, (Maryhill) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gallacher, W. Mainwaring, W. H.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Maxton, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly) Pritt, D. N Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Smith, E. (Stoke)