CLAUSE 8.—(Abolition of future prize money, and of prize bounty.) (Hansard, 22 November 1948)

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas
We shall oppose the inclusion of this Clause. We have 952 heard no new arguments this evening in support of the extinction of the Royal Prerogative to grant prize money or prize bounty. During the Second Reading Debate, the Government said that both were anachronisms today. I admit that conditions of modern warfare are different from those of previous wars, but I repeat the point which I made on the Second Reading that none can foresee the circumstances next time if, unfortunately, war should come again. Therefore, it 953 seems to us on this side of the Committee to be a very foolish step to abolish prize money and prize bounty at the present time, and a deplorable step to take away from His Majesty the prerogative right of making this grant. The onus is upon the Government to show why these steps should be taken, and it is not enough for them merely to say that they are anachronistic, whatever the Government may mean by that particularly ugly word.
In the Second Reading Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary advanced no reason in the small paragraph which he devoted to the subject, and the Civil Lord added nothing when he wound up. We are prepared to discuss the abolition on the merits of the case, but, so far, in our opinion, no case has been presented. I agree that today there may no longer be a case for making individual grants of prize bounty to the men actually engaged in the action for which bounty would be payable, but there is no reason whatever why bounty should not be made the subject of a general grant in the same way as the distribution of prize money was changed in the 1914–18 war.
As I said on Second Reading, there was no hint of any change in the policy of granting prize bounty in the last war until the Minister of Defence made a statement in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) in December, 1945. It is one of the many complaints that we have against this Bill that no previous warning was ever given to the Royal Navy at an earlier date. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in the Second Reading Debate he justified the payment of prize money for this war on the ground that the men had been expecting it, and rightly expecting it. If this reason justifies the grant of prize money, it equally justifies the grant of prize bounty.
In the Second Reading Debate, it seemed to us that the representatives of the Admiralty were not altogether clear as to the difference between prize money and prize bounty. I must remind the Civil Lord that in winding up the Debate he said: I am a loser as a result of the policy of the Government in abolishing the prize bounty. I happened to serve on a German cargo vessel 954 which during the war brought in 8,000 tons of grain. If prize bounty had been paid, I would have received something on that account"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1934.] But a captured merchant vessel does not qualify for bounty. Bounty is only paid in respect of enemy warships destroyed or surrendered.
7.30 p.m.
It is a very alarming state of affairs when a Minister directly concerned with abolishing an age-old tradition at this time should not be absolutely clear as to exactly what it is that is being abolished. We were left in complete ignorance during the Second Reading as to how much this prize bounty would have amounted in respect of the last war. Do the Government intend to tell us today what that amount is? It is an answer which I think the officers and men of the Royal Navy would be interested to hear. We understand that the total amount will not be large, but it would make a very welcome addition to this very small Prize Fund. This also does not appear to be a matter for a decision by His Majesty's Government alone. It is no part of their duty to advise His Majesty in the exercise of His Royal Prerogative in respect of the peoples of His Majesty's Dominions. The Government have so far given no indications at all of any discussion——

§ The Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I gather that he is arguing that there should be a bounty in respect of the recent war.

Mr. Thomas
Yes, Sir.

§ The Chairman
This Clause, however, does not seem to deal with that matter. The Clause says that the Droits of Admiralty shall cease to be exercisable in respect of any future war. It would not, therefore, appear appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to argue in respect of the recent war. Indeed, I do not know any place in the Bill where that can be done.

Mr. Thomas
Surely, with respect, until this Clause is passed, the abolition of bounty in the last war does come in for discussion under Subsection (2). Surely, under Subsection (2) I am within my rights to argue that point?

§ The Chairman
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the prerogative right shall be exercisable In fact, it has not been exercised and it is 955 not proposed that it shall be exercised in future.

Mr. Thomas
Until this Clause is passed am I not in Order to argue that point?

§ The Chairman
I am afraid not.

