Sitting of 12 December 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords,]
Considered; to be read the Third time.
Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; considered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899); read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    RAILWAY BOARD (INDIANS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the credentials of any Indians have been examined for the appointment to the Railway Board of India; whether any applications have been made for this appointment; and the number of such applications
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): In the case of vacancies on the Railway Board, as in the case of other appointments, it may be taken for granted that the qualifications of all eligible persons are considered by the Government of India. I have no information regarding the second and third parts of the question.
    Colonel DAY: Are we to understand from that that there is not an Indian of requisite standing or experience available?
    Earl WINTERTON: No. The hon. Gentleman is to understand that the
    1826
    Railway Board, who are responsible to the Indian Government, give due consideration to the question and appoint for promotion those persons who are most suitable, whether Indian or European.
    Colonel DAY: Did not the Noble Lord state in the House that as soon as an Indian of requisite standing and experience was available he would be appointed?
    Earl WINTERTON: Exactly. That is what I mean when I say it is a matter for the Railway Board. The Railway Board and the Department responsible probably have to answer more questions in the Assembly than any other Department of the Government of India, and I would suggest that the matter might well be left to the Assembly and the Government of India.

    GOVERNMENT PURCHASES (RAILS).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have accepted the Tariff Board's recommendations that all the Railway Board's requirements of rails should be bought from Messrs. Tata's over the next seven years; and, if so, whether the Government have received representations on the matter from other steel-making interests?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have entered into an arrangement with Messrs. The Tata Iron and Steel Company, to buy, at a fixed rate, the whole of their estimated output of rails for seven years. I am not aware that representations on the matter have been received by the Government of India from other steel manufacturers.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Noble Lord aware that this will have an effect on the production of steel in this country, and also add to the unemployment already existing in that trade?
    Earl WINTERTON: I hope the hon. Member does not take up an attitude that is not taken up by any party in the House, that in these matters we have to have regard primarily to the interests of manufacturers in this country. The Government of India naturally have to have regard primarily to the manufactures of India itself.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Noble Lord suppose the price that is being paid to Messrs. Tata for these steel rails is less than the price in South Wales? Does he suggest that the people of India get the benefit of this?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, but we have given to India a large measure of fiscal autonomy. It has been the deliberate policy, not only of the Government of India but of the Assembly of India, speaking for those who have votes for that Assembly, to adopt a certain policy. It is not possible in question and answer to discuss whether that policy is a wise one or not, but it is the policy that has been adopted.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Does this agreement cover a case where rails could be supplied from this country cheaper than they could be obtained from Messrs Tata?
    Earl WINTERTON: On that detail, perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down, although I think the answer is that the agreement is a fixed one for a period, quite irrespective of price.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the Noble Lord is aware whether the agreement was made or not. There is a protective tariff which protects Messrs. Tata's steelworks, and there is also a bonus to pay to Tata shareholders for every ton of steel produced, and this guarantee for seven years is something in addition to what the Assembly has already done.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue the matter now.

    BURMA RAILWAYS (MANAGEMENT).
    6. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, following the resolution passed in the Burma Legislative Council stating that in the opinion of that body the best interests of the province are likely to be served by the State management of the Burma railways on the termination of the present contract in 1928, and the resolution in similar terms passed by the chief body representative of commercial and industrial opinion in that province, the Secretary of State has now received the recommendations of the Government of India in this matter; and, if so, whether a decision has yet been
    1828
    arrived at with regard to taking over the railways in the province and running them under State management?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has accepted the recommendation of the Government of India that the working of the Burma railways shall be transferred to State management after 31st December, 1928.

    ORISSA FLOODS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under- Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the loss to life and property owing to the Orissa floods, especially as to the damage to crops and with regard to the total amount contri buted by the Government towards the reconstruction and restocking of the dis tricts devastated?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no later information than that given on 14th November in reply to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico).

    IMPRISONMENT (SOLITARY CONFINEMENT).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under- Secretary of State for India the number of cases in which the sentence of solitary imprisonment has been awarded in Indian courts during the last two years; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of deleting solitary imprisonment from the Indian penal code?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no figures of the cases in which sentences of solitary confinement have been passed by the Courts in the last two years, but by an Act of 1925 the old extreme form of solitary confinement was abolished as a gaol punishment and "cellular confinement" substituted.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does not the Secretary of State think that the time has arrived to abolish this sort of punishment altogether, and will he try to find out how many cases there have been in the last two years of this most terrible punishment?
    Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Member does not appreciate that there has been a change. Cellular confinement is a form of punishment which is given for gaol offences, much in the same way as punishment is given in the gaols of this country. It merely means that there may be no communication with other prisoners

    1829
    and that it may not last more than 14 days at a time, with an interval of at least 14 days before it is repeated. With regard to publishing information, it would involve writing to every provincial Government and would involve them and the Government of India in great labour and expense, but I will consider whether it is possible to supply the information.

    DEVDASI SYSTEM.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any action has been taken by the Government of India on the resolution recently moved in the Council of State by Mr. Ram Das Pantalu with reference to the abolition of the Devdasi system?
    Earl WINTERTON: No question can arise of taking action on the resolution referred to, as it was withdrawn without being put to the House. But my Noble Friend is in correspondence with the Government of India on the question of further legislation on this subject.

    TIKKA SAHIB OF NABHA (EDUCATION).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under- Secretary of State for India if the Gov ernment of India contemplates under taking the supervision of the education of the nine-year-old Prince of Nabha, son of the ex-Maharaja and Maharanee, irrespective of the wishes of his parents?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend understands that no decision has yet been reached regarding the future education of the Tikka Sahib of Nabha.
    Mr. THURTLE: Do I understand the question is being considered whether the boy's education is to be taken away from the parents and he is to be educated by the Government of India?
    Earl WINTERTON: No. The hon. Member is to understand that no decision has been reached on the question of the future education of this young Prince. The House will appreciate that, in view of the fact that the administration of Nabha has been taken away from the Maharajah, it is a question of great importance to the future of the State how the young Prince, who will reach his majority in 10 years time, is going to be educated, and that question must naturally be a matter for the consideration and concern of the Government of India.
    Mr. THURTLE: When is a decision likely to be reached, and will the Department bear in mind parental rights when they are considering this matter?

    ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S REPORT.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of his Department has been drawn to the statement contained in the Report of the Accountant-General, Central Revenues, of the Government of India, to the effect that frauds and embezzlements appear to have occurred under almost every budget head; and, if so, what action, if any, is contemplated by the Government of India?
    Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to the question by the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) on 28th July last.

    DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION)
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the date on which Mr. Rutenburg and Mr. Novomeysky became registered Palestinians, and upon what date they became British subjects?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not aware of the dates on which these two gentlemen acquired Palestinian citizenship, but will ask the High Commissioner for the information. Palestinian citizens are British protected persons, not British subjects.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Major Tullock and Mr. Novomeysky represent different groups; and which is the group behind Mr. Novomeysky?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Negotiations with Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky are being carried on with them as principals, and not as representatives of any persons or groups. I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What I wanted to know was whether there is a group behind Mr. Novomeysky, and he is merely a stalking horse?

  PALESTINE.

    CUSTOMS AGREEMENT (SYRIA).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the Palestine Chambers of Commerce were consulted as to the new Customs agreement between Palestine and Syria?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So far as I am aware, the answer is in the negative.

    GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking appropriate steps to secure that purchases of material required for development purposes in Palestine, following the flotation of the Palestine loan, as guaranteed by His Majesty's Government, will, so far as possible, be made in this country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not able to add to the full statement on this point which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in Debate during the passage of the Bill on 9th December, 1926.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to keep in touch with British manufacturers so that they may have the advantage of any development that may take place?
    Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: As was explained in Debate, every opportunity is taken invariably by the Crown Government and every preference is given to British manufacturers. The matter has been raised at Geneva, but it is impossible to give an absolute guarantee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is any preference given to Palestinian growers of fruit on importation to this country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which have occurred in England and Wales for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; the number of counties in
    1832
    which these outbreaks have occurred; and how many of these outbreaks have been reported during the last six weeks?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): During the 12 months ended 9th December, 1927, 80 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in England and Wales in 17 counties. Of these outbreaks, 34 (in four counties) have occurred during the last six weeks.
    Mr. CRAWFURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the chief veterinary surgeon of the Ministry of Agriculture has been in South America since last April investigating the whole system of dealing with the export of beasts to this country and that it is now proposed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry should now join him there, he can state why it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to go to South America instead of the chief veterinary surgeon being brought back to report; the nature of the negotiations the Parliamentary Secretary is to conclude with the South American authorities; how long he will be absent; and what is the estimated cost of his visit?
    Mr. GUINNESS: In March the Ministry asked three of the Governments of the countries in South America which export meat to this country to accept certain proposals which were designed to prevent the introduction of the virus of foot and mouth disease into Great Britain. With the consent of these Governments, Mr. Frood, a senior veterinary inspector of the Ministry (not the chief veterinary officer) was sent to South America more fully to explain these proposals to the Governments concerned and to collaborate with them in adapting them to local conditions. Mr. Frood has been given every facility to study the disease position, and reports that he has reason to believe that the Governments of the South American countries concerned will find a way to give effect to the Ministry's suggestions. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is going on a pleasure cruise to Rio de Janeiro, will extend his voyage to confer with representatives of the Argentine and Uruguayan Governments and Mr. Frood, in the hope of completing the negotiations in relation to measures for the control of animal diseases which these countries propose to adopt with a view

    1833
    to removing risk of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease to this country. He will he absent for about seven weeks altogether. The estimated cost to the Ministry is £50.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not of great importance to the settlement of this question in South American countries that the Parliamentary Secretary should visit South America personally and confer with the authorities?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not also important that our own diplomatic representatives on the spot should be utilised for this purpose?
    Mr. GUINNESS: They have, and they have been most useful; but the negotiations have reached such a stage that I think it will be of value for the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to take part in them.
    Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the reasons which caused the United States to take a line entirely opposite from that which he is taking on this matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The action taken by the United States is to prevent animal diseases being brought in, particularly rinderpest.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Has any meat contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease been brought into this country from South America
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have no evidence of that.

