CLAUSE 1.—(Allowance to Lord High Commissioner to Church of Scotland.) (Hansard, 3 May 1948)

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to add: (2) A statement showing the expenses incurred under this Act shall be presented annually to Parliament. I move this Amendment largely because of the discussion last week, on Second Reading, when it was stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate that the grant to the Lord High Commissioner was not a salary, but was to meet certain expenses incurred by the holder of the office. There is a prevailing impression in Scotland that when the Commissioner has paid his expenses, any sum that is over goes into his pocket. That being so, I suggest that if a statement of the Lord High Commissioner's expenses is presented annually to Parliament, we shall know exactly what the position is, and there will be no doubt as to how the money has been spent. I ask the Government to accept this reasonable Amendment.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn)
It would be quite wrong to select the office of Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland for an imposition of this kind, requiring him to produce detailed accounts of all the expenses that he has had to meet in that office, when that is not done in connection with any other office under the Crown. When an ambassador is given an allowance for entertainment in connection with his post, no one would dream of asking him to keep detailed accounts for submission to Parliament every year. That is simply not done. When one thinks of the paltriness of the sum granted in relation to the amount of work done by the Lord High Commissioner, I think the hon. Member will agree that to ask for details of every penny spent would be almost an insult to the holder of the office.
I am sorry that the hon. Member, in carrying out his vendetta against this 989 office, has seen fit to introduce the innuendo that the Lord High Commissioner makes something out of his office. It has already been explained that the money he is voted is in no way a salary, and that there has been a deficit every year, which has been met sometimes out of the Lord High Commissioner's own pocket and sometimes by the private generosity of other people. I hope the hon. Member will not repeat his innuendo about people making money out of this office. Those who have held it in the past have made sacrifices to do so, and that applies to the present occupant. Just as Members of Parliament are allowed a certain proportion of their salary,£100, as expenses for which they do not have to supply every detail of expenditure, such as that on stamps, so must the holder of a high office such as the Lord Commissioner for the Church of Scotland be treated in the same way.
I have already explained the kind of expenditure which is incurred by the holder of this office, and a simple calculation will show that there is not much left after all the expenses of the office have been met. It was also carefully explained by me on Second Reading that the Treasury and I will examine the accounts each year and decide what amount is required in order to do this job. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment and the rather unhappy innuendo in the hon. Member's speech.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I wish to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, and to say at the outset that I am very sorry that the time of this House has been taken up with it. I believe we would have been far better employed considering some useful social legislation for Scotland as, for 990 example, a Bill rectifying the grievances of small shopkeepers.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill and not with completely extraneous matters.

§ Mr. Hughes
I was only making an apology to the House for the time that has been wasted on this Bill when other legislation for Scotland could instead have been brought forward. I oppose this Bill because there have been many completely misleading arguments used in its favour, and because there is a considerable misapprehension and misunderstanding of the point of view of those of us who are opposed to it. When the Bill was introduced it was after we had had a difficult and lengthy day discussing other Scottish business. I do not believe that the Members approached the matter in a sufficiently objective frame of mind. I wish now to state my arguments against the Bill in an objective manner without any attempt to raise the ill-feeling that occurred when feelings ran high in the House on the Second Reading after a long and difficult day.
English Members of this House seem to think that this Bill has something to do with religion in Scotland, and that those of us who oppose it are opposing it because we wish to abolish the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Nothing could be more ridiculous, and only people absolutely ignorant of the history of this particular office could argue that if it disappeared it would make the slightest difference to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In fact, this office, for which we are asked to increase the grant, has in the past been one to which the Church of Scotland itself has taken considerable objection. It is now a part of the Church of Scotland. It is an office which came into existence by the appointment by the King of a representative in order to watch the Church of Scotland. From time to time in other times the Lord High Commissioner was regarded as something in the nature of a Quisling because he opposed the activities of the Church and looked after the interests of the King.

§ Mr. McKinlay (Dunbartonshire)
On a point of Order. I have been re-reading this short Bill to try to discover if there 991 is any relevancy in what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is saying. I understood we could only discuss on the Third Reading what is in the Bill, and my submission is that what we have heard has, as a matter of fact, absolutely nothing to do with the allowance payable to His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). What he says, of course, is quite true, that an hon. Member is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill in this case is a proposal to increase the allowance to His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner. I was hoping the hon. Gentleman was coming to that. The other matters to which he referred appeared not to be relevant.