Mr. Thomas
I bow of course to your Ruling, Major Milner. Before the moving of the Second Reading of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and informed us that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, had been graciously pleased to place the rights and the privileges of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament. With regard to this particular grant, we see no reason whatsoever for curtailing the Royal Prerogative by Act of Parliament. Even if, after a future war, it is decided not to grant either prize money or prize bounty, it is competent, surely, for the Government then to advise His Majesty not to make the grant. There is no need for them to have a statute in order to tender this advice. The matter can quite well be left to be decided as the circumstances demand in future. I should like to impress upon the Government that amongst the many objections which we have——

§ The Chairman
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I have reconsidered the point he raised a short time ago, and I think he may be right in arguing under Subsection (2) that the prerogative right to grant prize bounty may, in fact, be exercised with regard to the recent war. The first part of the Clause appears to say that it shall not be exercisable in respect of any future war, and the second part of the Clause seems to indicate that it shall cease to be exercisable henceforth. That would appear to leave an opportunity for argument that it might or might not be exercised in respect of the recent war.

Mr. Thomas
I am most grateful to you, Major Milner. I hoped that under Subsection (2) you might, on reflection, consider that it was possible to continue this discussion. When I broke off, I was pointing out that this abolition of prize bounty does not seem to be a decision of His Majesty's Government alone. It is no part of their duty to advise His 956 Majesty in the exercise of His Royal Prerogative in respect of the people of His Majesty's Dominions. I was asking why the Government have given no indication of any discussion with the Dominions on this matter. The House would like to know whether discussions have been held, or even if prize money has been abolished so far as the Dominions are concerned.
As to the last war, we had hoped to move an Amendment, but it was not accepted, owing to the fact that a Financial Resolution would be needed. I would point out that I felt that the prerogative right existed for the granting of prize money under the 1864 Act, and that this was confirmed by the 1918 Act, when the provision for the distribution of prize money was made, and no Financial Resolution was moved on that occasion. I felt, with respect, that what was unnecessary then must surely be unnecessary now. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) proposed that the bounty money should be added to prize funds, and they were told by the Civil Lord that this could not be done. He gave us, however, no reason for this statement, and I would remind the Government that while this Bill may abolish the Royal Prerogative, it is not yet passed and we still hope it will not be passed in its present form. Surely there should be no arbitrary ruling by Ministers or by anybody else on this matter before the Bill is actually passed.
I now return to what I was saying just before you kindly told me, Major Milner, that I might continue with this discussion of the abolition of bounty in respect of the last war. I was stating that we on this side of the Committee saw no reason whatsoever why there should be any curtailing of the Royal Prerogative by Act of Parliament, and I should like to conclude by impressing upon the Government that of all our many grave objections to this Bill, the abolition of this Royal Prerogative is the greatest.

§ Captain Marsden
I hope this Clause will not be passed. Why should we do away with prize money just because the Admiralty have got themselves into a mess in administering it? The position is that prize money is not money which is 957 deducted from the Exchequer. It is money which is received from ships condemned in a prize court. The original prize court, as far as I know, was set up in 1649—about 300 years ago—and it was not set up primarily for the purpose of prize money but to protect merchant ships, so that if any ship was captured on the high seas she was taken to the prize courts and then condemned as lawful prize under the international rules of war as they then existed.
From the proceeds of this fund, half went to the actual ships' companies who had captured the ship, and half went to the Treasury or the Admiralty to disburse for pensions and other charitable awards to Service men. I do not see any reason why a future Prize Fund should not be used for that same purpose. This Clause seeks to abolish any such thing. When the next war comes—and pray God it will not—we may be certain that the Navy are going to capture a few ships. Therefore, a fund will immediately be created. If this Clause goes through it means that the proceeds will go direct to the Exchequer.
I oppose this Clause. It is ridiculous at this stage to commit ourselves in what we are going to do with prizes captured in some possible future war. Let that period take care of itself. If there is any fear that the men are going to be deceived in any way, the Admiralty can easily circulate a paragraph in Fleet Orders to the effect that in future no man can rely on getting prize money. That is simple enough; they will know where they are then. That is what I recommend, in view of the argument which we have heard today to the effect that the lump sums in the Prize Fund should be distributed to charities. Why should not the Merchant Service get some of this money—for example, organisations like the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society who look after men whose ships have been torpedoed, bombed and wrecked at sea? There would be a useful sum to distribute to these naval charities for officers and their dependants. There is a precedent in 1649, and also today in the way the Air Force intend to distribute the amount which they receive. To say there will never be any distribution and that all the money is going into the Exchequer is something which I personally must oppose.
958 The second part of the Bill is the abolition of prize bounty. Now this is really the easiest thing to compute. The Admiralty have the figures and at almost a few minutes' notice could give the total number of enemy ships at war which were sunk or captured, and the crews concerned. They must have it tabulated somewhere. They can say, "£5 a head for these crews"—and there is the prize bounty straight away. As soon as the Bill goes through prize bounty will be abolished, but there is nothing, so far as I know, to stop any prize agent today putting in a claim for this prize bounty on behalf of the people he represents. It is not a vast amount and for that reason one does not want to stress the matter too strongly. To do away at this moment with a thing which may never happen—or in any case may happen years ahead—is something with which I cannot agree, and if that provision remains in the Clause, I must oppose the Clause.