    WHEAT PRICES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fluctuation in the price of British wheat as witnessed during the last three years, he is contemplating any steps that may lead to stabilisation over long periods?
    Mr. GUINNESS: During the last three cereal years ended 31st August, the average price of British wheat as returned under the Corn Returns Act has been, 1924–25, 12s. 6d.; 1925–26, 12s. 3d.; 1926–27, 11s. 11d. I am not proposing to take any steps in regard to the stabilisation of wheat prices. This subject, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, was considered by the Royal Commission on Food Prices in 1925, and the objections are fully set out in their Report.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the recommendations made by one of the Departmental officials on the question of stabilisation been disposed of for all time?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the Opposition what is meant by the stabilisation of wheat prices?
    Mr. BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the recommendations of the Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1925 on the stabilisation of prices?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, we have carefully considered this matter, but we cannot find any way which would be satisfactory.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not that particular Report point the way to stabilization?

    VILLAGE FARM, HORBLING.
    Mr. WILFRID PALINGasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the two unsuccessful applicants for the village farm at Horbling were tenant farmers: whether the successful applicant occupies any other farms; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Of the two unsuccessful applicants one is already the tenant of a large farm on the Crown Estate at Horbling, and the other, according to my information, occupies a farm near Boston. The successful applicant is the owner of a small farm adjoining the Village Farm, and I have no certain information as to whether or not he still occupies any other farms.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

    STONEWORK (REPAIRS).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what progress is being made regarding the repairing of the stonework of the Houses of Parliament; and what stone, if any, has been chosen?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): No stone has yet been selected, and it has not therefore been possible to make any progress with the work of repair.
    Mr. HARDIE: How can the hon. and gallant Member say that no stone has been selected, since it was published that a stone had been selected? If stone cannot be found from the ground, would it not be wise to try some of the synthetic stones, if for nothing else than to prove whether or not they would give more resistance to the atmosphere of London than ordinary stone taken from the ground?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: It was stated that the Office of Works had selected Stancliffe stone as probably the most suitable; but that stone has to be referred in the first place to the Fine Art Commission to ascertain whether they see any objections to that stone in use with the existing stone in the building, and their reply has not been received. If they raise objections, I think those objections will have to be accepted. At the same time, it is necessary to refer the question to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to find out whether they consider that the mingling of the two stones would have any unfortunate effect. In certain cases the mingling of two stones does have an unfortunate effect. Their reply has not yet been received. When these replies have been received, it will be possible for the Office of Works to make further progress. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I will have that considered.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the Office of Works considered the suggestion which I made some time ago, without waiting for the whole of the repairs to be completed, that they might deal with the top of the central tower, which is now without a top and disfigures the whole of the Palace of Westminster? Could not that be done at once without great expense?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not quite arise, and the question should be put on the Paper.

    ST. STEPHEN'S HALL (PICTURE).
    Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN (for Lieut.-Colonel ANGUS McDON-NELL)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, as the Scottish picture
    1836
    has been removed from St. Stephen's Hall, this space can be allotted to Northern Ireland?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply which I gave to a question in this House on the 17th ultimo, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Could not this space be occupied by a representation of the recent discovery in Northern Ireland of an ammunition dump and an armoury?

    ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of starting negotiations with Japan with a view to renewing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): The Anglo-Japanese Alliance Agreement was merged into the Four Power Treaty signed at Washington on the 13th of December, 1921. A return to the former dual alliance has not been suggested by either Government.

  SCOTLAND.

    ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (CABLE COMMUNICATION).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Postmaster-General the number of notifications of interrupted cable com munication between Orkney and or Shetland and the mainland for the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, to date, respectively, and the chief contributing cause of the interruptions?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): On no occasion during 1925, 1926 or 1927 has communication with either the Orkneys or the Shetlands been entirely interrupted. There are three cables from the mainland to the Orkneys, one to the Shetlands, and one between the two groups of islands (via Fair Isle). Nine repairs have been necessary on this group of cables since the beginning of 1925. Seven were necessitated by breakage believed to be due to a trawler or a ship's anchor; in the other two cases the damage was due to chafing or corrosion.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Has any notice been given to the trawling ports, so that the men on the trawlers may know where the cables come ashore?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, I think so.

    AGRICULTURAL ORGANISERS (SALARIES).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a memorandum from the Association of County Staffs of Scottish Colleges of Agriculture relating to the salaries of Scottish county organisers; and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to raise the salaries of Scottish county organisers to the same level as that of county organisers in England?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have received the Memorandum referred to. An increase in the scale of salary of the county organisers has been approved as from April, 1926, subject to adjustment of certain details relative to the assimilation of existing salaries to the new scale, and proposals submitted by the governors of the colleges for an improvement of the scale approved are under consideration by the Board of Agriculture. The position and duties of the county organisers in England and Scotland, respectively, are not altogether comparable, and this must necessarily affect the amount of the salaries paid.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that these increases which have been approved are not at all satisfactory to the staffs or to the directors of these colleges; they are too small to be adequate?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the case that the higher salaries paid in England induce the best Scottish brains to come to England?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is very regrettable that sometimes the higher salaries paid in England attract some of the best brains. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), the matter is under consideration by the Board of Agriculture at the present time.

    BETTING (JUVENILE MESSENGERS) BILL.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received Resolution No. 2, as passed at
    1838
    the Scottish Churches Conference on Gambling held on 21st November in Glasgow; and, if so, will facilities be granted for the passing of the Betting (Juvenile Messengers) Bill as a non-contentious Measure?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot give any undertaking as to facilities next Session, but the hon. Member is aware that I approve the principle of the Bill.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MACKINTOSHES.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new pattern mackintosh will be introduced as an article of kit for ratings in the Royal Navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The mackintosh as at present supplied conforms to the general trade standard for this class of article, but it has been decided that future purchases of mackintoshes shall have a dark grey lining instead of blue in order to avoid the possible staining of white uniform.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the mackintoshes were made in England?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should require notice of that question.

    CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS (LEAVE).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider granting to chief petty officers serving in shore establishments the privilege of going on leave and returning from leave in plain clothes, since this is a request which has often been advanced and which would be much appreciated?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should be glad if my hon. and Gallant Friend will repeat this question in a week's time.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
    Dr. V. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health the number of urban district authorities in England and Wales with full time medical officers of health?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There are 118 non-county boroughs and 182 urban districts in England and Wales with full time medical officers of Health.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ITALY, SCOTTISH WHISKY.
    Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Italian Government exercises discriminatory treatment between French brandy and Scottish whisky in favour of the former; whether Scottish whisky is entitled to the benefit of the Most-favoured Nation Treaty Clause; and whether he is prepared to make representations to the Italian Government on the subject?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that lower duties are levied in Italy on brandy than on whisky, but as these are regarded by the Italian Government as distinct articles, I do not think that representations based on the Most-favoured Nation Clause would serve any useful purpose.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is it not a great injustice to a product of my country that it is now receiving unfair treatment from the Italian Government, and could not some representations be made either by the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office in regard to the conditions?
    Mr. HACKING: I have said that they are two distinct articles, as the hon. and gallant Member knows. One is made from malt and the other from grapes. The hon. and gallant Member probably knows which is which. They are distinct articles. We cannot expect the same treatment as if they were the same thing and of the same nature.
    Sir H. CROFT: In spite of the fact that they are distinct articles, could not representations be made?
    Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. Under the Treaty with Italy we do get the most-favoured nation treatment. We are getting the most-favoured nation treatment on all articles exported there.
    Mr. HORE-BELiSHA: Is the hon. Member not aware that although they are two distinct articles they have the same effect?
    Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. I am not aware of that fact.

    IRON, STEEL, AND COAL INDUSTRIES.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the formation of a steel cartel embracing the chief iron and steel producing European powers; and whether, having regard to the Report of the departmental committee on shipping and shipbuilding that the steel cartel of Germany prior to the war had deliberately plotted to cripple our forges, what steps he proposes to take in view of the heavier imports of the more powerful cartel organised by Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part part of the Question is in the affirmative, and as regards the second I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in this House on the 10th November in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Goodman Roberts).
    Mr. DIXEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the serious position of the iron and steel trade and the coal trade and their intimate relationship to one another, he will consider setting up a committee to consider the joint position of the two trades?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I do not think any useful purpose would be served by a further enquiry of the kind suggested.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that the time has now arrived when deeds are wanted, not words?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The question has been again and again answered in the House, particularly by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Would not a Royal Commission be much better than a Committee, as it will take so much longer to report?
    Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether the condition of the iron and steel industries, as stated in the Question, has received the consideration of the Government, and whether it would not be possible for some attention to be given to it having regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The whole question has had most careful consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: As the matter has received careful consideration of the Government can we have the report on the matter?

    AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether his Department is giving its attention to the proposed changes in the Australian tariff; and if representations are being made to the Common wealth Government in order to secure the continuance of preference which has hitherto been given to British exports by the Commonwealth Government?
    Mr. HACKING: I have been asked to reply. The proposals in question, though involving higher duties on a certain number of United Kingdom goods, do not reduce the amount of the preference accorded to such goods except in the case of certain descriptions of iron and steel. Indeed in many cases increases in the British preference are proposed. I do not think that any official communication to the Commonwealth Government on the subject is called for.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether it is not very important to consider the interests of iron and steel in relation to our trade and industries?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir; very important.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that these taxes are almost prohibitive of British trade?
    Mr. HACKING: No, Sir.

    EMPIRE TRADE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether he is giving consideration to the tendency which obtains in certain Dominions, Colonies, and Dependencies for an increase of tariff duties for the protection of secondary industries
    1842
    within these component parts of the British Empire; and if he will consider the desirability of making an effort to establish a broad economic policy within the Empire, with the object of creating inter-Imperial agreements in relation to the industries in which Dominions, Colonies, and Dependencies should specialise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I feel sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this subject is not one which could be dealt with adequately by means of Parliamentary question and answer. As regards the latter part of the question, I would only add that arrangements by industries for complementary development in different parts of the Empire would appear to be advantageous; but it is obvious that such arrangements could only be the result of negotiations within the industries themselves.

    GRANITE TRADE.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to say what are the results of the negotiations between the granite trade union representatives and his Department?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. No such negotiations have taken place.

    IRAQ (TREATY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to discuss the new agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Iraq; and, if so, will it be before final ratification?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As this Treaty cannot be ready for ratification for some months to come there will, in the ordinary course, be ample opportunities for Parliamentary discussion before ratification.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether this Treaty will be put down for ratification by Parliament in the same way as the Peace Treaties after the War, in view of the great issues involved?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think I must have notice of that question.

    EGYPT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to make a statement in Parliament as to the results of the conversations with the representatives of the Egyptian Government as to the future relations of His Majesty's Government and the Royal Egyptian Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker - Lampson): As I informed the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) on the 1st of December, I am unable at present to make any further statement. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that my right hon. Friend will take the House into his confidence at the earliest possible opportunity.

    WOMEN FRANCHISE.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that Members of Parliament will be allowed on the introduction of the pro posed Franchise Bill to give a free vote on the question whether 'both sexes should in future have the vote at the age of 25, especially having regard to the con clusions expressed in the recent Report of the Registrar-General that the age of responsibility and prudence appeared to be reached by men and women alike at about the age of 25?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave in repy to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir J. Ganzoni) on the 27th April last.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a vote so cheaply and easily gained is not appreciated, and that not more than 20 per cent. voted in many of the local elections?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better reserve speeches until we have the Bill.
    Mr. HARRIS: Arising out of the answer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not another speech?
    Mr. HARRIS: No, Sir. Is it not a fact that every hon. Member has the right to vote as he likes on every question before the House?

    HALF-PAY OFFICERS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached as to the legal position of half-pay officers and their political activities; and what action has been taken in regard to any orders issued as to the political activities of such officers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

    DISARMAMENT (PREPARATORY COMMISSION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a full account of the disarmament proposals of the Russian Government at Geneva; and what is to be the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this proposal at the next conference or commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The proceedings at the recent meeting of the Preparatory Commission will receive careful consideration before the attitude of His Majesty's Government at the next meeting of the commission is determined.
    Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the Soviet Government could not exist for one week but for the armed forces that support it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is a fact that the Soviet Government have offered to disarm in 12 months if we offer to follow suit in four years?
    Mr. DUFF COOPER: Is the Prime Minister aware that the head of the Soviet Government, Comrade Stalin, in a speech last week stated that as war was inevitable between this country and Russia, the first duty of the Communist party was to increase their military organisation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That sounds like a declaration.

    COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LTD.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Colonies retain certain rights of control over the Commonwealth Trust, Ltd., the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the directors' Report and the proposed proceedings for the annual meeting on the 15th instant, in which the directors intimate in advance that they will not oppose a motion which will be brought forward for voting to the trustees a sum of money, namely, £2,500, out of surplus profits not yet earned; and whether, in view of important negotiations now taking place with regard to the future of this company and of the fact that such a vote would prejudice the interests of the shareholders, His Majesty's Government is prepared to intimate to the directors that the intended procedure will require a full explanation?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply to the hon. Member's question. I have not received this year the Annual Report of the Commonwealth Trust, Ltd., and I have therefore not seen the proposed proceedings for the annual meeting on the 15th inst., but I am asking the directors to furnish me with an explanation of the proposal to which the hon. Member refers.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Act authorising the indenture of Native juveniles in Southern Rhodesia includes no minimum age for juveniles who may be indentured; and will His Majesty's Government bear this fact in mind in considering the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Attorney-General of Southern Rhodesia stated in the course of the Debate in the Legislative Assembly on the Native Juveniles Employment Bill, that he did not anticipate that children younger than eight or nine years of age would be engaged to perform a contract of any sort. Inquiry
    1846
    will, however, be made of the Southern Rhodesia Government as to their precise intentions in the matter.

    FACTORIES BILL.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Factories Bill next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask the hon. Member to await the formal announcement of the legislative programme for next Session as contained in the Speech from the Throne.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    OIL EXTRACTION (BERGITUS PROCESS).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to publish the results of the investigations that have been made at the fuel research station on the Bergius process for the extraction of oil from coal; and can he state whether any and, if so, which English systems for the foregoing purpose have been investigated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The question of publication of the results hitherto obtained at the Fuel Research Station, Greenwich, is now under consideration, but it is probable that publication will be delayed until the investigations have been further advanced. No English process for the conversion of coal into oil by hydrogenation has been brought to the notice of the Fuel Research Board. As regards low-temperature carbonisation, besides the work undertaken at the Fuel Sesearch Station, investigations have been conducted into, and reports have been published on, the following English processes:

    The "Parker" plant at Barugh.

    The Midland Coal Products, Limited, plant at Netherfield.

    The "Fusion" rotary retort.

    The "Freeman" multiple retort of the British Oil and Fuel Conservation, Limited.

    The "Crozier" retort.

    The report on the last-mentioned is now in the Press.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Member say, in view of the great importance of this Report, how much longer it will be before it is published?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I regret that I am not able to answer that question without notice.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the hon. Member seen a report in the Press of the £12,500,000 capital for a German process?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    MINERS' NYSTAGMUS.
    Sir RICHARD LUCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any conclusion has yet been come to in the matter of establishing a more satisfactory definition of miners' nystagmus; and whether he is aware that the present definition is differently inter preted by different ophthalmic surgeons and makes it difficult for the medical referees to give equitable decisions in many of these cases?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I fully realise the unsatisfactoriness of the present position, but the matter is one of very considerable difficulty, and I have found it necessary to refer again to the Medical Research Council for further advice on certain points. I regret, therefore, that it is not yet possible to come to a final decision.

    LOVETT v. YORKSHIRE COAL OWNERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether the case, Lovett v. Yorkshire Coal Owners In demnity Company, Limited, has now been considered by the Public Prosecutor; and, if so, with what results?
    Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The Director of Public Prosecutions informs me that the matter is under investigation, and he is not yet in a position to come to a decision.

    CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many British troops are now in Shanghai;
    1848
    (2) how many more British troops are now in China than were in the country prior to the sending out of the Shanghai Defence Force?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): In addition to the normal establishment of three battalions, there are now nine infantry battalions in China, of which six are at Shanghai.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Does that include the troops on their way to China now?
    Commodore KING: I answered that question last week. The only troops on their way are drafts for reinforcements.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it proposed to set aside a day for Parliament to thank the troops in China for the exemplary conduct they have displayed?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that there are only British infantry in China now, and no tanks or guns?
    Commodore KING: No; ancillary troops, as I have said. They include those necessary for the support of the infantry. With regard to the other question, Wednesday's Debate would give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the opportunity he wants.
    Mr. LOOKER: Is it proposed to make any reduction in the numbers of the Shanghai Defence Force in the near future?
    Commodore KING: There is no reduction beyond those that have previously been notified.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for War how many Indian troops were taken to China during this year; how long they remained there; and whether they have now all been returned to India?
    Commodore KING: Four infantry battalions, together with ancillary troops, were sent to China from India at the beginning of the year, Of these battalions, two were British and two Indian. Two battalions returned to India in July and most of the rest of these troops returned in September and October. There are now only a few invalids from this Indian contingent remaining in China.

