§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]
§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford)
I desire to draw the attention of the House to the conditions under which education officers of the Royal Air Force are now serving. It is a regrettable fact that these conditions have given rise to widespread dissatisfaction among these officers themselves. Questions have been repeatedly addressed in this House to my right hon. Friend upon this subject, but hitherto they have elicited no satisfactory reply. These conditions have also recently been the subject of unfavourable comment in a leading article in "The Times."
1851 The arrangements for education in the Royal Air Force are different, in certain material respects, from the arrangements in the other Services. The education officers of the Royal Air Force are, I understand, graduate teachers, who are engaged under the terms of a Service agreement for a short period, at the conclusion of which it is contemplated that, under normal circumstances, they will return to the service of the local education authorities. They receive a salary which, in peace-time, corresponds to the remuneration which they would receive under the Burnham scales in the service of the local authorities, together with an additional allowance, which is, I am informed, a fixed sum.
I am quite prepared to agree that under the conditions of peace that system may possess very great advantages; indeed, I should be ready to concede that it was superior in many respects to the system which exists in the other Services. But I hope the House is not going to allow itself to be drawn into a discussion of the relative merits of these different forms of education service. My criticism is that, with the coming of war and mobilisation, the conditions were altogether transformed, and arrangements which may have been quite suitable in time of peace, have become inappropriate in time of war, and have in fact been a source of great hardship to the officers concerned. The Air Ministry themselves recognised at one time that that was the case, and in April, 1939, a circular letter was issued to the officers concerned, inviting them to accept commissions in the administrative and special duties sections of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. That letter—I have a copy of it here, but I will not trouble the House with it now—clearly contemplated that, whilst all those officers who might accept commissions in the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve would not be solely employed on educational duties, a very large number of them would be so employed. I think I can fairly say that the letter also contemplated that, upon the outbreak of war, these officers would be mobilised in the same manner as other officers of the R.A.F.V.R., and would receive, in the same way as other officers, pay and allowances on the scales which were appropriate to their ranks.
On the outbreak of war these education officers, serving under the conditions 1852 which I have just described, were, in fact, mobilised by the Air Ministry in the same manner as other officers of the R.A.F.V.R. But within a very short time the Air Ministry, for some reason which has never been apparent to me, or, I think, to the officers themselves, changed their minds, and these officers were then demobilised, or dis-embodied; at least, they were put back on something like their civilian status, and resumed their service under the terms of the agreements which had been made with the Air Ministry before the war. Thenceforth, although these officers continued to wear the uniform of the Royal Air Force, and to perform certain duties at air stations other than their duties as education officers, and—as I hope to show before I have finished—on occasions, even bore arms and although, generally speaking, they presented to the world the appearance of officers in the R.A.F., their status was, in fact, the status of a civilian. Since that time they have remained civilians, and they are to-day civilians. I say emphatically that that is a most anomalous and unfair arrangement, which involves these officers in quite unnecessary hardship.
In the time which is available to me this afternoon I can do no more than enumerate the consequences which this peculiar arrangement has upon the position of these officers in the R.A.F. As I say, although they wear uniform they are not entitled to accommodation in R.A.F. stations; they are, in most cases, not in all, obliged to find lodging for themselves and for their families outside the station, and it has happened—and I think it happens in most cases—that the charges they have to meet for lodging accommodation of that sort are high. In the cases where they have been accommodated in Government quarters in R.A.F. stations they have had to pay charges for that accommodation which are based upon the scales of allowances paid to combatant officers in the R.A.F., which are much higher than the allowances which these officers receive. They are not entitled to ration allowance, accommodation allowance, or family allowance. I am told that the pay of a Grade III education officer, who has the rank, in the R.A.F.V.R., of flight lieutenant, may be as much as £250 a year less than the pay and allowances of a flight lieutenant holding a combatant commission. So you have, serving to- 1853 gether in the R.A.F., at the same air stations, two classes of officer who are to all intents and purposes on the same footing, and who are yet being remunerated at rates which are entirely different.