§ Commander Pursey
It might be of advantage at this late stage if we could clear up some of the misunderstandings about prize bounty and prize money which exist on the other side of the Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) had referred to King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 895, paragraph 3, he would have found that it says: Prize Bounty for the capture or destruction of enemy armed vessels may only be claimed when the Crown has declared its intention to grant this award in respect of any particular war. That is an extract from the Naval Prize Act.
In the Bill which we have before us we find the statement that: no grant of prize bounty in respect of operations during the late war has been made or is contemplated. I will deal with prize money later, but the arguments which have been advanced by the Opposition about prize bounty and prize money are nonsense. Here it is clearly stated in the Regulations that unless a statement is made there is no prize bounty. Moreover, hon. Members on the other side said they were prepared to see prize bounty go. Prize bounty has to come out of the Exchequer. It is in a different category altogether from prize money and when it was argued on Second Reading, as some hon. Members argued today, that prize bounty should be added 959 to prize money, it may as well be argued that we should add old age pensions to prize money because, as in that case, there is no connection between the two whatsoever.

§ Mr. Bracken
Nonsense.

§ Commander Pursey
if the right hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I shall be prepared to give way.

§ Mr. Bracken
I am not interrupting but merely putting the point that there is often a connection between prize money and old age pensions.

§ Commander Pursey
I do not want to labour this point at this time of the day. So far as prize bounty is concerned, it finished with the last war. Nothing has been said about it in connection with this war and, therefore, it does not exist. All we are concerned with tonight is the decision that it will finish so far as the Royal Prerogative is concerned. So much for prize bounty.
Turning now to prize money and again quoting King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions—and these are the Orders by which the Navy is run. It is no good hon. and gallant Members opposite laughing, because it is perfectly obvious that if they had referred to these Regulations they would not have advanced the arguments they have advanced. Article 894, headed "Right or Claim to Proceeds," says: The officers and crews of His Majesty's ships have no right or claim to the proceeds of Prize of War, except as may from time to time be granted by the Crown. The Navy on this occasion expected prize money and prize money is being granted. But it is quite nonsense to argue, when we consider the question of making an announcement that it should not be granted in the future, that prize bounty and prize money had been looked upon as emoluments which automatically were granted to the officers and men serving in the Navy. When I joined the Navy 40 years ago no one then said anything about prize money or prize bounty, and nobody in the last half century or more has ever been told that prize bounty and prize money are part of the emoluments of the Navy. [Interruption.] The running commentary going on from the other side does not detract from the facts. If you do not 960 know these facts, you might at least listen and improve your knowledge on the subject.

§ The Chairman
It would appear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is unaware that he is referring to me.

§ Commander Pursey
I apologise, with all due respect, Sir, for using the word "you." Hon. Members opposite instead of plugging a running commentary might at least take the opportunity of improving their education about prize money and prize bounty.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas
But even the Civil Lord did not know when he wound up in the Second Reading Debate, because I had to point out his mistake.

