§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out "Minister," and to insert:Hospital Management Committee constituted under this Act in whom the management and control of such hospital is vested.The purpose Of this Amendment and the two which follow is to provide that endowments shall not go into a general pool, but shall be kept in the nearest place in which they can be kept for the new service, namely, in the hands of the hospital management committee in whom the management and control of the endowment hospital is vested. Before I come to the general question of the justice or desirability of this transfer of endowments away from the area they were intended to benefit, I should like to advert for a moment to a topic discussed this afternoon, because it is relevant here. I agree to the full with the Minister that it is highly desirable during the next two years that people should be encouraged to continue taking an interest in and contribute to their local hospital. So far as the teaching hospitals are concerned, they have a sound inducement to do so, because the funds of a teaching hospital are to remain with the new teaching hospital under the 1791 new management. Therefore, every penny that can be subscribed today to a teaching hospital will mean a penny more for that hospital two years hence and for all time thereafter. That unfortunately is not the position with regard to the other hospitals, because, unless the Minister accepts this Amendment—and I put this as a strong reason for his doing so—the result of subscribing to a non-teaching hospital is that that hospital will have more funds when the appointed day comes two years hence, but then the funds are taken away from it and the whole district. Thus there is not the same inducement to people to continue subscribing to non-teaching hospitals as to continue subscribing to teaching hospitals. I very much regret that, and I think the Minister is making a great mistake in discouraging it in this way, particularly as he wants this form of subscription. What possible argument can there be for taking this money away from the place where its donors intended it to be?
In the past, Parliament and the law courts have always worked on the principle that where a donor gives money —whether much or little makes no difference—for a particular purpose, and it becomes impossible to carry out that bequest exactly in its original terms, one searches for the nearest equivalent, arid one does not divert the money from its original purpose more than one can help. That seems to be good common sense as well as good law and good Parliamentary practice.
It would be extremely easy to put the funds of the non-teaching hospitals at the disposal of the hospital management committee which deals with a particular hospital, or with a group of hospitals. If there is a big hospital there may be a committee which deals with that hospital alone; if there is a smaller hospital, the committee will deal with that hospital and one or two others as well. But they will be all in the same region, and in most cases the donors of money to hospitals intended to benefit the people of their town or district. They may have had a special love for a hospital, and if that were so, that could not any longer be continued, if we accept, as we must accept now, the principle of the hospital management committee, because the hospital will no longer be an independent 1792 unit, but will be a part of a local unit. Surely, therefore, the Minister is wholly disregarding, unnecessarily, the wishes of the people who gave the money if he takes the money right away from the district when there is a perfectly easy way of leaving it there. I cannot understand what is wrong with leaving the money in the district which it was intended to benefit. There is plenty of use for it there.
There is another possible reason for diverting money from its original purpose, namely, that it would be wasted if it was kept to its original purpose—and one ought not to waste money or resources. But nobody can suggest that keeping these endowments in the area which they were intended to benefit would lead to any sort of waste. There is any amount of use for them in the area. It is not necessary to take them away and spread them all over the whole country. The Minister has gone out of his way to emphasise the value which funds of this sort will have in future, and he cannot now say that it would be in any way useless to leave them in their original district. I am, however, afraid that he will diminish the value of these funds very much if he spreads them all over the country. Not only will he divert them from their proper use, from the district which they were intended to benefit, but he will spread them out very thinly over the whole country.
The Minister has taken a pride in the fact that his -scheme will be a shock absorber, and will give pocket money, as he called it on one occasion. I wonder whether he has worked out how much it is. We cannot do so directly, because we do not know just how much money there is, but I should be surprised if there were£30 million of funds, apart from the teaching hospitals, and that amount, at the rates of interest now prevailing, will give considerably less than£1 million a year as expendable money under this fund. If£1 million is to be spread out over I do not know how many, but nearly half a million beds, I should think, there will not be much left. It will not be very much of a shock absorber. I am afraid that by spreading the money so widely, the Minister is taking away from its value, because he is making the amount which any particular hospital management com- 1793 mittee may have in future so small that it will not be able to do a great deal with it.
Would it not be very much better to leave the money where it is, and enable these hospital management committees to do things outside the sealed pattern schemes of the Minister? If that way of using the funds proved to be a good one, what would happen? There would be a lead to the Ministry to go and do likewise in the other hospitals. Surely, that would be a better way of using the money. I do not want to see one particular hospital for all time better off than another under this scheme, but if there is to be pocket money, I want to see it in sufficiently large packets to enable something of use to be done with it. I very much fear that this general spread-over will seriously diminish the value of the whole thing.