I come to another point. These officers, because they have this civilian status, are not entitled to free travelling facilities which all officers of the Armed Forces enjoy; again—and this is no unimportant matter—they are taxed upon the whole of their allowances, although, as I think the House is probably aware, the allowances of an officer are not all subject to tax. In all these matters the position of these education officers in relation to their fellow officers in the R.A.F. has been very seriously prejudiced by the decision to revert them to their civilian status.
Now I come to a matter which seems to be the greatest anomaly of all. If these education officers, in the course of their service, receive an injury, or lose their lives, the scales of compensation which are available to them are much less favourable than the scales of compensation available to combatant officers. Because of the civilian status which the Air Ministry insisted upon enforcing upon them, they are compensated in respect of Service injuries or loss of life under the terms of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Order. The House is, no doubt, familiar with the general terms and conditions of that Order. It applies to Civil Defence and National Fire Service personnel, and others who may receive injuries in the course of their war service. But the rates of compensation payable under the conditions of that Order are very much less favourable than the rates of compensation which are payable to combatant officers. Let me take two examples. I am told that an education officer married, with two children, who suffers 100 per cent. disability as a result of his war service will receive compensation at the rate of £165 per annum, while the corresponding rate for a mobilised officer of the same rank is £336. Here is the other example. In the case of death the widow of an education officer, entitled to compensation under the terms of the civilian Order, will receive a pension of £112 per annum, whereas the widow of a mobilised officer will receive a pension of £237 per annum.
I am told that these officers are now beginning to go abroad to carry out their 1854 duties in various theatres of war overseas. They embark upon the same troopships as combatant officers; they are exposed to identical risks and perils by land and sea, and yet if misfortune overtakes them, the compensation to which they or their relatives are entitled is very much less favourable than it would be if the Air Minister had granted them the status of mobilised officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. By what argument can my right hon. Friend justify such an arrangement as that?
I am informed that when these education officers proceed to a theatre of war overseas they not only wear the uniform of the Royal Air Force but carry military equipment, and I am told that they are issued with revolvers. If, as the Air Ministry maintain, they are civilians, how comes it about that they are permitted to bear arms? In fact they are civilians. But they are a strange variety of civilian indeed, wearing uniform, carrying military equipment and having arms, as they do! What happens if they shoot someone with their revolvers? Will they be indicted under the civil criminal code of the country to which they go? Sir, the fact that they proceed on overseas service and that it is thought necessary that they should be equipped with arms shows very clearly that they should, from the first, have been given the same status as their fellows.
Now I come to another point. Many of these officers joined the educational service of the Royal Air Force since the outbreak of the war and since it was decided that they should not be given the status of mobilised officers. I have had communications from some of them. I am far from satisfied that, when they accepted the arrangement offered them, they fully appreciated what the effect of non-mobilised service was going to be. But, whether they understood the conditions or not, it is surely abundantly clear that you cannot have two classes of officers in the same Service serving upon different conditions and, if it is thought right and just that those officers who were serving at the outbreak of the war and accepted the conditions offered by the Air Ministry and became officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve should now be given mobilised status, I should have thought it inevitably followed that those brought in afterwards should get the same status.
1855 I understand that my right hon. Friend has appointed a Committee, about which many questions have been addressed to him. He has been invited to publish their report but has declined to do so. I do not press for the publication of that report. I am quite prepared to accept his view that he appointed the Committee in order to offer him advice, and that there is no obligation upon him now to publish it. But I appeal to him, if he has not already done so, to allow this Committee, which was appointed for the express purpose of advising upon the future organisation of the education service in the Royal Air Force, to investigate the grievances which these officers feel. I invite him to direct that this service shall visit the larger air stations, where a number of these officers are stationed, and take evidence from them about their feelings in the matter. Having done that, I invite him to publish their report upon it.
Let me appeal to my right hon. Friend, in conclusion, to approach this matter in that broad and generous spirit of which we all know that he is capable. I appeal to him to put right that which everyone outside the Air Ministry knows to be wrong. The reputation of the Royal Air Force education service is really at stake. I beg him to bear in mind the services which these officers have already rendered and not to be unmindful of the importance of the duties they will be required to perform in the difficult period of reconstruction and demobilisation which lies ahead.
