AMENDMF.NT OF LAW. (Hansard, 25 April 1939)

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
Mr. Mander.

§ Mr. Silverman
On a point of Order. It is not my wish to question in any way the discretion of the Chair as to which hon. Member shall be called upon to continue the Debate, but it may perhaps be within your knowledge that when the Debate was proceeding, before the reading of the Resolutions, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) rose to continue the Debate, and was in fact on his feet when the Chairman requested that he should give way so as to allow the Resolutions to be read. Therefore, I would ask you most respectfully whether my hon. Friend ought now to lose his place?

§ Mr. Mander
Further to the point of Order. May I point out that I also was on my feet, and gave way.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) may not question the discretion of the Chair. The Chairman is entitled to call any hon. Member who catches his eye, and that must not be challenged. Mr. Mander.

§ Mr. Mander
I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks, but I want to deal with one particular matter —

§ Mr. Logan
On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. Should I be out of order in moving that, on account of there not being a Quorum present, the Committee should now adjourn? Under the Rules of Order, would that finish the Debate? If I called a Count, what would be the result?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Member called a Count, and there were not a Quorum present, the last Motion would become a Dropped Order and we should have to start all over again. Therefore, he would not achieve his object.

§ Mr. Mander
I should like to refer to the Budget from the point of view of what is commonly known as the conscription of wealth. Several hon. Members have expressed the view that we really have that already, and that, in particular, the increases in the Surtax and the Death Duties that are taking place are a considerable measure of conscription of wealth; but I do not take that view, and 1104 I think that if we really want to pay our way and to make an impression on the world, we ought to go in for something like a levy on capital and pay our debts right away. That would make it clear where we stood. I think this matter becomes very relevant, and will become increasingly relevant, in connection with the Budget discussions on account of an announcement that has been made to-night—to which, of course, I may not allude—that the Government intend to introduce military conscription. Clearly, that is a matter to which I may not refer in this Debate, but I cannot help feeling that that most serious announcement may greatly affect the Debates on the Budget Resolutions. One cannot help remembering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, on a previous occasion when such a matter arose in the middle of the War, resigned rather than consent to it.

§ Mr. Wise
On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member quite properly said that he must not discuss this announcement to-night, and yet he has been discussing it for some minutes?

§ Mr. Mander
May I ask for your protection, Colonel Clifton Brown? I am sure you will call me to order when I am doing anything wrong. I was calling the attention of hon. Members to the difficulties that may arise in our discussions of the Budget Resolutions and in the subsequent stages of the Budget in view of the known attitude of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. As I have said, there was a previous occasion during the War when he felt obliged to resign office rather than consent to a measure of conscription. Suppose he takes that view now, and to-morrow we are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned office, holding very strong views as he must do on this matter, sooner than assent—

§ Mr. Logan
If these premises are to be taken at their face value, would not it be better to wait until to-morrow?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I agree the hon. Gentleman is raising a very hypothetical question which has no relevance to the discussion.

§ Mr. Mander
I would ask you to be good enough to allow me to develop it a stage further. This hypothesis is founded on a historic fact of 20 or so years ago and we may find ourselves 1105 placed in a very awkward position. However, I realise that probably there is nothing in it, because the Government are incapable of committing a dishonourable act or breaking a pledge, and certainly it would be a deliberate breach of faith for the Government to bring in any measure of conscription of man-power. In view of what is evidently to happen during the next few weeks and months, we shall have during the course of our Debates to revolutionise this Budget. The one we have had to-day is quite out of proportion to the new developments that are now taking place, and we shall have to insist during our discussions that pari passu with any other measures that maybe taken financial measures in the Budget of an equal kind shall be carried out. The main point I want to make is that it is impossible to believe that the Government, in view of what they have said, could be guilty of a deliberate breach of faith in doing what is announced on the tape to-night and introduce military conscription.