Therefore, I base my case on three points. First of all, I say that it is discouraging the efforts which we all want to see to keep the hospitals going at full efficiency for the next two years, until the Minister takes them over. Secondly, I say that it is unjust and unnecessary to flout the wishes of the donors, alive and dead, who have given this money. Thirdly, I say that by spreading this money out so thinly, the Minister is seriously diminishing the good which it might do in future, and the lead which the use of it might give to him and to others to improve services all over the country.
§ Mr. Bevan
The principle behind this Amendment has been discussed on so many occasions that I can almost make the answer without thinking. The fact is that this money, to which so much reference is made, could quite properly and justly have been taken by the Government and passed into the Exchequer for general hospital purposes. All the money to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has referred was subscribed for general hospital purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Practically all of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about general hospitals, and not about teaching hospitals. It was donated to the hospitals to which the endowments were made for general hospital work, for general hospital services in the particular hospitals, and not for particular functions of the hospitals. The endowments of teaching hospitals are distinguished, to a very large extent, from 1794 the endowments of general hospitals because, in the case of teaching hospitals, quite frequently the endowment is earmarked for special purposes, such as cancer research. When someone leaves money to a cottage hospital or a general hospital, it is for the purpose of that hospital, and as we are proposing to provide for the hospitals in the future, the Government would have been perfectly entitled to take that money and to use it for general hospital purposes. No one could have complained. As a matter of fact, I thought that this was a very useful means of providing both the Regional Boards and the hospital management committees with a little additional money to spend over and above what they receive from the Treasury. Therefore, I said, we will take it that way.
The first point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already be en answered this evening. I refer to his point that, by taking the money this way, we are deterring people from making contributions between now and the vesting date. As that point was disposed of in a previous discussion, I pass to the second point. The second point is that if we are to vary endowments it is desirable to try, as far as possible, not to depart more than necessary from the intention of the person making the endowment. That is clearly an arid legal point. If a man has left an endowment to a particular hospital which is a local cottage hospital with, say, 30, 40 or 50 beds, it is argued that if we say that it is no use keeping the endowment in that hospital—because even the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not ask that—and that we must divert that endowment to a general management committee presiding over a 1,000 beds, that somehow is a smaller violation of the intention. This geographical definition of qualitative violations I just cannot understand. It seems to me to be straining at something, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is to try to find some way of keeping the money where it is.
His third argument really defeated itself. It was that the whole of the sum is so small that, spread over the country, it will be so thin that it should be left where it is—no doubt so as to leave some parts of the country with no money at all. That is the effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and that is what he said. Obviously, if one attempts to 1795 leave the money in the area covered by a particular management committee because if it is spread over the country it will be so thin, this would have the effect of leaving some management committees with no endowments at all. Thus they would be left bereft in order that some management committees would be better off, and that is a consideration I could never accept. Furthermore, why should the fact that some areas have received benefits from well to do people be perpetuated at the expense of poorer areas? I should have thought that if the persons who made these endowments in the first instance are looking down upon our deliberations at the present time they would be very pleased that their benefactions are going to serve a wider area of humanity than was formerly the case. I suggest that this point has been very strained. I know that hon. Members are going to argue, but I would respectfully suggest that points like this, which have been discussed over and over again, upon which the mind of the House is clearly made up, and which do not raise any point of principle, are really delaying our discussions.
§ Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)
I do not intend to delay the discussion but I have been trying very hard to see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He has been trying to interpret to the House, as he has obviously interpreted to himself, the minds of the donors of this money in the past. How can he so arrogantly assume that he can do so, and how could any one of us? I suggest that it is at least reasonable to argue that many of those donors would infinitely have preferred that the money should not in fact pass to the Minister or be administered by bureaucracy or by officialdom from Whitehall. That was why they preferred to give the money to the cottage hospital or their local hospital—in order that it might be administered by local people whom they knew well would use it in the interests of the locality.