§ Mr. Hughes
I am coming to the point. I am making these remarks in order that Members of this House who do not understand what the office is, should understand exactly why we are called upon to increase the sum for it.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member will appreciate that he is a little late in pointing that out now. All these preliminary questions have been or should have been disposed of on previous occasions. Only the question of whether the allowance shall or shall not be increased is before the House.

§ Mr. Hughes
I very strongly object to increasing the allowance from£2,000 to£4,000 as proposed in the Bill, because I believe it is not in the interest of this House and there is absolutely no cause to increase it at the present time. I have fortified myself with two books dealing with the office of the Lord High Commissioner, which convinced me that we are not justified in increasing this expenditure at the present time. I have here from the General Assembly library at Edinburgh a book written by the Rev. William Macmillan, Ph.D., D.D., which explains the functions of the office. It is maintained as a purely secular office, and even in this book, the author of which is a well known member of the Church of Scotland, some very interesting facts about the Lord High Commissioner are given.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I must ask the hon. Member to abide by my Ruling. He is dealing with extraneous matters, which if raised at all might have been raised on other occasions, but cannot be raised on this.

§ Mr. Kendall (Grantham)
On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to know what are the functions of the Lord High Commissioner in exchange for an increase of£2,000?

§ Mr. Woodburn
They were outlined on the Second Reading.

§ Mr. Kendall
Let us have them now, too.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That would not be in Order at this late stage of the Bill. The Second Reading was the occasion when it might have been in Order to deal with them, but certainly not now. The House will appreciate that we cannot rehash the whole of the proceedings at this stage.

§ Mr. Hughes
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I believe that there is something like a conspiracy to prevent full and free discussion of this Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Beaumont)
I hope that the hon. Member does not mean a reflection on the Chair. That is not a remark which should have been made and it should be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Hughes
I have not the slightest intention of reflecting upon you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is not a question of reflecting, but of reflecting on the Chair whoever is the occupant.

§ Mr. Hughes
I have no desire to make any reflection on the Chair. I was saying that in the House of Commons on this Bill in regard to the Lord High Commissioner—

§ Mr. McKinlay
On a point of Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire indicated that there is a conspiracy to prevent this thing being discussed. He has absolved the Chair of any part in that conspiracy, and I want to know if it is a question of conspiracy by the Scottish Members of Parliament?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am of the opinion that it is a most undesirable phrase 993 to use, and certainly it should be justified if the hon. Member is going to maintain it.

§ Mr. Hughes
I do not quite understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I will certainly withdraw any word or any reflection which you think is inappropriate to the proceedings of this House. Since you will not allow me to discuss the question and to explain to the House exactly the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, if the House wishes to pass the Bill without any discussions and if there is to be some kind of mysterious secrecy in this matter, then I will proceed from the discussion of the religious aspect of the matter to its financial aspect.
I maintain that to increase this grant from£2,000 to£4,000 is to do something for which we have no authority and for which there is no demand at all from the public opinion of this country. I do not believe that there is any demand from the Church of Scotland for increasing these emoluments. I believe that if the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland were consulted in the matter, the general consensus of opinion would be that this is an inappropriate time to increase the expenditure of this Office. In Edinburgh of all places where Sir Stafford Cripps went to outline his appeal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I meant to say "the Chancellor of the Exchequer."

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am glad that the hon. Member is so repentant. I had not said that he was out of Order, but he was.

§ Mr. Hughes
I owe you a great debt of gratitude, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member can show it best by sticking closely to a Third Reading speech.

§ Mr. Hughes
Certainly, Sir. With your help, I will gradually elucidate my argument. The night is young yet, and we have no pressing business before us. I am arguing that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal, a solemn appeal, to the House of Commons and to the country to exercise the greatest economy and that we should be very careful about the finances of this country, it is not right for us to agree to the Third Reading of a Bill for 100 per cent. increase in the emoluments of an office which I believe is not justified at the present time.
994 It has been argued that the increase is necessary in the interests of dignity. There is no dignity in the Lord High Commissioner coming to the British Treasury, like Oliver Twist, and asking for more. I do not believe this is dignity at all. I believe it is a piece of impudence which cannot be justified on grounds of equity or of common sense. This is an item which should really go on to the Civil List. If it affects the King's Prerogative and the King's interest in the Church of Scotland, the proposed increase should be a charge not upon the Consolidated Fund but upon the Civil List. I do not believe that it can for one moment be seriously argued by anybody who has been at the General Assembly and knows something about it, that we are justified in increasing this sum from£2,000 to£4,000. What does the Lord High Commissioner do at the Assembly? He is not allowed to take part in the deliberations—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member certainly cannot discuss what the Lord High Commissioner is not allowed to do, and he cannot discuss what he is allowed to do.