    STATE LOTTERIES.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering the question of the totalisator with regard to betting, he will consider the advisability of a recognition of State lotteries?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): No, Sir.

    WAR FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has accrued to the Treasury from film companies engaged in making films with Government assistance, specifying the details?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The amount in question is £13,544. I am afraid that it would not be in the public interest for me to give details of the receipts.
    Colonel DAY: Does that amount include the amount received by the Treasury for the hire of official British War films?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is very much in the public interest to state how much the Treasury has received from this source? What possible cause can be injured by the publication?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend perhaps did not hear my answer, in which the amount was given, namely, £13,500. As to details, may I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister last week—on December 6th?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked that question of the Prime Minister, who said that if I wanted to obtain detailed figures I should ask a specific question about them. I have now done that, and why have we not had the figures given?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have given these figures to the best of my ability.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why we should not have a proper balance-sheet showing how much was paid or lost by the Treasury on these films?
    Colonel DAY: Is there any reason to hide this transaction or any reason why we should not have the particulars of these films?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister gave a long answer with full details to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He actually gave the information for which the hon. Gentleman now asks.
    Colonel DAY: Is it a fact that, in reply to the supplementary question I put, the Prime Minister said that if we wanted any further details with regard to the profit on each film, that question should be put to the Departments?
    Mr. SAMUEL: What the Prime Minister said is a perfectly sufficient answer to the question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In this question I have asked for specific details, and the hon. Gentleman keeps on avoiding the point by referring to some previous answer that has no reference to it. What has the Treasury to conceal?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Treasury has nothing to conceal. My reply is that I cannot better the answer given by the Prime Minister.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that very great assistance has been given to these companies, and that when he says he cannot give details he simply makes people suspicious?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MEDICAL TESTS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice of the Civil Service for medical tests of candidates to be made subsequent to their passing examinations for Government appointments; and whether, seeing that a number of successful candidates, who have spent money and time in preparation for these examinations, are disqualified for selection owing to failure to pass the medical tests, he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for candidates to be medically examined before they embark on their preparation for the educational examinations?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is not the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to examine the physical qualifications of persons who apply for admission to Civil Service examinations. Their physical eligibility for appointment is investigated in the event of their success. The number of candidates unsuccessful at an examination is normally much greater than the number of successful. The medical examination of all applicants would put the majority to unnecessary expense in payment of medical examiners' fees and would involve an expensive and unprofitable addition to the work of the Civil Service Commission. The Commissioners issue a memorandum for the guidance of intending candidates, setting out physical qualifications of importance, and recommending intending candidates, who are in doubt as to their eligibility, to be examined by their own medical advisers before they begin preparation for a competition.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many cases of very great hardship arise owing to young men who have prepared over a period of years for these examinations being subsequently rejected on some minor defects of eyesight or what not, with the result that their period of preparation has been wasted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question on the Paper.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to charge applicants fees for a prior medical examination, so that if anyone wanted to be examined 12 months before he sat for the examination, he could be examined at his own expense? Civil Service doctors would be very glad to get such fees from the public.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That would cause a great deal of labour and expense. In one examination last year there were 20,000 applicants and only 8,000 places open to them; so 12,000 would, if the suggestion now made were followed, have to pay for being examined without any chance of their getting any place in the examination.

    COLONIAL OFFICE (ECONOMIC ADVISER).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as a point of
    1852
    principle, any written agreement was made with the new economic adviser to his Department as to his being debarred from unofficial activities of any character which were of a nature similar to those of his official post?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The conditions attaching to Sir George Schuster's appointment as economic and financial adviser were not embodied in any written agreement.

    TANGANYIKA.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the mandated area of Tanganyika a recent application for 50,000 square miles in the Iringa district for sheep-farming was stated by the advisers to the administrator to be contrary to law and that official support was given to the division of this land into lots of 5,000 acres, all to be sold together to the same purchaser; and whether he will obtain a report on this transaction?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the area stated in the hon. Member's question is much larger than the whole Iringa district, and public land in Tanganyika cannot be sold, I do not think it necessary to trouble the Governor in the matter.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is laid down in the law quite definitely that a man shall not be deprived of his land, and, seeing that the Governor of this area made a statement in regard to the matter, cannot the right hon. Gentleman now take some stronger action with a view to preventing this sort of thing in the future?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am quite sure that the Governor has not disobeyed the law. I have not heard of any application for a large area for a sheep farm. I know that under the law any application has to be referred by Sir Donald Cameron to the Colonial Office, and we have not received any such reference at all.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Governor has stated that he has received an

    1853
    application for 50,000 acres of land, and that it was on his advice that application was made that the land be divided into strips of 5,000 acres in order that the law may be got round?
    Sir F. HALL: The hon. Member now refers to 50,000 acres. The question on the Paper refers to 50,000 square miles. There is a difference.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg pardon. The question on the Paper is wrong.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The statement mentioned by the hon. Member has not been brought to my attention.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether there are any attempts being made to get round the strict letter of the law by methods of this sort, and whether the Governor is strictly carrying out the law as passed?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I shall certainly make inquiries. If I can be furnished with any statement upon the subject, I shall gladly communicate with Sir Donald Cameron
    Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive from me a copy of "East Africa," in which this statement is made in extenso?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will give me the reference.

  KENYA.

    MASAI TRIBE (SPEARS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that members of the Masai tribe in Kenya have been mauled and wounded by lions because they have been deprived of their fighting spears; and if he will reconsider this decision?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I informed the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Snell), in reply to a question on the 14th November, that I had no reason to suppose that this exercise of authority in respect of one of the Masai tribes had led to the consequences suggested, but
    1854
    if the hon. Member can supply me with specific instances I will cause the necessary inquiries to be made of the Governor.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Foreign Office so that they may draw the attention of the Preparatory Commission at Geneva to the unfortunate facts alleged in this question?

    DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Compulsory Military Service Act of Kenya will come into operation; and whether it will cause any change in the existing police and military regulation?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor recently informed the Legislative Council that it was the intention to bring the Ordinance into force on 1st January or soon afterwards. I have no information which would lead me to think that any changes in the police or military regulations affecting the King's African Rifles are likely to arise as a result of the creation of the Defence Force as a reserve.

    NATIVE RESERVES.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representations that, in the case of Kenya Colony, lands reserved to natives should be administered by a Minister of Native Affairs appointed by the Crown; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 83.

Division No. 459.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gates, Percy.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Goff, Sir Park

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Grace, John

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Atkinson, C.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Balniel, Lord

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Penny, Frederick George

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Berry, Sir George

Hanbury, C

Preston, William

Betterton, Henry B.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Harrison, G. J. C.

Remnant, Sir James

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hawke, John Anthony

Rice, Sir Frederick

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Richardson Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart

Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hilton, Cecil

Rye, F. G.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Briscoe, Richard George

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Sandon, Lord

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Savery, S. S

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Buchan, John

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Burman, J. B.

Huntingfield, Lord

Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hurd, Percy A.

Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)

Campbell, E. T.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Iveagh, Countess of

Sprot. Sir Alexander

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Storry-Deans, R.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Clayton, G. C.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Tinne, J. A.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Knox, Sir Alfred

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cooper, A. Duff

Lamb, J. Q.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Cope, Major William

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Loder, J. de V.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Long, Major Eric

Wayland, Sir William A.

Curzon. Captain Viscount

Looker, Herbert William

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)

Macintyre, I.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Drewe, C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ellis, R. G.

Macquisten, F. A.

Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Wolmer, Viscount

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Malone, Major P. B.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Margesson, Captain D.

Fermoy, Lord

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Milne, J.S. Wardlaw.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir George

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Hennessy.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Dalton, Hugh

Hirst, G. H.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Day, Colonel Harry

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Dennison, R.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Baker, Walter

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Barnes, A.

Gillett, George M.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Batey, Joseph

Gosling, Harry

Lansbury, George

Bondfield, Margaret

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lawrence, Susan

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Greenall, T.

Livingstone, A. M.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lowth, T.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypoo)

Lunn, William

Charleton, H. C.

Grundy, T. W.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Cluse, W. S.

Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

Mackinder, W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

MacLaren, Andrew

Compton, Joseph

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Cove, W. G.

Hardie, George D.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Harris, Percy A.

March, S.

1856

1857

Montague, Frederick

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wellock, Wilfred

Naylor, T. E.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Westwood, J.

Oliver, George Harold

Sitch, Charles H.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Owen, Major G.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Paling, W.

Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Snell, Harry

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Sutton, J. E.

Windsor, Walter

Potts, John S.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Wright, W.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Thurtle, Ernest

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Townend, A. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Scrymgeour, E.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Scurr, John

Viant, S. P.