Now we are to assume that those donors of the past were quite indifferent about who was going to have their money, and that if they were here to be asked, they would put up both hands and say that they did not mind a rap who administered it and that they were perfectly happy that it should be administered by the Minister and bureau- 1796 cracy from Whitehall. I do not believe that there is an atom of justification for this argument that donors who intended that these endowments should be administered by local people, would give the money to be administered by the Minister or by his officials. That is the essence of our view in contradistinction with the view of the Minister.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Eccles
The Minister claims that those who have left money would not mind in the least if it were put to wider purposes than those for which they left it. On the Saturday following the Second Reading of this Bill a solicitor came to see me in Chippenham, and informed me that on the day the Bill received its Second Reading an old lady died in the Chippenham Institution leaving£100 to the Malmesbury Cottage Hospital. She had told him that she had gone to the institution, because she wished to leave the money to a hospital which she thought had done her and her friends good. Would that sort of person leave money to a hospital management committee? The answer is, clearly, that they would not. People have an affection for what they know, and here is the Minister wedded to this——
§ Mr. Eccles
There is one thing wrong with the Amendment—it does not go far enough. I think I am entitled to say so, and if I had drafted it I should have made it "to the individual hospital."
Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
The hon. Gentleman may have his own point of view, but he can only speak on the Amendment as drafted.
§ Mr. Eccles
Since the Amendment, as drafted, goes one better than what is in the Bill, I must proffer the second best—half a loaf is better than none. The fact remains that people will not leave money to the Minister. They may leave money to a hospital. Let the Minister recollect the Coal Mines Act. There we took special power in order that the national coal mines—and this is extremely relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—might continue the hospital subscriptions in their own localities. Why does a firm make a subscrip- 1797 tion? Because the employees of the firm go to the hospitals in their immediate neighbourhood.
§ Mr. Eccles
We wish to encourage them to do it now, but if this Amendment is carried, and if, say, the hospital management committee in question manages 1,000 beds which are actually serving the workers in a particular firm, we have a very good chance that that firm will continue to subscribe to the management committee.
§ Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The subject matter of this Amendment is the transfer of endowments immediately before the appointed day. I respectfully submit that this is not a discussion of the future or of endowments held before the appointed day.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I had taken note that the hon. Gentleman had gone into the future but I was hoping that he was coming back to the present.
§ Mr. Eccles
To come back to the interim between now and the appointed day, what is going to happen then? Why should not those who wish to help hospitals in their immediate neighbourhood be encouraged to do so? If these endowments are all vested it the Minister in a pool, it must be a deterrent to people to go on subscribing to their local hospitals. For that reason I oppose the Amendment, but I wish it had gone a great deal further and said "individual hospitals" instead of "management committee."
§ Mr. H. Strauss
This Clause is one of the two chief blemishes on the Bill. The Minister has fallen below the usual standard with which he has conducted this Bill here and upstairs in his failure to appreciate the really serious considerations, which shock some people, in regard to these two parts of the Bill. The Minister said that, had he taken over all these endowments without any conditions whatsoever, no one would have had any complaint. That shows an ignorance of the whole course of the proceedings, not only of Parliament in the past in dealing with charities, but of the Court of Chancery and of the Charity Commissioners, and the principles on which they have been compelled by the courts to act. It shows so complete a misunderstanding of what these points are that shock us on this side 1798 of the House that, when the Minister says he cannot understand it, I think he is telling the truth.
Under this Clause, if this Amendment is not accepted, all these endowments pass to the Minister free from any restrictions whatsoever and with no proviso that the objects of the trust shall not be prejudiced. I wonder whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House would contrast that with the proviso made in the case of the teaching hospitals. There a proviso is inserted which says that, so far as practicable, those to whom the endowments are transferred shall secure that the objects of any such endowment are not prejudiced by the provisions of the Clause. Why should there be no similar provision for these charitable funds which are taken over by the Minister? Why should the Minister be immune from the proviso which he very properly insists on in the case of the teaching hospitals?
In his reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), the Minister said that, if these funds were not spread evenly over the whole country, somebody would be deprived of something. Not at all. Those people who under this scheme would not get it are those who have not got it now. Why should we disregard so entirely the wishes of donors and testators? Is. it really not at all significant that Parliament, whatever party has been in power, whenever it has found it necessary to vary the conditions of charitable gifts and bequests, has taken the utmost care not unnecessarily to disregard the wishes of donors.
I agree with the Minister in his desire that we should make rapid progress tonight, and therefore the only point on which I wish to reinforce the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead is on the point of justice. May I read to the House—because I think sometimes hon. Members take more notice of the considered judgments of the Court of Appeal than they do of past actions of this House, though I wish they would pay more respect to the past actions of this House—two short extracts from judgments of the Court of Appeal in a leading case on charitable bequests? Lord Justice Farwell stated this:It is contrary to principle that a testator's wishes should be set aside, and his bounty administered not according to his 1799 wishes but according to the view of the Commissioners and if it is wished that testators should continue to become 'pious founders' it is eminently desirable that no doubt should be cast on the security and permanency of their bequests.And Lord Justice Kennedy——
§ Mr. Gallacher
On a point of Order. I was not in the Committee upstairs, but I read the report of it. Committees upstairs are for the purpose of saving time, and now I am listening to exactly what was said upstairs. If I had the report here, you would hear the same words and the same judgment being quoted.