§ Mr. Hughes
We are getting into the realm of Scottish metaphysics. Perhaps you will allow me to explain what he is allowed to do. He is allowed—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Bill does not contain any reference to the qualifications of the Lord High Commissioner. It contains references to the amount of a proposed increase for certain expenses.

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)
On a point of Order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we are being asked to increase expenditure by a certain amount, it is legitimate to discuss for what purpose the increase is required, because that is the purpose of the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
At the correct stage of the Bill, yes. It is matter for the Second Reading. Upon the Third Reading we cannot have Second Reading speeches.

§ Mr. Kendall
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill says: In recent years it has proved to be insufficient, and the purpose of the present Bill is to increase this amount of such sum "—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that what we are discussing is the Bill, and not the explanatory memorandum.

§ Mr. Kendall
Surely if there are words down here to explain the Bill we should have an opportunity of discussing them?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The words are given for the edification and illumination of Members and not for discussion. Upon the Third Reading we discuss the actual Bill itself.

§ Mr. Hughes
I am endeavouring to edify and to illuminate Members. Since the point that I was on is apparently a prohibited area which we are not allowed to investigate, and if it is irreverent and indecent to discuss the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, what he may or may not do, I will pass on to some definite proposals contained in the Bill. Although I may err in my ignorance in the rules of the House, I would observe that if I had been allowed to proceed, I would have finished my remarks several minutes ago, and other hon. Members would have been able to make their replies.
I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the arguments which have been produced in favour of the Bill on the grounds that it is necessary to increase the entertainment allowance. I listened very carefully to all the facts that have been adduced and I have found no solid reason why the sum of£2,000 should be increased to£4,000. I have gone carefully into the items of expenditure that we know about. I have carefully calculated, taking the expenditure for last year, in which there was one garden party and a few dinners, that anyone paying the slightest regard to ordinary frugality and to the economy which is being urged upon us at this time could produce a very reasonable garden party, with all the necessary concomitants, for£2,000. We should limit this sum to£2,000. On that sum the Lord High Commissioner could conduct his office without any loss of dignity, and as a result there would be very little criticism of the office. There is a very great deal of criticism of the expenditure, upon several grounds. One is that there is far too much military display about this office and that there is—I was not proposing to 996 criticise the military display, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member thought that he was out of Order and was waiting for me to rise. He must have a conscience.

§ Mr. Hughes
I was approaching the frontiers of the prohibited area, and I began to make a dispersive movement. I was approaching the realm of relativity, so far as Order is concerned, and I gathered that I was almost within the frontiers. As I am bringing my remarks to a close, I shall make only this concluding point: that we should not incur expenditure at this time in giving unnecessary prominence to military display. It is quite anomalous, and there is a good deal of criticism about the fact that the Lord High Commissioner, who has never been in the Army at all, should appear in a military uniform—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue unless he has some fresh argument to advance, because it appears to me that what he is now saying is largely a repetition of what he has said before. I might suggest to him that there is another military movement known as a retreat.

§ Mr. Hughes
Yes, Sir, I am about to make a strategic retreat. I was not aware that you had listened with such great interest to my remarks in the early hours of the morning on a previous occasion, but I am glad you did. I suggest that, apart from the difficulties I have had in making my points, I do not see why there should be such sensitivity about this Bill. The plain fact is that the Bill sanctions an increase of£2,000 when it is absolutely unnecessary and has had the most ridiculous and ignorant arguments brought forward in its favour. I believe it is a thoroughly unpopular and bad little Bill which should be rejected by this House.

§ Mr. James Glanville (Consett)
I hope that the Minister will resist my hon. Friend's Amendment—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are now on the Third Reading and are not dealing with an Amendment.