Whiteley.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Cinematograph Films Bill, with Amendment's.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) read.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  I do so on the ground that, in view of the enormous constitutional importance of this Measure, we feel that it has not received proper consideration in Committee. We had on this Bill a Committee stage lasting ten short days, amounting in all to rather less than 18½ hours, and when I compare that with the fact, disclosed by the Prime Minister, that 29 hours had been spent in Committee of the whole House on Clause 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which, whatever its defects, did not raise a question of constitutional importance, I feel that this particular Measure has been scamped in Committee. The whole of the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill extended over 77½ hours, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary, and of that time three days were under the Guillotine. I submit that a Bill which is entitled to that amount of the time of this House and which, while it was a bad Bill, raised no new question of principle, gives us a standard by which we are entitled to measure a Bill which, in our view, goes down to the roots of local government in this country.
  If I may refer briefly to how the time was spent, I would say that, while rather over six days or about 13 hours were spent on Clause 1, that was only possible because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health at one fell swoop on two different occasions wiped out a very large number of Amendments, which never received any discussion at all during the Committee stage. Indeed, it is true to say that fully one half of the Amendments which were put on the Order Paper were never discussed in Committee at all. The second Clause was disposed of in about two hours, the third Clause in about three hours, and the fourth Clause in 17 minutes, part of that time being taken up with a vote of thanks to the Chairman. On three occasions during the progress of that Bill through Committee, the
  1880
  right hon. Gentleman was either so weary of his Measure or so tired of the opposition to it that he invoked a procedure which enabled him to dispose of Amendments without discussion, on the second of those three occasions with a great deal of protest from my hon. Friends and myself; on the third occasion, we found ourselves having disposed of Clause 3, containing 20 lines in all, after there had been discussion on only three lines of the Clause.
  That, we submit, means that this Bill has not been adequately considered in Committee, having regard to its importance. It is true that during the stormy passage of this! Bill through the Committee the Minister of Health offered to make an arrangement, but that arrangement implied that we had on the Order Paper Amendments which were either frivolous or of little substance, and my hon. Friends and I could not accept that for one moment, because all the Amendments that we put down were Amendments which we felt to be of substantial importance. It might be argued that with many Bills that would have been an adequate period of discussion, but on a Bill of this character I feel sure that hon. Members opposite, if they could understand how keenly we, on these benches, feel about it, would realise that we are asking for what is fair and just in suggesting that the Bill should be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, where, we believe, a more adequate discussion would be possible.
  I am not certain that Members of the House have appreciated how far-reaching is this Measure, which the Minister of Health has tried to explain as being a Bill of small importance. Not only does it give new and wider authority to district auditors, but it really interferes in a very large measure with what we believe to be the legitimate discretion of local authorities, and is to-day hampering the freedom of local authorities in many parts of the country. The fact that this Bill has been under discussion or awaiting discussion in the House for some months, the fact that it has been hanging over the heads of local authorities, has driven many local authorities, against the judgment of the majority of their members, to act differently from what they otherwise would have done. Not only so, but while we regard this Measure as being of peculiar and special importance, it

  1881
  appears to us to be merely a device to enable the Minister to over-ride the deliberately adopted policy of his political opponents. That really goes to the roots of our political system, and, if there is to be a struggle on this question of the rights of a majority to rule, then we claim that this Bill is a Bill of major importance and ought not to be treated in the way that it has been treated during this Session. We have had it openly admitted that the Bill is a Bill against Poplarism, whatever that may mean; it really means that it is a Bill to endeavour to crush the views of people with whom the Government disagree.
  It is not an Audit (Local Authorities) Bill; it is a Political Opponents (Suppression) Bill, and, because of that, and because it means that if it is put on the Statute Book hon. Friends of mine may have to leave public life for good, I regard it as of fundamental importance for the dignity and the honour of the House, that we should have the Bill recommitted and fuller discussions given to it. I know of no Bill passed during this Parliament which has a greater constitutional importance than this Measure, and, because it is a constitutional Measure, and means an interference with the rights of local self-government and imposes heavy and savage sentences on political opponents of the present Government; because it is a Bill, which, while enlarging the importance of district auditors, gives us no right in this House to make any difference in the law with regard to them; and because it is a Bill which, before it is passed on to the Statute Book, is being operated against local authorities, we are justified in asking that it should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, and, though we know we shall be beaten in such a Committee, we should at least know that we had had a larger measure of justice than we received in the earlier stages of the Bill.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The Motion before the House is one of a somewhat unusual character. I cannot recollect having heard a precisely similar one, although I dare say there have been precedents. When I saw it on the Paper, I could only think of two reasons which would in any way justify the submission of a Motion that this Bill, the Second Reading of which had been passed in the
  1882
  House and which had passed through its Committee stage upstairs, should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House and the Committee stage passed through again. The first and most obvious reason was that hon. Members opposite felt that their case had been so negligently or so incompetently handled upstairs that they desired to put it in the hands of more vigorous exponents, There is something, perhaps, to be said for that, but I observe that the hon. Member who moved the Motion is the same hon. Member who led the party upstairs, so it is impossible to hope that we can expect anything more from him in Committee of the whole House than we heard from him in Committee upstairs. The second reason that occurred to me was that the Committee stage had not received sufficient attention upstairs. That, in fact, is the reason which has been put forward by the hon. Member. He has added a third reason, which did not occur to me, and that is that the Bill is of such constitutional importance that it is necessary that it should be discussed a second time in Committee. I submit that the question of constitutional importance—and I do not deny that there is a great deal of constitutional importance in it—has been settled on Second Reading, and that the speech that the hon. Member has just made is a Second Reading speech. The question of constitutional importance is, I submit, no longer one that the House has before it. What we have to consider now are the Amendments in the details of the Measure, and I think, therefore, that any representation that the Bill ought to be debated in Committee a second time on account of its special character, must necessarily go by the board.
  The hon. Member has stated that there was insufficient time given to the discussion of the Bill upstairs. I would ask any hon. Member to read the Report of the proceedings in Committee upstairs and see what happened. The party opposite used every means, every legitimate and possible means, to delay and avoid discussion upon the various Clauses of this Bill which is of such high constitutional importance. Again and again, they stayed outside in the corridor and refused to come in until we had made a quorum without them. They took every possible opportunity of moving the adjournment of the discussions. The hon.

  1883
  Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) started off by trying to stop discussion on the Bill, because I was a few minutes late, although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Sir K. Wood) was present to answer any points that might be raised. I have not counted how many speeches they made, but I notice that in the first three days the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) made an average of three speeches every day, and the hon. Member next to him (Mr. Lansbury) quite as many and three times as long. The Bill contains only four Clauses, and we took 10 days in Committee, and of these six and a half were given to the discussion of Clause 1. It is certainly true that, as a counter to the tactics of the party opposite, we found ourselves obliged, if we were to make any progress at all, to bring into operation the proceedings under Standing Order 26, but that was only put into operation twice, and then although Amendments were certainly excluded, we did not jump over many lines of the Bill.
  When I made to the hon. Member the offer he mentioned, I said to him, "I do not like this procedure; I would rather we had a sensible, quiet, calm discussion on the merits of the various Clauses and of the various Amendments. I will willingly discuss privately with you which are the Amendments to which you attach the greatest importance." I did not say that we would not discuss the others. I said that we would not apply the Rule to

  Division No. 460.]

  AYES.

  [4.2 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Paling, W.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Groves, T.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Grundy, T. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Baker, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst. G. H.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Batey, Joseph

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Scurr, John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lansbury, George

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawrence, Susan

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lowth, T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Compton, Joseph

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Viant, S. P.

  Gosling. Harry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenall, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wellock, Wilfred

  those Amendments which they might pick out, and to which they attached particular importance. Could we have been fairer than that? I gave the hon. Gentleman opposite every opportunity of discussing those Amendments of high constitutional importance. He did not then say, "All our Amendments are of equal importance, and we cannot cut out any of them," What he said was that they had unanimously decided that they would not accept the arrangement. His words were:
  "We are unanimously against any such arrangement …As the Bill is so strongly opposed to our own policy and desires, we do not feel, without compromising our position, that we can agree to any sort of arrangement as to a time-table or the selection of Amendments, as that would put us in a false position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 5th July, 1927; col. 191.]
  They refused the very magnanimous offer that I made to them, and they cannot now come and complain that insufficient time was given in Committee upstairs to any particular Amendments, when they were responsible for the fact that Amendments were passed without discussion. I consider that there are few Bills which have had proportionate time given to them upstairs, and I submit that no case has been made out for re committing the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 188.

  Westwood, J.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wright, W.

  Edwards.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Albery, Irving James

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Gates, Percy

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Astor, Viscountess

  Goff Sir Park

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Grace, John

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Atkinson. C.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Oakley, T.