§ 4.54 p.m.
§ Mr. R. Morgan (Stourbridge)
I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for the very clear way in which he has stated the case on behalf of these education officers. He has saved the House considerable time, as it is unnecessary for me to go over the ground again. That is not to say that I am not au fait with all the facts of the case. For four years the disabilities, I might almost say the humiliation, which some of these education officers have suffered have been the source of correspondence between professional organisations and the Ministry.
The outcome was that, after a series of interviews with the Ministry, a committee was set up. It had to inquire into all the anomalies and irregularities which the educational officers had to put up with. 1856 Surely the Minister can give the House some indication of what the report of that committee contained. He says that it is a confidential report which affects the Department alone. I should have thought, however, that, having received deputations such as that from the National Union of Teachers, and invited them to submit a memorandum putting the case of these officers, the least the Minister might have done is to have indicated to that body what the findings of the committee were.
Does it, for instance, recommend mobilisation? It would not be displaying any secret to say that. It would give some indication how the new education service after the war is to be set up. What sort of system is it to be? That is an all-important question. A lot of these men who are now in the Air Force are entitled to ask themselves very serious questions. I make no bones about one thing. The men who received the letter of invitation from the Air Ministry to take up these commissions were suddenly told on 5th October, 1939, that they would be demobilised and reduced to civilian status. Officers have told me and written to me of the sense of humiliation they felt in the officers' quarters and how certain other officers in the quarters looked down upon them as men who were merely playing at soldiers. I regard the decision of 5th October, 1939, as a complete breach of faith with these officers. The Minister may give me some terminological equivalent, but, as far as the educational organisations are concerned, they definitely feel it to be a breach of good faith.
The conditions of service as a result of that decision are unfair and unreasonable, and they have given rise to justifiable discontent throughout the R.A.F. educational service. I understand that the Minister rather disagrees that there is grievance among these officers. I can assure him that we have ample evidence of a considerable feeling of disgruntlement among them. This is the worst way in which to build up an effective educational service. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford has said, there is no greater task confronting the Air Ministry after the war than the setting up of a body of officers to carry out educational work in the R.A.F. in the great times that lie ahead.
I want to make one other point. These men have been seconded from different 1857 schools. They are all well-trained and qualified people. They have been taken out of the schools for something like five years and they miss great opportunities of going ahead and ascending the ladder in their own Departments.
§ It being Five o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Cary.]
They told me that under their terms of agreement, or letter of invitation, they could give notice of resignation, but I understand that if they took the opportunity of resigning, they would then be at the mercy of the Minister of Labour, and could be directed to any employment that that Ministry thought fit. That is a most absurd position, especially in view of the fact that there are vacancies in the different schools, which are denuded of teachers. These men who are using their rights to resign should not fall into the hands of the Ministry of Labour—which seems to be adding insult to injury and doing a great disservice to the country, particularly when teachers and workers are wanted in the schools.
Lastly, let me say to the Ministry that in other walks of life, in other businesses and, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Ilford said, in other Services, there is a well-directed system of educational service, in which promotion is open. I hope that as a result of the report, which is guarded with so much secrecy, the Minister will see that there is a new system of promotion in the educational service such as might be an attraction to any well-qualified young man. Such a man should see that there is a place for him and be able to say, "Let me join that service, with all its new traditions. I have an opening there. I can see a goal in front of me, a ladder to climb." I ask the Minister to let us have some idea of what is going to be presented to us in this report which has been compiled with so much care.
§ 5.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has, with his usual clarity and cogency, put a most impressive case before the House, and I wish, 1858 in a sentence or two, to give my earnest support to his plea on behalf of a large number of my constituents. I know that my colleagues, the other University Members, are in a similar position. We have among our constituents a large number of graduates who are engaged in this very important service, and we receive letters from one and another, speaking of the grave sense of injustice which a number of them feel with present conditions in the Education Service of the R.A.F. I am certain my right hon. Friend will wish to remove that sense of injustice.