§ Mr. Glanville
I am sorry, Sir, I want to speak in opposition to my hon. Friend who is in favour of the rejection of this Bill. I voted the other night as one of the ten against the increase, but, having listened to my hon. Friend's speech this evening, and having taken the temperature of the House on a previous occasion, I begin to think that I am travelling in very bad company indeed, and I must take the earliest opportunity to put myself in order without being called before either the National Executive or any other. Let me remind my hon. Friend that not so many days ago the Secretary of State for War was asked why he did not include the Territorials in the display for the Silver Wedding celebrations. My hon. Friend suggested that the Salvation Army should be included, and apparently he would have gone to the expense of bringing them into it. I have no speech to make, I only want to point out that I dissociate myself from my hon. Friend, and am no longer his fellow traveller.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
I would not like it to be thought by this House that all the hon. Members for Ayrshire think in the same way as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his rhetoric-clouded speech. He has become completely obsessed by some idea regarding this Bill, and before he started talking about its unpopularity, I wish that instead of going to Merthyr Tydfil at the weekend, he had gone to Ayrshire as I did. Strangely enough, I did not find the streets of Kilmarnock or Ayr or Cumnock, which I visited for a short time, crowded with people demonstrating against this Bill; in fact, I did not hear it mentioned by one single person in Ayrshire during the weekend. I thought my hon. Friend had the wrong temper of the people of Scotland in raising the dust storm he has raised over this question. I am surprised, since the hon. Gentleman is now representing the constituency that gave the Labour Party its first holder of this office—a man who was respected in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland and who, as everyone know, did not make anything out of the office. I was informed for the first time tonight by the hon. Gentleman that there was any doubt in Scotland on that question.
The point is—and let us face it—that whether this Bill is passed or not, the expenditure will be incurred simply 998 because the office will continue. This Bill does not question the continuance or discontinuance of the office although, to judge from the hon. Member's speech, he does not think it should be continued. He should have made that clear by putting down Amendments on that line, which he did not do. If the office is to be continued, then I, as a believer in practical democracy, feel that the Government should be able to select from any persons in Scotland whatever man they think can carry the office with dignity and efficiency. If this Bill is not passed, it means that the Government will have to select a man who can carry the office and be able to bear the expenditure of the office.
I am sure the hon. Member, who was querying the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, must have noticed that there has been no increase in this emolument since 1832. There never was any reason to increase it because the office was handed on to the Dukes of Buccleuch, the Earls of Fife, and so on, people who were not properly related to the living stream of democracy in Scotland. It was only in 1924 that it was given to an ex-miner from this House, and when this Government came into office in 1945 it was given to a railway clerk. Unless this Bill is passed, we shall have to revert to people who can afford to bear the financial burdens of the office. I am sorry the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has left the Chamber, because he has fostered the idea that it was a plot. There is no plum attached to the office; it is a dignity and nothing more.
The Government are right in being straightforward, in accepting the financial burden themselves, which is where it should lie, and no one in Scotland who has thought about the matter will raise the objection voiced by some of my hon. Friends. They may talk about this having a psychological effect on the people of this country, but then they proclaim, "We did not mean to say anything against the Church." That is psychologically the attitude, taken up by certain people, which is an insult to the Church. I have never had the honour to be invited—far less, to go—to the garden party for the humble people of the most democratic Church in the world. Their very fight for existence and the fact that the Lord High Commissioner today watches over, but cannot interfere with, 999 the Church, shows that the whole history of the Scottish Church is spiritually independent.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am sorry I must interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman is going right outside the terms of the Bill.

§ Mr. Ross
I must apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but some of the things that have been said tempt one to step outside—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member should not yield to temptation.

§ Mr. Ross
I entirely agree. The Bill deserves the support of the House. Looked at in a proper sense of proportion, it is fitting that the Government should have introduced it.

§ Mr. Kendall (Grantham)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) discussed with me last week the speech he was to make today. He told me that if I came and listened to him he would make a well-documented speech against the proposed increase to£4,000. He has been forbidden to continue with his speech. I interrupted in the hope of getting some enlightenment as to the reason why, and was told that I was out of Order. To make myself clear to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I have not the slightest objection to the Lord High Commissioner's getting the increase in allowance for the job he is doing, and the functions he has undertaken. It is a little unfortunate that we did not hear more about the functions that he has to perform.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
As a matter of fact, it is unfortunate that so much was heard.

§ Mr. Kendall
I shall not even attempt to dwell on that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do say that it is a little unfortunate that we have not heard more about it. It may well be that this sum of money is not sufficient. If it has not been increased since 1832 it may be that in a short time further provision must be made. If we could have heard more, we might have felt that the sum asked for would not, in fact, be sufficient.