§ Mr. Speaker
It is a matter for me in my selection of Amendments, but I must confess that I do not want a repetition of the arguments used upstairs. This is a revision stage and not a repetition of the Committee stage.
§ Mr. Strauss
I always give full credit to the Communist Party for their desire to avoid all discussion in this House, but as long as we enjoy your protection, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I and other speakers will be diverted by the foolish and frivolous interruptions of the hon. Gentleman whose main desire is to avoid matters being discussed in this House or anywhere else. I fully recognise his preference for deciding these matters by force, but, in order to correct his foolish interruption on a point of fact, the judgment which I have just read was not read in the Committee upstairs, though the judgment which I am about to read was read. I shall now come, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's foolish interjections and frivolous point of Order, to the important judgment of Lord Justice Kennedy in the same leading case.
§ Mr. Donovan (Leicester, East)
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly state the name of the case?
§ Mr. Strauss
I am quoting from the Weir Hospital case. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] In 1910. Hon. Members opposite may one day realise that judgments which are older and older Acts of 1800 Parliament are of importance. Some of us on this side of the House attach importance to Magna Carta. Lord Justice Kennedy said in the same leading case:Neither the Court of Chancery nor the Board of Charity Commissioners, which has been entrusted by statute, in regard to the application of charitable funds, with similar jurisdiction, is entitled to substitute a different scheme for the scheme which the donor has prescribed in the instrument which creates the charity, merely because a coldly wise intelligence, impervious to the special predilections which inspired his liberality, and untrammelled by his directions, would have dictated a different use of his money.As I said before, I am far from accusing the right hon. Gentleman of a coldly wise intelligence—a hotly and foolish obstinacy is very much nearer the mark. Not only has this care been taken by the Court of Chancery, but this House, no matter which party have formed a Government, has taken similar care when it has legislated in such a manner as to interfere with charitable funds or bequests. If it were absolutely necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, for the hospital part of his scheme, to do what he is doing, many people might assent, even though with great regret. But, there has been no attempt to show that it is in any way necessary. There has been no attempt to show why the Minister, when he takes over these charitable funds, should be less hound than are the teaching hospitals, by the proviso I have quoted, to see that the objects of the endowment are not prejudiced.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Bevan
Will the hon. and learned Member permit a question? The argument he is addressing to the House is that in ignoring the intentions of the benefactor I am in fact doing an injustice. If I left the money with the particular hospital, his position would be satisfied. If I then took the money into account in determining what particular moneys should be provided by the Exchequer would he then be satisfied?
§ Mr. Strauss
There are so many hypotheses in that intervention that I cannot answer all of them. I was trying to address myself to the Amendment. But I say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever he might do, I certainly think that this Clause would be improved if, when he took the money, he were bound by a similar proviso to that I have already quoted—namely, that 1801 he should in his use of the money secure, so far as practicable, that the objects of any such endowments are not prejudiced by the provisions of this Bill.
§ Mr. Bevan
That is precisely the point I put. If I investigated the intention of the donor and discovered that his intention was that his benefaction should be used for the maintenance of a particular hospital, and I left that benefaction there, I would, therefore, not be offending against anything which the hon. and learned Member has said. Would he, therefore, be content if I took that money into account in determining what additional moneys were needed for the hospital?
§ Mr. Strauss
Perhaps I might put on/ reply in the form of a question. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to take the endowments of Bart's into consideration in deciding what they need from him?
§ Mr. Strauss
I think the right hon. Gentleman will see in tomorrow morning's HANSARD that that is a complete diversion and not at all an answer to the question. [HON. MEMBERS: What is the answer?"] I will not now say what I think he will be entitled to do, or should do, under totally different Clauses in this Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am now dealing with what he is entitled to do with these endowments, and I say that he has shown no reason whatsoever why these endowments should not be dealt with on the same lines as the Court of Chancery, the Charity Commissioners and this House have dealt with endowments in the past, whenever they have found it necessary to interfere with the wishes of donors and testators.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had shown this to be completely necessary for his scheme, would at least have given a reason, although still many of us would have been sorry. But he has not submitted upstairs, or on the Floor of the House, any reason whatsoever why, when he takes over the funds, he should not be bound by a similar proviso to that which I have read As an alternative method by which we can get some respect 1802 paid to the wishes of donors, my right hon. and learned Friend has moved the Amendment. The right hen. Gentleman has stated, as a reason for not accepting it, that he cannot accept it, and that there is no reason why he should not have taken over all endowments without any condition whatsoever. I say that he is acting both foolishly and shortsightedly.