  Balniel, Lord

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Owen, Major G.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

  Hanbury, C.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Berry, Sir George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Preston, William

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Sandon, Lord

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Savery, S. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Buchan, John

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

  Burman, J. B.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Long, Major Eric

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Looker, Herbert William

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Wells, S. R.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Drewe, C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Fermoy, Lord

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

  AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Disqualification of persons surcharged more than five hundred pounds.)
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after the word "sur-
    1886
    charged," to insert the words "on the ground of corruption or negligence."
    I move this Amendment because it seems necessary to make some provision to protect members of many different kinds of local authorities from the penal Clauses of this Bill. Where public

    1887
    representatives are guilty of corruption or gross negligence, I do not think anyone on these benches would wish to save them from due punishment. I think we are all agreed that there can be no worse crime in public life than gross negligence of public duties and corruption, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves in this Bill is that people may be subjected to the penal provisions of the Bill who are not guilty of either corruption or negligence. The Bill on this point does not, as some people imagine, apply to a few local authorities. It really applies to a very large number of public representatives, including members of all boards of guardians in the country, members of county councils, urban and rural district councils, Metropolitan borough councils, all the members of the newer county borough councils, and to all the housing and education expenditure of all local authorities of every kind. So that within the net of this Bill there is included a very large number of public representatives.
    My only desire in moving this Amendment is to protect these people who, in good faith, and in the interest of what they conceive to be the best public policy, carry out their duties without negligence, and without being guilty of corruption. I am not certain that I would not vote whole-heartedly for even these very drastic punishments for people who really are guilty of negligence and corruption, but the point I wish to raise is that, in effect, this may bring under the ban of the auditors a very considerable amount of expenditure of a variety of kinds where there can be no proof of the slightest kind that members of local authorities have been corrupt or negligent in the pursuit of their duties. As I understand the law as it stands now, it is not merely the duty of the district auditor to surcharge in cases of negligence or corruption, but it is, within his discretion, and indeed, it is his duty to surcharge persons who have been responsible for expenditure which he regards as unreasonable. This opens an alarming prospect for the future of our local governing authorities. It has been laid down in the House of Commons that excessive expenditure exceeds legality, and, therefore, it is the
    1888
    duty of the auditor to take steps to surcharge persons who have been responsible for it.
    Consequently, it really means that in regard to these various local authorities with whom the auditor comes into contact, he has the right to determine, in respect of every item of expenditure, what, in his view, is reasonable. That is not a simple duty, having regard to the fact that many of these decisions with regard to expenditure are decisions raising questions of general policy of the party in power. There is no power which can compel a district auditor to, so to speak, punish local authorities who have acted unreasonably in the sense that their items of expenditure are too small, but the power is given to him to surcharge and punish people whose expenditure is, in his view, too large. That raises questions of social policy which I honestly do not believe district auditors or even the ordinary Courts of the land are competent to judge. They are not questions of fact or of law, but questions of political policy, and in the determination of them political views loom large. The district auditor, however independent he may try to be, quite naturally allows his own general outlook upon social problems to colour his view of what is and what is not reasonable. That means, therefore, that on a thousand items of expenditure he may decide that it is not reasonable. Though a reasonable expenditure would be perfectly lawful, he, determining in his wisdom that a certain expenditure is beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, can take the first steps towards a punishment which really means the exclusion of people from local government authorities and, possibly, from Parliament.
    Another reason why it is very important that the Bill should be limited to negligence and corruption is that the district auditor exercises his power in various ways. As things stand to-day, nobody knows who is to be held responsible. It may be the unfortunate wretches who signed the cheque in respect of the expenditure; it may be all the members of at committee, as in the case of Poplar, where the unfortunate Moderates, who had voted against certain expenditure on every occasion, were yet surcharged. Because of this uncertainty of operation of the auditor's powers, and of other things which we cannot amend in this Bill, it is important to introduce this

    1889
    restriction. The Clause as it stands, without the Amendment, will become the machinery whereby district auditors, or perhaps the Government, can punish people for expenditure of which they do not approve. That really makes a farce of the whole system of local government. If local government is to be allowed to operate freely when it is limiting expenditure, or when Members of the party opposite are in undisputed power on a local authority, but is to be impeded when Members of a different political complexion are in authority on local bodies, that really means the destruction of local government in this country. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this is only a little Bill. Many Measures have started in a small way, but have developed. Nobody was ever led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was going to use his Boards of Guardians (Default) Act against any other body than the West Ham Board of Guardians, but he has already suppressed others, and one does not know where this particular Measure will carry us before the right hon. Gentleman has finished.
    We submit that a Measure so wide and sweeping is really an unjustifiable interference with the proper conduct of local government, and that is why we wish to limit its operations to surcharges arising out of corruption or negligence. We should take no objection to the Bill if that were all it did, but to allow the Bill to be applicable to any kind of surcharge above a certain amount is going far beyond what we regard as justifiable legislation. On this Amendment it is impossible to argue many of the points with which one would like to deal, but I have tried to make our case clear, and I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want people to say that we are only too glad to cover up misconduct or corruption, because we should be bitterly opposed to that. Our whole complaint against the Bill is to be found in its neglect to include the words that we now wish to insert; without them it is a most unjustifiable interference with the rights of local authorities, subject to the general law of the land, and not subject to limitation of expenditure, to carry out their public work in the way they think best.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    1890
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has very clearly indicated the position with regard to the responsibility that is upon the shoulders of a Minister in moving such a Clause without the safeguards contained in the words of this Amendment. We fear an extension of this policy which will limit the powers of locally-elected representatives who have been sent to local boards or councils to carry out the policy which they have advocated, unless we insert some safeguard stating that the provisions of this Bill shall operate only where there has been corruption or negligence. We fear that the democratic principle of local government will be infringed by the power which is being given to a district auditor, however impartially he may discharge his duty, to decide as to what is justifiable and what is right or wrong. I trust the Minister will reconsider the point we are raising. I have no desire to put forward the alternative position, but I happen to represent a district which is covered by two boards of guardians, and one would like to ask whether action would be taken against boards of guardians which fail to carry out their duties in a direction opposite to that of extravagant expenditure, as in the case of one board of guardians in my area which refused to grant any relief whatever during a dispute, and in the case of another which has been enforcing repayment of relief by those who did not actually receive the relief for themselves, the relief being paid to dependants. Those persons are being forced to repay that relief, the money being deducted from their wages week by week by arrangement with their employers. We feel that the words of the Amendment ought to be inserted as a safeguard against the infringement of the democratic principle that persons elected to local authorities are sent there to represent the wishes of the inhabitants.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has stated his views of the functions which are conferred upon the district auditor by this Bill, but he has stated them so inaccurately that, in resisting the Amendment, I feel bound to say to the House at once that I cannot accept his views. He has, no doubt unintentionally, entirely misunderstood what the functions of a district auditor are and what are the powers as a result of which certain things

    1891
    may happen under the provisions of this Bill. I quote these words from what the hon. Member said:
    "Under this Bill, the auditor has the right to determine, as to every item, what in his view is reasonable."
    That is not the case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Yes it is; he is doing it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The auditor has no such power, and the whole of the argument which was based upon that premise is bound to fall to the ground, because the premise itself is a false one. This Bill does not give the auditor any powers to surcharge.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I never said that it did.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will put it another way if the hon. Member thinks I have not correctly represented what he said. I will say that now the auditor has no power to determine what is or is not reasonable. The consideration which has to guide the auditor is not whether an item of expenditure is reasonable or unreasonable, but whether it is legal or illegal.
    Mr. LANSBUBY: Oh no!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Although it is true that in certain cases the Judges have held that certain items of expenditure were so unreasonable as to be beyond the bounds of legality, that is the opinion of the Judges and not of the auditor. I want the House to realise that if items of expenditure which indicate corruption or negligence, to use the words of the Amendment, were surcharged by an auditor, it would be on the ground that they were illegal, because it was illegal to expend money in those ways. I hope the House will keep that clearly in mind, because I should be sorry that it should go out to the country that the auditor's powers were such as has been stated.
    I come to another aspect of the hon. Member's speech which I think shows that he has made an error even more fundamental than the one to which I have called attention. This idea seems to be very deep-rooted in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and it formed an important part of the reasoned Amend-
    1892
    ment which was moved to the Second Beading of the Bill which said:
    "declines to proceed with a Bill which fails to safeguard the rights of locally elected authorities in the exercise of the duties imposed upon them by Acts of Parliament, and the will of the community."
    On the Second Reading of this Bill, I particularly asked the hon. Member to explain what he meant by the words "and the will of the community," but he did not make any response. I find that I was perfectly right in my interpretation that the hon. Member and his colleagues had decided that local authorities ought to be allowed to do not only those things which Parliament has said they may do but also anything else —[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—for which they can get a mandate from the electors. Does the hon. Member dispute that?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly I do. Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any words in which I said that they should exceed the law?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member said that this Bill was an unjustifiable interference with the proper functions of local authorities, and that the questions forming the basis of a surcharge are not questions of fact or of law, but questions of policy. What does the hon. Member mean by that? The candidates at a local election go before the electors with a certain policy, and they get the approval of the electors for that policy, and, if in carrying out that policy they exceed the law, they can be surcharged. If I have misunderstood the hon. Member, I shall be glad to be corrected.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not say that the Minister is deliberately misrepresenting what I said, but I am sure that nothing I have said can be interpreted as meaning that it was my view that it was right for any local authority to exceed its legal powers. What I referred to was the policy of applying those powers within the administration and that is a matter with which the auditor ought not to interfere. Of course, if they started municipal banks, that would be illegal. I am only asking for freedom for the local authorities within the existing legal limits.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that be so, then a large part of the hon. Member's argument falls to the ground, because the