§ Commander Pursey
It is not for me to say what the Civil Lord said. It is obvious to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) what happened there, and it is not for me to say. On the Second Reading Debate I said there had been a lot of arrant nonsense talked and in that connection I want to make it quite clear that I am excluding the Amendments about increasing the number of individuals—officers and men—to be brought into the various categories. That is not the subject of my argument.
The arguments which have been put forward from the other side about prize money and prize bounty are far removed from the facts. Prize bounty finished after the first war and prize money will finish with this war. Anyone reading the Debate in this House, or hearing it, would have one comment to make: the main point which arose from the Debate was that prize money should be abolished because we have now reached a stage where it is impossible to distribute it fairly. The money has been reduced. In addition to the Navy receiving awards the Royal Air Force have been included and there is a good case for the Army also sharing in it. Consequently, the decision of the Government is the right one.
Moreover, I say this to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: if a Conservative Government had been in power, the Admiralty would have brought in a similar Bill. It is quite on the cards that the hon. Member who led for the Opposition during this Bill—the hon. 961 Member for Hereford—would have been the person to introduce practically a similar Bill, one to do precisely the same things as those now proposed.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
There is nothing more fascinating than when hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), start to reconstruct the next Conservative Government. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) will be the first to rejoice that he has been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. I would assure the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull that from this side of the Committee we would never introduce any Measure such as this, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford would be the last to introduce such a Measure. I value the Parliamentary Secretary more highly than the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, because the Parliamentary Secretary sits on the Front Bench and therefore is lower than the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull——

§ Mr. Bracken
Rather complicated.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Complicated, but it can be worked out. At the same time, no argument has been put by hon. Members opposite in reply to this question. They start by saying it is difficult to distribute the money. What has that got to do with justice, and with the stopping of prize money? It seems to me quite extraneous. Hon. Members opposite have always been most keen, so they have said, that, no matter what the difficulties, justice should be done. Yet, when it happens to suit them, they are the first to say that it is too difficult, and that justice cannot be done. Why is it more difficult now than in the past? We are told simply that the Royal Air Force should have a share. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee could not object to that. Indeed, they believe that to be a fair consideration. But that does not make it any more difficult. It merely means that some arrangement has to be made between the Departments before the money is paid.
We are told that the amount of the money has been reduced, and, therefore, that there is less to share out, and, therefore, that it should not continue. I have not yet heard one argument from the 962 Parliamentary Secretary to show why the sum has been reduced. He has produced many statements tonight, including the incredible one that he is giving ships away and charging the proceeds to the Prize Fund. That is the only defence.

Mr. Dugdale
I have never said anything remotely resembling that. I said that ships that were non-condemnable, which would not have gone to the Prize Fund anyhow, had gone to other nations; but I have not said that ships that might have been prize have gone to other nations.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, of course, but——

§ The Chairman
I do not think that that question arises here, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not continue to discuss it.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I think it does arise here, because one of the reasons given why prize cannot be continued is that the sum is much lower. Therefore, I think it is in Order to take up previous statements in the Debate, as to why the sum is lower.

§ The Chairman
I do not think so. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not pursue that line.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I hope that I may have an opportunity later in the proceedings on the Bill to pursue the subject.
Then we are told by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) if we want to swell the fund, why not add old age pensions? Surely, the situation is quite different. Prize bounty is something which, under the Naval Prize Act, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not refer, in three Sections—Sections 42 to 44—clearly lays down that prize bounty is payable in certain circumstances. That has always been observed, and it seems very wrong that suddenly a Bill should be introduced to rescind three articles of an Act which has always been looked upon by the Navy as a means of obtaining a certain bounty. Therefore, I do not believe there is any possible consideration in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which can justify his saying that old age pensions are equivalent.
963 He may say that King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions lay down certain statements whereby officers and men are not entitled to prize as of right. With that I quite agree. If he will study them, as I have no doubt he has done, in many other directions, he will find that officers and men are not entitled to the right to many things, but that, equally, under Acts passed by the House, they are entitled from time to time to assume that certain sums will be payable under certain conditions. We are the first Members of Parliament to repudiate in that respect these hopes of the Navy.