It is not possible to show contempt, on this occasion, for the wishes of donors and testators, to show contempt for the invariable practice of this House and of the Court of Chancery, and then still expect that charitable gifts will continue to flow in future as they have done in the past. The injury to charitable bequests that that involves may be treated lightly and trivially by the right hon. Gentleman and some hon. Members opposite, but do not let them think that they can do what they are doing and be blind to the fact that they are doing something which is novel, revolutionary and injurious. They are doing something which is very serious indeed, and profoundly unwise.
It is obvious, from what has taken place on this Amendment, fiat the minds of the party opposite are unanimously in favour of the Bill—that there is no harm whatever in diverting funds from the intentions of their donors and subscribers, ancient and modern, rich and poor. Therefore, there is no real advantage in prolonging this Debate. I would, however, like to summarise our reasons for putting down this Amendment. On the Second Reading of this Bill the hospital management committees referred to in this Amendment were incapable of holding funds. It is now intended that there should be, in every locality, such a unit of hospital administration as is universally recognised to be appropriate to modern ideas, namely, a hospital or hospitals group with something which, in an urban area, will include up to 1,000 beds—the sort of hospital which will exist in a big town or for a medium sized town and the surrounding country. In these circumstances, we think it right, in relation to such funds as are held by the hospitals now, having been raised perhaps by a great town effort as a war memorial, or given by a series of distinguished citizens over the past, to consider what would be the wishes of those who subscribed to such effort, or of those who gave those funds.
1803 If this money is spread in the doctrinaire manner proposed, all that will result will be something like an income of under£2,000 a year for each of these hospital management committees, whereas if the money was left as we propose it would range between£1,000 and£4,000 a year, sums the difference between which could be most readily and easily raised by local effort. The very differences would be a stimulus to each local effort. We cannot see any justification for flouting, despising and contemning the wishes of those donors. The other point is that this proposal is in ridiculous contrast to another provision in the Bill. Under this proposal, money given between now and the appointed day will, on the appointed day, be vested in the right hon. Gentleman, and will then be dispensed, on the advice of officers in the Ministry of Health, where these officers and the Minister between them decide that it should go. What advice would any hon. Gentleman give to somebody who said to them today, as people have already said to me, "I have a mind to benefit the local hospital in my district. Can I do so safely now? The only honest advice one can give to such a person is," No. This Bill is so ridiculously drafted that if you give your money before the appointed day the£5,000 or£100 you wish to give will be spread, at the discretion of the Minister, all over England and Wales, whereas if you wait until the appointed day, you can, under Clause 59 of the Bill, give it to the hospital management committee in your district." Could anything be a more ludicrous contradiction?
Could any two provisions be more directly designed to make those who wish to help our hospitals in the future say to themselves, "A Socialist Government have
§ done this once. Whatever it says in Clause 59, we believe they will do it again."If any confidence is to be raised in the minds of donors and if people, such as those I have described, who are desirous of giving money to hospitals are to be encouraged to give it, the only possible plan is to put into the Bill a provision that what is in the hands of the local hospitals at the appointed day shall go to the hospital management committee responsible for that hospital in the future.
§ We regard this Bill as being thoroughly bad on this subject, not only from the point of view of disregarding the wishes of those who gave money in the past, but as frustrating the wishes of those who wish to give money in the future, and as discouraging all who will to give money even after the appointed day. It is a Measure, as it stands now, which will make all charitable people believe that this House, whenever there is a Socialist majority, will take the money away from the purpose for which they wished it to be used, and have it spread according to the wishes of the Executive. The Minister said that we could not complain if all this money had been impounded for the general well-being of the hospitals. What is the point of that argument, when that is not being done? The Minister should have applied his mind to the question, Where will the money best be placed with a view to the improvement of hospitals now and in the future? We regard this as being far from a legal point. We regard it as a broad point of justice or regard for the wishes of individual citizens, and of the welfare of the hospitals in the future.