    1893
    hon. Member is not attaching the ordinary meaning to the word "policy."
    Mr. THURTLE: When you speak of policy, you mean administrative policy.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be part of the administrative policy to pay £4 a week in wages, but, if that sum happens to be outside the limits of the law, a local authority has no right to pay a minimum wage of £4 a week. It might be possible for a party to come into power which would make that legal which was illegal before, and in that case there could be no possibility of any surcharge. During the Second Reading Debate the Amendment moved complained
    "that duly elected representatives of the people may be disqualified from holding office otherwise than for corruption, misconduct or negligence."
    I want to know why the hon. Member has now left out "misconduct," which formed part of his first idea. What this Bill aims at principally is misconduct and not corruption or negligence. Hon. Members have stated that there was no greater crime than gross negligence or corruption. Supposing that a local authority deliberately breaks the law, and, after having had their action declared illegal they go on breaking the law and deliberately and intentionally continue their illegal action, is that not worse than gross negligence? That is precisely the sort of offence which is aimed at under this Clause, and, if you cut out that provision, as this Amendment would do, then the proposal is nothing more nor less than a wrecking Amendment, the object of which is precisely the same as the party opposite had in view when they opposed the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I think I am quite right in stating that the Minister of Health denied that the auditor had power to decide these questions, but, in making that statement, the Minister was absolutely wrong, and his view is contrary to the law as laid down by Lord Justice Sumner. We are dealing with this matter under judge-made law; that is to say, we are dealing with the interpretations which have been given by learned Judges of Statutes dealing with this matter. Here is what Lord Justice Sumner said in the House of Lords:
    "The auditor, when he reviews the accounts, is entitled and bound to use his own judgment as to the wages that would be reasonable under the circumstances."
    1894
    He is entitled and bound to use his own judgment as to the wages that would be reasonable. The learned Judge was dealing with wages, and he was applying his arguments to any item of municipal expenditure. The learned Judge went on to say:
    "He must do so in order to measure from that datum the excess of the wages paid, and to decide if the excess is so great as to evidence malâ fides. So it will be also with the Courts of law on appeal. If in the case of bad faith the auditor is capable of finding a reasonable amount and is bound to proceed to do so, I find no words in the Section which, on a sound construction, preclude him from doing the same thing when good faith is present, and I think that in both cases the reasonableness of the amount is a subject for his review."
    That is a higher opinion than the opinion of any hon. Member in this House. It is a higher opinion even than that of the Minister of Health, because the man who altered these words was the Supreme Judge of England. That is the law as he laid it down, and neither the Minister of Health nor the Law Officers of the Crown have any right to question the statement of law made by Lord Justice Sumner. Therefore, the auditor is bound to use his own judgment as to whether the wages are reasonable. That decision was given in regard to wages, and anyone who reads the judgment from which I have quoted will at once realise that what the Judge decided was applicable to any part of municipal expenditure, and wages were expressly protected. I do not want to rehearse the whole length of this judgment, but the judgments given in the Lower Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords were directed to bringing wages in under the Section, although the plaintiff contended that the wages were expressly excluded. What applies to wages applies all the more strongly to other items of expenditure, because with regard to wages alone there were special statutory provisions. I think I have now quite demolished the argument about reasonableness.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member has done that at all. What she has read merely goes to prove what I have already stated, that the auditor must determine in his own mind what is reasonable, and that is the only foundation on which he starts to consider whether the action is so unreasonable as to be illegal. He does not surcharge

    1895
    until the unreasonableness has become illegal.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The judgment which I have just quoted states that the auditor is bound to use his own judgment as to the wages that would be reasonable under the circumstances. Lord Wrenbury goes on to say:
    "Wages are the pecuniary return for services rendered. To determine the proper or true amount which in a given 6tate of facts has been paid or is payable for services rendered is far from easy."
    There is no doubt whatever that the auditor, not merely can, but must in accordance with the Statute, apply his own judgment with regard to what is reasonable. I want to refer now to the purpose of this Amendment which provides a new set of penalties for an old set of crimes. There is no doubt whatever as to the penalties provided in the case of a surcharge over £500, because it means exclusion from public life for a definite period. In the case of a poor man, Clause 3 provides exclusion from public life for an unlimited period, because if the man is poor and likely to go bankrupt, it means that he is disqualified until his bankruptcy has been discharged. Consequently, in such a case the penalty is a very severe one. I want to go back to the Poplar case to show how exceedingly difficult it is for an ordinary layman to understand what are his public duties. In Section 62 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, it is laid down:
    "That the councils may employ certain officers at such wages and salaries as they may think fit."
    There are nine other Acts dealing with the power of municipalities with regard to employment. The learned Judges have summarised the Acts at great length, and they have agreed that all those Acts mean the same thing. They mean that you can pay what wages you think fit. Could there be anything more simple or more plain to understand than to give the councils power to do as they think fit in this matter?
    Could any Member of Parliament, any borough councillor, anyone, in fact, but the most learned in the law, have believed that those words meant other than they said? But they do; they mean something quite different. We know now, on the authority of the House
    1896
    of Lords, that they mean something entirely different from the sense which any one of us would have thought. I must read another extract from the judgment:
    "Passing now to Section 62 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1856, the respondents found themselves upon its final words, 'such salaries and wages as the hoard or vestry may think fit,' and contend that in fact they remove the amount of wages paid beyond the scope of effective criticism.… It is said.… that for all purposes what they please is what is reasonable. Their reason is substituted as the test of reasonableness for that of the auditor or the Courts of Law. All the same, the result is that expenditure, which is, in fact, wholly unreasonable, is, on this view, not contrary to law, if the Council bona fide choose to incur it. This is a pure paradox."
    The learned Judge is feeling his way round about a great paradox, no less a paradox than the origin of evil, because learned theologians have said that it is impossible even for Omnipotence to give free will and at the same time not to give the power of doing evil. That is the paradox. Then the learned Judge went on to argue that the powers given to the council were in fact what the auditor in the first place, and the Courts in the second place, thought was reasonable.
    I have gone into that case, not for the purpose of wandering over the ground, but to show the House how very difficult it is for plain persons to be sure that they are not sinning against the auditor or against the Courts of law. The crime which may be committed is a crime from which nothing but the most acute intellect will save one, and the situation is even more difficult with regard to other matters than wages. It extends to every contract. In one case a council was taken into Court for not having accepted the lowest tender. It is true that on that occasion the auditor lost the day, but that was because the Court of Appeal laid down the law as we should like to see it, saying that the discretion in the hands of the local authority was a very great and wide discretion, and that, where good faith was present, the auditor should not interfere. But that is the law no longer. The law now is that the judgment of the auditor and the judgment of the Courts is in all matters of municipal expenditure subsituted for that of the members of the local authority, and every member of a

    1897
    board of guardians, rural district council, county council, housing authority, or education authority, has to be sure, not merely that he acts in good faith, that he is doing public business to the best of his ability, but that he is as reasonable as every one of those distinguished gentlemen whom the country have chosen to be Judges on account of the power of their reason.
    The crime to be committed is as vague and as elusive as it is possible to be, and the penalties are frightful. I do say that to inflict upon people the penalty of bankruptcy in some cases, the penalty of exclusion from public life in others, the penalty of enormous, monstrous, and crippling fines, is a very serious thing for this House to do. There is hardly a criminal who would be punished in this way. I know of hardly any person who would be punished by fine and bankruptcy to such an extent as this except in the very grossest cases of fraud. Penalties are being laid upon councils whose worst fault may be a certain obstinacy, a certain trust in their own judgment, such as the law inflicts in no other case except where there is the most monstrous fraud or wrong-doing. We say that, if fines of £5,000, £10,000, £20,000 are to be imposed, if people are to be excluded from public life for five years, if they are to be disgraced and to have their public career broken, it is wrong, it is wicked, to do it for what may be an error of judgment. That is the sort of offence which this Bill penalises. It is nonsense to say that it is confined to people who act illegally. Our difficulty is that the law is so uncertain that the plain man cannot tell whether he is acting illegally or not, and we all say that such enormous penalties ought not to be inflicted except for the most clearly defined offences, and offences of a very grievous character.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to add a word or two to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the first point submitted by the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to believe that this Bill did not empower the auditor to find a man guilty, but that all that it did was to point to a certain item and say that the action of the council was so unreasonable that it came within the ambit of illegality. I want to submit to the House that it goes
    1898
    very much further. The auditor here can exercise his opinion as to what payment is illegal. When he gives his decision, the council, or the councillors, as the case may be, are disqualified until they can exercise the right of appeal. It is well known, however, that the councils against whom this Bill is directly aimed are composed of working-class people, who have not the financial means to exercise the right of appeal, and for the Minister of Health to ride off on that plea is just about as unjustifiable as it would be for a doctor to lay it down that a miner could get rid of tuberculosis by taking a six months' sea voyage, when he knew very well that the taking of such a voyage was beyond the power of the man.
    All that is being asked for in this Amendment is that the authorities which come under this Bill should be placed in exactly the same position towards the law as the city of Birmingham. The city of Birmingham, as I understand the Bill, will not come under it except so far as its housing and education finance is concerned; in all other matters it is exempted, and the law is to be applied in one way in, say, the East of London, and in another way in the Midlands. I submit that there is no justification at all for taking that step. The Minister of Health has told us that during the past five years there have been only some five cases per annum where the amount would exceed £500. When we remember the thousands, perhaps millions, of transactions that take place every year in the local government of this country, and the thousands of men and women engaged in local government, five cases per annum seems to me to make up a very small sum, not justifying the alarmist situation which has been portrayed in the Bill, and which evidently prevails in the mind of the Minister. I would submit, on the other hand, that it shows that we have much to be proud of in the local government of this country, and in the thousands of men and women who gratuitously give their time and their abilities in the service of their fellow-countrymen. The service which they give, and which, according to the Minister, is so free from even the suggestion of corruption, should be viewed with a different mentality from that which appears to dominate the Government.