§ Commander Pursey
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? There is a distinct difference between prize money and prize bounty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Prize bounty comes out of the Exchequer.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
We all know that.

§ Commander Pursey
When it comes to the question of references, the quotations I gave were from King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and the Naval Prize Act. There is no prize bounty unless the Crown has declared its intention to grant it. Therefore, there has been no prize bounty since the first world war. There has been no mention of it in the late war. Therefore, there can be no argument about prize bounty. It does not exist. Hon. Members opposite may compare it with the old age pensions or anything else they like. It has no connection with prize money.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon trying to emphasise for the fourth time that there is no connection between prize money and prize bounty. I think that we on this side of the Committee are as aware of that as he is. However, if he will look again at the history of the thing, he will find that on every occasion the House has always passed a Measure enabling naval bounty to be paid by Royal Proclamation. He has said, rightly, that it was necessary at the beginning of the war for some such statement to be made. However, we should have imagined that at the end of the war, naval prize would have been payable in exactly the same way as it was in any other case.

§ Commander Pursey
This is no justification for the argument.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Whereas we are told bounty will not be paid, yet in some way the Government have already paid £400,000 of bounty. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how that has happened. If he will look at the Supreme Court Prize Account he will see that under "Condemned by order of the Court," no less than £250,000 has been paid out by way of bounty. He will also see that payments not yet allocated include £153,000, and there is one further item of £9,200. How does it come about that we have this enormous sum paid by way of bounty if, by this Bill, it is not allowed to be paid? I think we ought to have some explanation of that.

§ Mr. Levy
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) protested that he had not heard any reasons so far why prize money and prize bounty should not continue. I assume that he was genuinely seeking guidance, and I shall try to provide him with some genuine reasons. He mentioned that the only reason he had heard so far was that there is, obviously—and these Debates have demonstrated it—very great difficulty in deciding how prize money shall be distributed. I invite him to consider whether the important factor is not the difficulty but why there is a difficulty.
I suggest that the reason why there is a difficulty is a very simple one—that at this stage nobody really knows what prize money is for. There are three possible things it could be for, so far as I can understand. It could be given for responsibility; it could be related to danger; or, it could arise purely from tradition. Fourthly, I suppose, it could be related to incentive. That is just conceivable, though I do not think anybody at this date would argue that people joined the Navy because they had heard about prize money; I do not think anyone would contend that.
Let us, then, examine the three other possibilities. If prize money is related to responsibility, then the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) is obviously quite right in arguing that the distribution of prize money should not even approach an 965 egalatarian basis, but should be distributed in accordance with "rank and responsibility"—which was, I think, his phrase. That is a perfectly logical contention, so far as it goes. But it is obviously quite impracticable. We cannot distribute money in terms of both rank and responsibility accurately. Take the case of an admiral who might be responsible for six months during a six years' war, and a lieutenant who might be responsible to a lesser degree for a longer period, perhaps six years. I defy anyone to compute those two considerations and balance one against the other. It is not, in fact, a very practical suggestion if we want to be strictly logical about it, nor do I think that there is any reason for accepting that as a reason.
8.0 p.m.
The second possible reason is that prize money is related to danger. In that case, the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is entirely right when he half suggested, as he did during the Second Reading Debate, that there should be no differentiation in distribution, according to rank. That is quite true. If danger were in fact to be the criterion, then all must receive equal shares and not only the Royal Navy but a great number of other categories who served on the sea, and who have been discussed in earlier Amendments tonight, must also be included. I suggest that neither of these criteria is in point of fact the right one.
The real basis of prize money is purely and simply tradition. The fact that it is traditional does not, of course, for one moment condemn it; but neither does it for one moment justify it. There can be good traditions and bad traditions. As I think the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) pointed out on the Second Reading, Nelson regarded this as a bad tradition because he found that in practice ships were sometimes more interested in chasing prizes than in winning battles. For that reason, he invented a counter-agent in the form of prize bounty.
Both of these attitudes are no longer valid. First of all, no one here would contend that conditions in a modern navy are such that there is any serious danger of ships going off in search of prize instead of keeping their noses, as it were, to the battle front. As to prize bounty 966 no one has argued that it is anything more than an anachronism. I suggest from this analysis that the real root of the trouble is that there is no explanation of prize money, except the traditional explanation, and there is no ground for thinking that it is a good tradition.
Even if those reasons were not adequate in themselves, I would remind the Committee that the character of the Debate has not perhaps been particularly edifying. I think it was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who suggested that what we were doing in fact was distributing the swag. That is what we have been doing during the Second Reading Debate and this Debate, and I suggest that that is a proceeding which does not contribute very substantially to the dignity of our senior Service.