§ Question put, "That the word Minister ' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 107.1807
|Division No. 263]||AYES.||[9.45 p.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Berry, H.||Callaghan, James|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Champion. A. J.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Bing, G. H. C.||Chater, D.|
|Allen, ScholehBld (Crewe)||Binns, J.||Clitherow, Dr. R.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Blenkinsop, A.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Blyton, W. R.||Cobb, F. A.|
|Austin, H. L.||Bottomley, A. G.||Cocks, F. S.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Collick, P.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p't, Exch'ge)||Collindridge, F.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Collins, V. J|
|Balfour, A.||Brook, D, (Halifax)||Colman, Miss G. M.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Comyns, Dr. L.|
|Barton, C.||Brown, George (Belper)||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.|
|Battley, J. R.||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Corlett, Dr. J.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Corvedale, Viscount|
|Belcher, J. W.||Burks, W. A.||Crossman, R. H. S.|
|Benson, G.||Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Daggar, G.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Keenan, W||Sargood, R.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Kenyon, C.||Scott-Elliot, W.|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Key, C. W.||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kinley, J.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Deer, G.||Kirby, B. V.||Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lang, G.||Shurmer, P.|
|Delargy, Captain H. J||Lavers, S.||Silver-man, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Diamond, J.||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dobbie, W.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Leslie, J. R.||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Donovan, T.||Levy, B. W.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Lindgren, G. S||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||McAdam, W.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Dye, S.||McGhee, H. G.||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C.||McGovern, J.||Solley, L. J|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Mack, J. D.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||McKay, J (Wallsend)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Edwards. N. (Caerphilly)||McLeavy, F.||Stamford, W.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Mallalieu, J. P W.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Ewart, R.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Swingler, S.|
|Fairhurst F.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Farthing, W. J.||Marquand, H. A.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Marshall F. (Brightside)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Follick, M.||Medland, H. M.||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Foot, M. M.||Messor, F.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Foster, W. (Wigan)||Mikardo, Ian||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Gallacher, W.||Mitchison, Maj. G. R||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S||Moody, A. S.||Thurtle, E.|
|Gibbins, J.||Morgan, Dr. H. B||Tiffany, S.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Titterington, M. F.|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Mort, D. L.||Tolley, L.|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Moyle, A.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Grey, C. F.||Nally, W.||Usborne, Henry|
|Grierson, E.||Naylor, T. E.||Vernon, Maj. W. F|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffiths. Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Walkden, E.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Noel-Buxlon, Lady||Walker, G. H.|
|Gunter, Capt. R. J.||O'Brien, T.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Guy, W. H.||Orbach, M.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Paget, R. T.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Hale, Leslie||Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Parker, J.||Weitzman, D.|
|Hardy, E, A.||Parkin, B. T.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Harrison, J.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Haworth, J.||Pearson, A.||Wigs, Colonel G. E.|
|Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Perrins, W.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Piratin, P.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Witley, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Pritt, D. N.||Williams, J. L. (Ketvingrove)|
|Holman, P.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Randall, H. E.||Williamson, T.|
|House, G.||Ranger, J.||Willis, E.|
|Hoy, J.||Rankin, J.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Roes-Williams, D. R.||Wilson, J. H.|
|Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Reeves, J.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Irving, W. J.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Woodbum, A|
|Irving, W. J||Rhodes, H.||Woods, G. S.|
|Janner, B.||Richards, R.||Yates, V. F.|
|Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Zilliacus K.|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Robens, A.|
|Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Rogers, G. H. R.||Captain Michael Stewart and|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Gage, C.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Cuthbert, W. N.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Darling, Sir W. Y.||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Harris, H. Wilson|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G|
|Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.||Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.||Herbert, Sir A. P.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Drayson, Capt. G. B.||Hogg, Hon. Q.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Drewe, C.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)|
|Byers, Frank F.||Eccles, D. M.||Horabin, T. L.|
|Carson, E.||Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L||Howard, Hon. A.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S||Fletcher W (Bury)||Hurd, A.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Keeling, E. H.||Mellor, Sir J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Morris-Jones, Sir H.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n,S.)|
|Langford-Holt, J.||Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Mullan, Lieut. C. H.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Linstead, H. N.||Nicholson, G.||Touche, G. C.|
|Lipson, D. L.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Wadsworth, G.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Osborne, C.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Lucas, Major Sir J.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Pickthorn, K.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Pitman, I. J.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Prescott, Stanley||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Raikes, H. V.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Ramsay, Maj. S.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Manningham-Buller, R, E.||Renton, D.|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Marples, A. E.||Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)||Major Conant and|
|Marsden, Capt. A.||Sanderson, Sir F.||Mr. Studholme.|
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendments made.