I will not go into any of the points that have been made by my hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan), further than to emphasise the great hardship that is imposed upon many in having to appear to be officers, and in having to perform the duties of officers in a very large number of cases, and yet to be in a position which, in many cases, involves real financial hardship, as well as a sense of rankling injustice. It surely cannot be that the high authorities of the R.A.F. look upon the education service in the way in which an eighteenth century nobleman looked on his chaplain—with mingled respect and contempt. I am sure that is not the attitude of the Minister. It is an invaluable thing for the life of the Service, that education officers, who can do so much for the mental and spiritual life of the members of the R.A.F. should feel that they have no sense of grievance. They should feel that they are being treated in every way as members of the same great body and know that they are not looked upon as an inferior set of men, who are not, in the full sense, regarded as equals by other officers. I am certain that that is the wish of the Minister, and I hope that in his reply, he will remove this sense of injustice. If he is not able to give everything that has been asked, I hope he will be able, in large measure, to meet the claims which have been put with such impressive power by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnock)
I wish to reinforce the very clear and cogent speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). I wish also to say to my right hon. Friend, for whom, as he knows, I have had for many years a great respect, that I am most disappointed with the cavalier 1859 way in which he has treated this question. One of the few enjoyable things one has been able to do, from time to time, has been to go and talk to R.A.F. groups in different parts of the country. I have not sought out this problem. My right hon. Friend always puts us in the position that we are trying to raise some awkward question. It has come to a head now, but it has been going on for years. Sir Frederick Mander, who is a very reliable person, recently wrote in a letter to "The Times" that he had raised this question as far back as 1939, and had constantly made representations to the Air Ministry. That is a serious matter.
When some Questions were asked in the House about this, I was told that 62 of these officers had given notice to terminate their engagement. Since then—and my right hon. Friend will doubtless correct me if I am wrong—I have been told that over 100 have resigned since the summer. They have not actually left, and perhaps the question about redirection was a little out of place on both sides. I think there is a period of three months which has to be worked off. We were also told then that 34 new appointments had been made. I thought that possibly some of these men had come back, but I understand that these are appointments from the ranks, or very largely so, and that even some of these men have since resigned. Not only have some resigned but a new order has come out since the New Year to make the length of service one year.
These are, it seems to me, pointers to prove that, when my right hon. Friend said last Wednesday that there was no ground for dissatisfaction, he was out of touch with opinion. How is it that Sir Frederick Mander and the N.U.T. could say that for four years they have been aware of dissatisfaction? How is it that those who go round, not to find fault, but to give talks to the R.A.F., get these complaints? How is it that we get these letters? I will read only one, but they come from unknown people who happen to know my interest in education:I consider my qualifications are almost entirely wasted. I have tendered my resignation, and have received one reply that it could not be accepted, and another that, if I persisted in enforcing the terms of my contract, the Air Ministry would have to consider applying to the Ministry of Labour for my redirection.We get this time after time, and I under- 1860 stand now that some of these men have gone back to teaching. That is about the best thing I have heard so far. Regarding the unequal scale of compensation and the serious disabilities, which my hon. and learned Friend has catalogued, there is no need for us to go over that ground again. Those of us outside, who have such a profound admiration for the R.A.F. and the A.T.C., are not happy about these men in the Royal Air Force. It may be that the Minister has been so busy with the more operational side of the war that the Minister has not been able to give his attention to this question, but he knows that I have been to his Ministry, which has, on his own initiative, appointed this Committee. I went to see his officials because I was interested. There is no secret about it. I know the arguments which will be used, but it is high time this question was settled. It may be said that there are important implications for the post-war period. We are in that process now. There is that huge demobilisation, vocational instruction scheme in the Royal Air Force which has to be put into practice; some of us are rather nervous because we would like to see that scheme a great success. I beg the Minister to give very serious consideration to publication of the Report and the removal of disqualifications.
§ 5.13 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair)
I said on Friday that I welcomed the prospect of this Debate, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) has initiated, because I felt, not that there was any discontent—I did not say that, with all respect to my hon. Friend opposite—but that there were no true grounds of grievance. There is, as I shall mention presently, some ground for disappointment, and I shall mention that quite frankly. I know that a certain number of these officers have grounds for certain disappointment.