§ Commander Noble
We are most grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) for the dissertation he has given us on prize money and prize bounty. I should like to bring the Committee back to the point which we on these benches are trying to make. It has been usually the custom of the present Government during the past three-and-a-half years to take more powers in Bills than they want to use, and when we accuse them of that they say, "Oh, we may never really want to use them." Why are they not doing that on this occasion? Why are they taking this opportunity of abolishing prize money, with the result that that power cannot be used in future? That is the point which we are trying to make from this side of the House.

Mr. Dugdale
I am interested to hear the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) because I understood that, at any rate, in relation to prize bounty he was in favour of abolishing it in future.

§ Commander Noble
I am in favour of abolishing prize bounty if it is to be distributed in the old-fashioned way to those who actually win the bounty. I should be perfectly prepared to have prize bounty again if it were distributed in some other way which was required at the time.

Mr. Dugdale
I only mentioned this to draw attention to the fact that there does not seem to be complete unanimity on the benches opposite on this question. I 967 noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), who is not in his place, has said that allocations in a future war would become virtually impossible. I agree, and think that they would become virtually impossible.

§ Mr. Bracken
Quote my hon. and gallant Friend correctly.

Mr. Dugdale
I think that the whole of this Debate has shown the very great difficulty of the distribution of prize in accordance with Acts passed several hundred years ago. I think that these difficulties will become increasingly great in any future war. We have seen the difficulty that is now brought about by the R.A.F., participation in warfare at sea, and that participation, for all we know, may increase very considerably, and there may even be ways in which the three Services will be still further coordinated by the time we come to a future war. In short, the difficulties are such that we cannot believe that by the time we come, if we should come, to another war, it will be possible to resolve them.
These anomalies and anachronisms—and I dislike both words equally, but I do not know of any others to take their place—are due not to any political party but to the advance of science. Science has advanced in such a way that the conditions of war which were believed likely to be permanent in the 17th century are so far removed from reality today that the idea of granting prize has itself become quite out-of-date. We do not want—and I emphasise this again—to leave sailors in any doubt whatever. We do not want them to feel what they might have felt otherwise, that the House of Commons does not know—there may be prize or there may not be prize—which would be the situation of officers and ratings if this matter were left in abeyance. We want them to be quite certain that in fact there will not be prize. They will realise perfectly fully the reason for there not being prize. In view of the complete alteration of the conditions of warfare in the present day to what they were when prize was first instituted, I think that the only sensible and reasonable course is to say, once and for all, that prize bounty and prize money payments shall cease.

§ Mr. Bracken
The Parliamentary Secretary scarcely did justice to his right hon. colleague the Minister of Defence when he said, in his mournful way, that there may be co-ordination in another war. What exactly is the Minister of Defence doing if we are not to have some co-ordination in another war? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with some of his hon. Friends behind him, who described the Minister of Defence as a "dummy dreadnought"? I think that this attack on a Minister is serious; at any rate, it is deplorable. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that science has changed war. What a brilliant thought. A new Einstein is among us. What does he think we have been doing during the last war with numbers of scientists engaged in inquiries on all sorts and conditions of warfare? Of course, science changes war, but let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary: Courage wins war and courage deserves prizes.

§ Commander Pursey
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Bracken
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a verbal bruiser, and advises me through his interjections. If he has any remarks to make let him get up and say them instead of jeering and gibing from his seat.