§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, after "exchange," to insert "or."
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if this and the next Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, in page 8, line 28, leave out from "note," to end of paragraph, are taken together.
We have just dealt with the general question of endowments. The Subsection with which my Amendment deals concerns what is included under endowments—gratuitous covenants for the payment of money. The effect of the Amendment is to exclude gratuitous covenants from endowments. I thought that the decision which we have just arrived at was rather deplorable because it dealt with moneys left under wills. However, it can be said in its favour that the persons who gave those endowments are not here to say what they would like done with them. But here we are dealing with something quite different, with moneys which persons living have covenanted to give for a certain period of years, and it seems utterly indefensible that such moneys should be taken for purposes other than those for which they were intended.
These covenants may have been entered into for a great variety of reasons. It may 1808 be that the person making a covenant did so because he liked some individual surgeon or doctor serving in the institution, or because he was interested in the particular work of that institution, or because he had received some service from that institution, or, again, because he had confidence in the board of that institution. As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said in a previous Debate, the covenant may have been made so that the employees of the person making it might benefit, but whatever the reason, it is absolutely certain that such a covenant would be made in order to benefit a particular institution. The whole thing has now been altered and the Minister will take these covenants to spread over the whole field. That seems to be entirely wrong. I would like to put this additional point to the Minister. There is now no need for an employer to insure his employees in this way. He is being asked to pay a large contribution in regard to both his employees and himself, and I cannot see where the justice lies in asking him to pay twice. Does the Minister really think that anyone would have entered into a covenant of this nature under the new circumstances? It seems to me to be highly immoral and, indeed, very akin to robbery.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to second the Amendment.
The essential difference between these covenants and the type of endowment with which we have just been dealing is that in the case of an endowment some provision has to be made to deal with it when the present owners disappear from the scene, but in the case of a covenant when the present owners disappear it simply comes to an end. Here the Minister is going 1809 very much further than in the case of the endowment. He is taking something to which otherwise he would not be entitled. It goes that one step further and, therefore, I suggest that in the case of covenants there is very good ground for saying that no action should he taken and that the covenant should just be allowed to lapse.
§ Mr. Bevan
There was considerable discussion of this matter in Committee, and there is no substance in the contention which has been advanced. It is directly opposite to what we have just heard. On the one hand, hon. Members opposite are anxious that hospitals should have what we have called all along pocket money, and the purpose of this Amendment is to deprive the hospitals of as much money as they would otherwise have. No real disservice is being done here—
§ Mr. Willink
What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very unfair. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow those people who have entered into covenants to enter into new covenants in favour of the hospitals or the localities which they want to benefit, and not to force them by law to give their money year by year to the Minister to distribute all over the country.
§ Mr. Bevan
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. He does not know what these people would do with the money. Under the terms of the Amendment no one would be in receipt of a gratuity. It would lapse. It is not in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what they would then do. He does not know. At the moment these gratuitous covenants are the legal property of the voluntary hospitals. They form part of the property and, therefore, should he transferred.
§ said that this matter was discussed in Committee upstairs, but I make no apology for speaking tonight because I was not a Member of the Committee, and this is the only opportunity that Members like myself, who had not the privilege of being on the Committee upstairs, have of presenting the point of view which they hold, and hold sincerely. It is a tradition of this House that one should disclose an interest, and I have an interest which I will now disclose. I have made several covenants, and two in particular to hospitals for special reasons, and to that extent I am an interested party. In the one case I myself had to go into a voluntary hospital for an operation. I received there such treatment that I felt I could never be sufficiently grateful to that hospital, and I did what I could to make by covenant a gift to that hospital in return for the services that I had received from it. In another case a younger brother of mine went into a hospital where he was extremely ill, and many of us thought that he would not recover. He did recover, thanks, I think, almost entirely to the treatment he received at that hospital. I felt it a privilege to be able to help that particular hospital for that particular reason. I would not—and I say it quite frankly—in either of those cases have been moved to make a gift by covenant to either of those hospitals were it not for that particular reason. I do feel that in cases like that—and there must be many such cases, on which I speak for people outside—in which people have made gifts by covenant, to cottage hospitals or to other hospitals, for personal reasons, those personal reasons, tight to be respected. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'or' be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 255.1813
|Division No. 264.||AYES||10.5 p.m.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Byers, Frank F.||Drewe, C.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Carson, E.||Eccles, D. M.|
|Assheton, Fit. Hon. R.||Clarke, Col. R. S.||Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Fletcher W. (Bury)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Gage, C.|
|Beechman, N. A||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Bower, N.||Cuthbert, W. N.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Darling, Sir W. Y.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T||Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Herbert, Sir A. P.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Drayson, Capt. G. B.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Hogg, Hon. Q.||Marples, A. E.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Marsden, Capt. A.||Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)|