§ Sir A. Sinclair
Yes, dissatisfaction. I think it is certainly true of all except a minority, to which I shall refer, that there are no proved grounds for dissatisfaction, and that this splendid service, which has done so much for the Royal Air Force, both in peace time and in war, is not riddled, as some hon. Mem- 1861 bers would have the House believe, by discontent, but that it is being treated fairly in relation to other civilians employed with and by the Royal Air Force.
The first point I must emphasise is that, as my hen, and learned Friend clearly stated in his opening speech, the Royal Air Force educational service is a civilian service. It was deliberately made a civilian service from its inception, and we have had great advantages from the flow of fresh educational experience which has come to us from all parts of the civilian educational system of this country. But two issues now arise. The first is the future organisation of the educational service. Ought it to be changed? Although the present system has yielded splendid results in the past, we have to consider, in the light of new developments and new technical requirements, whether there would be an advantage in changing the system. But I tell the House frankly that I shall be slow in reaching a conclusion on that subject. I shall have to enter into a great many discussions not only inside my own Department but with other Departments that are concerned. I shall require to be convinced that any other system will give us advantages equal to that system, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford said himself he thought was superior to those of the other two Services.
§ Sir A. Sinclair
My hon. and learned Friend said he thought it was superior to those of the other two Services.
§ Mr. Hutchinson
I said that I was prepared to concede that it was superior in peace-time. The whole point of my speech was on the subject of wishing to change.
§ Sir A. Sinclair
I beg my hon. and learned Friend's pardon. He said that it was superior in peace-time to those of the other two Services, and it is with the problem of peace-time that at this stage of the war I am mainly concerned. There is another issue which arises and which was clearly made in speeches—the real and urgent issue of injustice to men now in the Service. I say at once that if injustices were proved they would have to be remedied forthwith, and I should be open to censure if I allowed them to suffer any injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) 1862 referred to the fact that I was not publishing the Report. Let me say in passing that it would be extremely embarrassing for a Minister if he had to publish Reports of committees on which the members of the Service he is responsible for administering sit. It would be very difficult to get them to give frank Reports if they felt they were liable to be published. Actually, I have made inquiries since I answered the first Question on the subject in the House of Commons and I am told that the Report was drafted in the belief that there would be no publication.
§ Sir A. Sinclair
I really must be allowed to continue. I have had a number of points raised by four hon. Members and I have left myself with less than 20 minutes in which to reply. Up to the outbreak of war the civilian basis of this service was never challenged. Other services have different bases. The Navy has part of the service but I would point out to hon. Members—and I am not sure it it appreciated by some of the officers whose opinions they rest upon—that not all the members of these educational services in the Army and Navy are officers. I do not think that if we had a fully mobilised service it would be expected they would all be officers in the Royal Air Force.
My hon. and learned Friend who introduced the subject said the idea was that they would serve a short period in the Royal Air Force and then return to their civil employment so that there would be a connection between the Service and the civilian educational service. He is right. That was the original idea, but so popular did the service prove in peace time that that part of it almost broke down and a large and undue proportion, I think, of officers began to find their permanent careers in the Royal Air Force educational service, and the Educational Officers Association emphatically supported the civilian status of the service. The education officers receive, of course, as hon. Members know, the Burnham scales plus the increments which are made in those scales from time to time, plus pen- 1863 sion rights plus pensionable allowances of £70 to £130—£70 in the case of war-time entrants—plus £52 war allowance and if they have to keep a home going and to live out of the station as well, they get up to £5s. 6d. non-taxable allowance in respect of having two habitations.