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)
I should not have risen had not my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made one or two remarks about the Bill which I think should be put in their correct perspective. He informed us that when he went to Scotland at the weekend there were no great demonstrations against the Measure. There were no great demonstrations for the Bill, and it is remarkable that the only correspondence that has appeared in the Edinburgh Press so far about the Bill has been against it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has pointed that out in a letter which appeared in "The Scotsman" this morning. The only letter in "The Scotsman" about this Bill was one from, I believe, a minister, against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "From a minister?"] Yes, from a minister. We must look at this matter in the right perspective.
It has been argued that it would be impossible for anybody without private means to hold the office this year unless the Bill is passed. I want to suggest an alternative which would have been dignified and would have given a lead to the people of Scotland. An announcement could have been made that, in view of the crisis through which we are passing, the hospitality and functions in connection with this particular ceremony would be severely curtailed. Such action would have been dignified and in keeping with the traditional Scottish character, their love of living within their income, and their pride and independence. I think that and I feel that—it would have given a lead to the workers in Scotland, who, I see, on Friday rejected the Government's policy concerning wages and income about which we argued a few nights ago but which would be out of Order at present. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are making a mistake."] I understand that the Scottish T.U.C.—

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member is entirely out of Order and must not discuss that here.

§ Mr. Willis
If I am wrong, I withdraw what I have said. The only point I wanted to make was that there is an alternative which I think is a sound one. It would have been in keeping with the 1001 movement to which all of us, even although we have disagreed, belong. For that reason I would have liked to see the Bill rejected.

§ Mr. McKinlay (Dunbartonshire)
I want to say only one parting word and will try to keep within the four corners of the Bill. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will be happy if he is permitted to create his usual weekly vomit against his colleagues. Sometimes he does it after a Debate and sometimes he anticipates it. The fact that one name appears on the Order Paper in connection with the Amendment this afternoon was significant of the strength and decision of the Scottish Labour Members as a group.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I should not have ventured even to wind up the Debate had not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) repeated many of the misstatements and misrepresentations he has been making since February. It is quite true that one solitary letter has appeared against the Bill. I am surprised there have not been more, because the amount of misrepresentation that has been deliberately carried on regarding this office has been outside anything in my memory in politics. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was informed before he started this campaign that there was no element of salary in it; that it involved no increase of expenditure at all; that not a single extra meal would be supplied because of the Bill. That was all carefully explained to him. It was explained to him in the Second Reading Debate last week but it does not seem to have entered his head even yet, for in the last speech which he made he said that he cannot find why this extra expenditure is being incurred. It has been explained to him that the extra expenditure, even on the most austere scale—and that is a question which my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) also has avoided—that this expenditure was cut down because of austerity during the war. It has been cut down to the most austere scale. The military display has been eliminated.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
No, it has not.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The military display—

§ Mr. Woodburn
—has been eliminated.

§ Mr. Hughes
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

§ Mr. Woodburn
No, I will not. I read out a quotation from the Church itself on the Second Reading which said that the military parade had gone and, to that extent, it has gone. To that extent, it has gone—

§ Mr. Hughes
May I ask a question? If the military display has been eliminated, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the Lord High Commissioner's photograph appeared in military uniform in "The Scotsman"?

§ Mr. Woodburn
The Lord High Commissioner is an honorary Deputy-Lieutenant of the City of Edinburgh, and he wears the uniform of a Deputy-Lieutenant of Edinburgh. I am sorry my hon. Friend so little understands this ceremony or anything about it that he has continually misrepresented it, and I think it is a little indecent of him to interfere in the traditions of the country which he has made his adopted country. I think it a little unhealthy that he has pursued his vendetta against the right hon. Gentleman who has carried on this position. In spite of the fact that he has been told that there is no salary here, in spite of the fact that he has been told that the persons occupying that office have generally been out of pocket, the hon. Gentleman has talked about "plums," increased emoluments, and, in his last speech, about increased grants and increased entertainment allowances, and he has done all this in the interests of dignity. The dignity that is involved in this matter—and I would put this also to my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh—is that the expenditure has to be incurred by this House of Commons, and this Government is not going to be indebted to the charity of outside individuals. The dignity consists in our paying our way, and what hon. Members are asking the Government to do is to depend on wealthy people or outsiders to subsidise this office and the duties imposed upon a respected and right hon. Member of this House who has been given this job to carry out.
Therefore, not because I have any hope of having the slightest influence upon the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in his vendetta, but for the benefit of those hon. 1003 Members who have been completely misled by the misrepresentations which he has spread about concerning this office, I think it is necessary to reiterate this statement and to say that this dignified office has been placed on a respected right hon. Gentleman, and that it is the duty of this House to see that he is able to do it and that the accounts are paid by the State, and not by anybody but the State.