|Howard, Hon. A.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Hurd, A.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Maude, J. C.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Mellor, Sir J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Keeling, E. H.||Molson, A. H E.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Morris-Jones, Sir H.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Langford-Holt, J.||Mullan, Lieut. C. H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Nicholson, G.||Turton, R. H.|
|Linstead, H. N.||Nutting, Anthony||Wadsworth, G.|
|Lipson, D. L.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Low, Brig A. R. W.||Osborne, C.||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Lucas, Major Sir J-||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Pickthorn, K.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Pitman, I. J.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Prescott, Stanley||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Raikes, H. V.||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Rayner, Brig. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Manningham-Buller, R. E||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Major Conant and|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Renton, D.||Mr. Studholme|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Irving, W. J.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Delargy, Captain H. J.||Janner, B.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Diamond, J.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Dobbie, W.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Dodds, N. N.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)|
|Attewell, H. C.||Donovan T.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Austin, H. L.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Keenan, W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Kenyon, C.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Dumpleton, C. W||Key, C. W.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Dye, S.||Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr E.|
|Balfour, A.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Kinley, J.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Kirby, B. V.|
|Barton, C.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Lang, G.|
|Battley, J. R.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Lavers, S.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.|
|Belcher, J. W.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Benson, G.||Ewart, R.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Berry, H.||Fairhurst F.||Leslie, J. R.|
|Bevan, Rl. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Farthing, W. J.||Levy, B. W.|
|Bing, G. H. G.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)|
|Binns, J.||Follick, M||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Foot, M. M.||Mc Adam, W.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Foster, W. (Wigan)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Gallacher, W.||McGovern, J.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Mack, J. D.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)||Gibbins, J.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Gibson, C. W.||McLeavy, F.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Grey, C. F.||Marquand, H. A.|
|Burden, T. W.||Grierson, E.||Marshall F. (Brightside)|
|Burke, W. A.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Medland, H. M.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Messer, F.|
|Champion. A. J.||Gunter, Capt. R. J.||Mikarde, Ian|
|Clitherow, Dr. R.||Guy, W. H.||Mitchison, Maj. G. R|
|Cobb, F. A.||Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Moody, A. S.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hale, Leslie||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Collick, P.||Hardy, E. A.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)|
|Collindridge, F.||Harrison, J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, C)|
|Collins, V. J.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.|
|Colman Miss G. M.||Haworth, J.||Moyle, A.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Nally, W.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Neal, H. (Claycross)|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Herbison, Miss M.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Noel-Buxton, Lady|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Hobson, C. R.||O'Brien, T.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Holman, P.||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Daggar, G.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Orbach, M.|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Horabin, T. L.||Paget, R. T.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||House, G.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hoy, J.||Parker, J.|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Deer, G.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Pearson, A.|
|Perrins, W.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Walker, G. H.|
|Piratin, P.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Porter, E. (Warrington)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Porter, G. (Leeds)||Smith, T. (Normanton)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Pritt, D. N.||Snow, Capt. J. W.||Watkins, T. E|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Solley, L. J.||Weitzman, D.|
|Randall, H. E.||Soskice, Mai. Sir F.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Ranger, J.||Sparks, J. A.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Rankin, J.||Stamford, W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Rees-Williams, D. R.||Stross, Dr. B.||Wigg, Colonel G. E.|
|Reeves, J.||Stubbs, A. E.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Swingler, S.||Wilkes, L.|
|Rhodes, H.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Richards, R.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)||Willoy, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Robens, A.||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Rogers, G. H. R.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)||Williamson, T.|
|Sargood, R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Willis, E.|
|Scott-Elliot, W.||Thurtle, E.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.||Tiffany, S.||Wilson, J. H.|
|Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.||Titterington, M. F.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Tolley, L.||Woodburn A|
|Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.||Woods, G. S|
|Shurmer, P.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.||Yates, V. F.|
|Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Usborne, Henry||Zilliacus, K.|
|Simmons, C. J.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Skeffington, A. M.||Viant, S. P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.|
|Skinnard, F. W.||Walkden, E.||Captain Michael Stewar