§ Commander Pursey
I am merely doing what the right hon. Gentleman did when I was speaking. It is simply a question of giving him a small dose of his own medicine by the interjection of one word "nonsense."

§ Mr. Bracken
Let me congratulate the hon. Member on his fourth speech on this Motion. It is a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary got such great enjoyment in telling us tonight that this gave him the opportunity of assuring sailors that in the future under no possible circumstances would they ever get any prize money. I remember the present Minister of Defence used to be a most tremendous battler for prize money. I used to support him and he stood firmly for prize money. He has abandoned lots of things since then, but we are not going to abandon the principle for which we have fought on this Bill. Because of the utterly unreasonable speech of the Parliamentary Secretary his hon. Friends will have to trudge through the Lobby again.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
The Parliamentary Secretary put forward the strongest argument possible for continuing the payment. His opposition to it was entirely on the question of the great difficulty in distribution. That is no argument against prize money as such. If there is a difficulty in distribution it is the Government's business to overcome that difficulty, not to do away with prize money because there are difficulties. Some much more potent reason should be given by the Government in order to abolish this 300 year old tradition. The Government are very anxious and are always endeavouring to break down the traditions of this country and of the Services. They want to pull down everything. That is an actual fact, unfortunate but true.
This tradition of prize money is now to be done away with. An hon. Member says it is a bad tradition, but if he had the honour to be a member of His Majesty's Navy he would not think it was such a had one. I do not want to detain the Committee, but the question is that we on this side of the Committee desire to retain the power to bring prize money into operation in any future war, should war unfortunately break out. The difficulties of distribution will in the future perhaps be greater, or perhaps they may be much less than at the present time. Therefore, it should be decided at the time whether prize money should be continued or not now. I very much regret that this tradition of service should be done away with, and I strongly oppose the Clause.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give an answer to the question which I put to him. I pointed out that he was saying that under Subsection (2) naval bounty was not payable in respect of the war, whereas the Supreme Court Prize Account had paid altogether £400,000 out of this fund. Could he tell me how that occurs? We are entitled to an answer. Half a million of money is apparently paid out of this fund for the purpose not authorised under this Bill, which otherwise would come into the Prize Money Fund. The Committee is entitled to an explanation.

Mr. Dugdale
I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Crown 970 Bounty. Crown Bounty is, in fact, a right which has been exercised by the Crown for a considerable time for redressing hardship cases caused by condemnation for prize by a grant of bounty out of the proceeds of the condemnation. It is something different and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. That answers the question of the hon. and gallant Member, but in fact, in speaking about it, he is raising something which has not got anything to do with this Clause.

Mr. Thomas
On a point of Order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am on my feet, and the hon. Member cannot speak while I am on my feet.

Mr. Thomas
I rise to a point of Order. I very definitely said "No" myself.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I collected the voices and there was not a single voice heard from the Opposition side of the Committee. I did not hear it.

§ Mr. Bracken
The Question was not put.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It was put. I am not going to argue with hon. Gentlemen, but the Question was perfectly clearly put and there was not a single "No" from the Opposition side of the House. All I heard were the "Ayes."

§ Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)
On a point of Order. I think I am sitting further away from the Chair, and I must point out to you, Mr. Bowles, that if you, in point of fact, did put the Question it was not audible where I was sitting. I am not suggesting for one moment that you did not put the Question, but I should like to point out that it was not audible in this part of the Committee.

§ Captain Marsden
I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). In my speech I had already stated that I was anxious to vote against the party opposite, and it may have been because of the tremendous noise and jeers that we on this side of 971 the Committee did not hear. I did not hear you say anything.

§ Mr. Bracken
The last thing any of us on this side of the House would like to do is to argue with the Chair, but it is true to say that neither I nor any of my hon. Friends heard the Question put. It may have been because of the noise opposite that we did not hear.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I always believe that I speak as loud as is necessary for everyone to hear me even in a Committee as small as this. I am quite certain that I put the Question. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House said "Aye," but there was not a single sound from the other side of the Committee. I do not think I should argue the question at all, but I am only doing this for the benefit of

§ Mr. Langford-Holt
Further to that point of Order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, we will proceed to the next Question.