Something has been said about the low scales of compensation for injury, and to dependants in the case of death, as compared with the Service scales. The scales on which Royal Air Force educational officers are paid are the same as for other civilians employed by the Royal Air Force. They are complicated. They come under different schemes according to whether the injury arises from enemy action or from accident, according to whether it happened overseas or at home, and whether it was sustained in flying or not. Broadly speaking, however, the civilian scale is lower than the Service scale, but in some circumstances, as a matter of fact, it is more favourable than the Service scale for non-fatal injuries. Actually, however, I am glad to say that cases of death and injury are very rare, and in the Royal Air Force educational service actually only one officer has lost his life in a flying accident and only three have been injured. Other civilians run the same risks in serving with the Royal Air Force. It may be a year or more ago that, when a ship was torpedoed, one audit officer was killed and two were stranded on a raft for 36 hours. In the Air Ministry, 13 civil servants have been killed and 167 injured among the civil servants serving in the Air Ministry buildings in the London area alone.
It is true that these Royal Air Force educational officers have no claim to free medical treatment or to leave warrants, but this applies to all these other civil servants and civilians who serve with the Royal Air Force, and when my hon. and learned Friend tells me to broaden my outlook, I must ask him to broaden his outlook in return and to bring into his account the works officers, the audit officers, the substitution officers, some of whom are not mobilised and wearing uniforms just like these educational officers, and are exactly on a par with them in respect of these conditions of service. Actually we have 1,100 Air Ministry officials serving abroad, of whom a quarter are the education officers. Education officers receive the same as all other civil- 1864 ians working with the Royal Air Force and it would not be fair to the others to treat them differently.
When I said just now that they had a disappointment, I referred, of course, to the correspondence of which my hon. and learned Friend spoke in opening the Debate. It was believed in 1939 by the Air Council of those days, of which I was not a member, that at the outbreak of war there would be no need for an educational service, and that these fine, intelligent young men who were serving in it should be taken to help with staff work in the Service. Accordingly, on the outbreak of war they were nearly all—with the exception of some 60, I think—mobilised and put into uniform. But it was found that the war was neither so short nor so sharp as had been anticipated, and there was a demand for officers to do exactly the same work as these men had been doing in peace-time. While some 170 were kept mobilised, in order that they should carry out staff duties of various kinds, the remainder were demobilised, and put back to do exactly the same work, on exactly the same conditions of service, as they had been doing in peace-time. But it was seen that it would cause them a little disappointment, and it was thought that it would be a little unfair, to take their uniforms off them. Therefore, they were allowed to keep their uniforms. What was intended as a concession is now represented as a grievance. It is true that, in addition to their educational work, they are asked to do some small station duties, as orderly officers and so on; but all civilians have to do some extra work in war-time, such as Fire Guard, Home Guard and Civil Defence, and I think that that duty may be regarded as the counterpart of the extra duties which fall on civilians.
The conditions of service have remained the same all through the war, yet the service has been steadily and rapidly expanding. How could we have filled these posts in the service if the terms had been unfair or parsimonious? All these men who have been coming in are volunteers. There is no question about the terms. They are as clear as a pikestaff in the letter which is issued to these men:The appointment is subject to the acceptance of a commission in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. Uniform will be worn, but civilian rates of pay and conditions of service will apply during your employment as an educational officer.1865 Actually, we recruited during the last year 71 education officers, and in January of this year we recruited 33; and the standard remains exactly the same as it has always been, including, of course, the university degree. Among these volunteers are 400 airmen, including 25 officers, who have transferred from the mobilised branches of the R.A.F. to the civilian service, on unmobilised civilian terms.
I shall be very glad to consider points raised by those hon. Members who have spoken. I will look very carefully into the question whether there is any grievance which I can do anything to remedy. I would like to pay tribute to the good service of many of these teachers, 70-odd of whom have volunteered for overseas service, although they have no liability for it, while two of them have actually done two overseas tours of duty. We have recognised this service, and in the case of 73 officers we have raised them 1866 from a scale of £234–£480 to a scale of £570–£670, which is more than they would have been likely to get in their civilian employment. It is most important that we should have a contented service, that any just sense of grievance should be remedied; but I hope I have made it clear that all these grievances are unfounded, and that the criterion must be fairness as between the different civilian employees who are employed by the Air Ministry. A service which can attract 400 mobilised officers and airmen in the last two years to volunteer on unmobilised conditions cannot be said to be unattractive, and those conditions cannot, therefore be unfair.
§ Question, put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Five o'Clock, till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.