    1899
    The Minister appears to approach this subject in the spirit of Scotland Yard. He assumes that all those thousands of men and women are potential criminals. He sends his auditors round the country to ascertain day by day where crimes are being committed, and to select the criminals. The auditor has not merely power under this Bill to say what is an offence, but he has the power to select from among a body of councillors the particular persons to be prosecuted. He may prosecute the whole council, he may prosecute the majority or the minority of a council, he may select and prosecute an individual member of the council; he may select the victim for his politics, he may select him for his means, so that he may be able to pursue him still further into bankruptcy, or he may, if he wishes, select him for his poverty, so that he will not be in a position to exercise his right to appeal. These are enormous powers to place in the hands of any individual; they are powers unprecedented in the law of this country; and for any Minister to come forward and say that we should hand over these powers in a Measure which he regards as a small one, is, surely, to display an inadequate comprehension of what the law of this country and the rights of the subject are. May I remind the House that, even in these four or five cases, so far as I know, it has not been suggested that there has been any case of corruption that could not have been dealt with under the ordinary law, nor has any attempt been made to make out that cases that may arise in the future could not be dealt with in exactly the same manner. If the Minister will examine the troubles of the Ministry of Health during the past five years to which he has referred, he will find that they have arisen entirely, or almost entirely, from this very policy of laying down one law for Poplar and another law for Birmingham—one law for the poor and another law for the rich.
    May I remind the House—I do not think it will be beyond their recollection—that a good deal of the trouble in the case of the Poplar Guardians arose out of what was called the Mond scale of relief? Under the Mond scale of relief, it was illegal to do in Poplar what could be done in other parts of London, or in other parts of England.
    1900
    Poplar, naturally, revolted. Poplar is being treated in exactly the same way in the Bill that is before us to-day; it is being singled out for a special law. I submit that the whole policy of parochial law is wrong, and is not one that should be supported by any section of this House. All that this Amendment asks is that a law should be laid down that will treat all guardians as honest men until there is reasonable ground for assuming that they are otherwise. They are asked here to respect a law which does not exist when they are exercising their duties. The law does not define what wages are to be paid or what scales of relief shall be given, and yet they may fix the wages, and they may fix the scales of relief; and then an auditor may come along and declare that those scales of relief or those rates of wages are outwith the Act of Parliament, and the guardians are to be punished in their public capacity for it.
    I submit that that is entirely wrong. It is a degradation of local government. It will drive out of public life many strong-willed, desirable administrators, and will tend to man our local councils with weak-willed peope. A man may be punished in his capacity as a county councillor for something that he did as a rural district councillor; he may be guilty of a petty offence in an urban district council, and, because he is guilty of that offence, which was committed quite without any criminal intent, he is disqualified from sitting, say, on the London County Council. It goes further, and it discredits Parliament itself, because it says that while a man may not sit on one local authority because of an offence committed in another local authority, he may, unless pursued into bankruptcy, be a Member of Parliament itself. To place Parliament on a lower status than a rural district council is not creditable to the Government, and I hope that this Bill will not receive a majority in this House.
    5.0 p.m.
    Dr. SALTER: The Bill before us reduces local authorities to a condition of extraordinary ignominy. To-day local authorities, five of them at any rate in London, have been compelled to amend their public policy, a policy decided upon after submitting it to the local electorate. Since the introduction of this Bill, a condition

    1901
    so extraordinary has grown up that a London Borough Council to-day is obliged to go and interview an auditor and) ask the auditor whether it may or may not give a man a rise of wages of one shilling a week. The position is really ridiculous. Let me give the Minister an illustration. A borough council with which I am personally connected has recently established a dust incinerator. A part of the work connected with it consists in the raking over the dust and refuse shot from the carts on the top of the hopper and shoving it into the hopper. It is dirty and disagreeable work and often dangerous. The rate of pay hitherto has been £3 3s. per week. The council unanimously, not by a majority, but unanimously, agreed that this rate of wages was insufficient for work of that particular character. They decided to raise the men's wages by 1s. 6d. a day. It was then pointed out by the clerk that they would bring themselves under the operation of this Bill if they did so, and if the Bill were passed into law.
    They decided to send a deputation to the auditor to ask if they might raise the man's wages by 1s. 6d. because of the special character of the work and because in their unanimous judgment an increased rate of pay was appropriate to that work. The auditor said "No" without knowing anything about the work, and he did not pretend to know anything about the work or the circumstances connected with the case. He said: "No, there is in existence a rate known as the J. I. C. scale, and you must not pay more than 10 per cent. above that. Never mind anything about the special circumstances." We said: "Supposing we regrade, it will enable us to pay a higher rate of wages." He said: "That will not be permissible. You must not regrade. I cannot sanction any question of regrading." Here you have a publicly-elected authority reduced to the condition that it cannot raise a man's wages by 1s. 6d. a week or even 1s. a week without going on its knees to an official not elected by the public and with no responsibility to the public and asking the permission of that official. They have to do that before an ordinary administrative act can be performed in perfect good faith. If the borough councils concerned decide that in their judgment this is a proper thing
    1902
    to do, they are to be surcharged by the auditor and treated as criminals and run the risk of bankruptcy and to be eliminated from public life, not for five years, because in the majority of cases it is for the whole of their life. This is an extraordinary condition. It is the very negation of local government. It is the debasement of elected self-government. It is not right or fair. The Minister, in a speech he made at Greenwich on 7th November, when he was dealing presumably with this very Bill in his mind, said that
    "Socialists were not willing to play the game, but were determined to use local government to advance their theories, and it was his duty to frustrate them."
    That is exactly the whole position. If the Socialists' council does what it has always been urged to do, proceed by constitutional means to secure a majority and then put its policy into force within the existing law and the powers granted by Parliament, the Minister comes along and says: "You have managed to secure a majority; now I am going to frustrate your policy. I am going to step in and see that your majority does not prevail in this particular case where you have got into power." It is not playing the game. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately interfering with the policy of his opponents where they have secured the good will of the electorate. The position to-day is a very cruel one for large numbers of men and women. I can confirm what has been said by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) who suggested that this would mean the driving out from public life of a number of public-spirited men who were desirable members of local authorities. I know it as a fact that several extremely responsible people have decided to withdraw from public life in my own locality, and not offer themselves for re-election simply because the danger is too great; however honourable their intenions, they may at any moment, on a particular act of policy, meet with the condemnation of the auditor, and land themselves into financial and general disaster.
    No one knows where he is at the present time. Up to now this policy has been applied solely to wages, but we have hints that further interference by the auditor is likely to be forthcoming in the

    1903
    near future. We do not know, at the present moment, whether the auditor may not come along and say: "You are spending too much money upon this particular scheme." Apparently, by the latest judgment he has the power to do so. He can step in and say not only "You shall pay no more than such-and-such wages," but "on this particular scheme you shall not pay more than such and such a sum of money." And if by that time the authority have decided to spend the money and have actually spent it, they may be surcharged and, although they have acted in perfect good faith, they may bring all these consequences upon themselves. There is no guarantee that events of that sort will not arise in the near future. Various hints have been given that the auditor is going to exercise his powers in other directions. By doing so you will eliminate from public life many men and women of the best type whom we want to encourage. To put men and women who make an honest mistake in the exercise of their judgment on the same basis as men who deliberately corrupt and perpetrate frauds on the public is, I submit, a very unfair, un-English and wrong proceeding, and the House should support the Amendment which has been moved.
    Mr. HARRIS: Any stranger visiting this country, coming from abroad or from the Dominions, if he took up this Bill would be under the impression that there was a widespread necessity for surcharge owing to illegal acts in the country. Everybody knows that on the whole the local authorities throughout the country discharge their duties efficiently, legally, and on sound financial lines. The cases where auditors have complained of excessive expenditure or illegal expenditure are few and isolated and very rare. A great number of public men have given their time and services impartially in their desire to carry out the duties of local government according to the law. It ought to be remembered—it was not made clear enough in the discussion— that when an auditor surcharges members because of so-called illegal expenditure the existing law makes them subject to very heavy penalties, penalties which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) among others, has suffered. The auditor is conscious that if he surcharges and the money is not forth-
    1904
    coming the penalty under the existing law must be imposed. Either the delinquent must be made bankrupt or in the alternative sent to prison. Both, it will be agreed, are very severe penalties. Everybody agrees that the law as it is at present wants amending. The question is whether this is the right way of amending it, and, secondly, whether the offences are numerous enough to require special legislation.
    My own view is that the real cause of all our difficulties is that the areas of local government are far too small. One of the difficulties in London is that you have 28 borough councils. In the bulk of these 28 councils the standard varies. If over the whole of the area of London you had the same wage, this problem would not arise, but, as it happens, in East London you have a certain standard set up by people of very advanced views, while in the West of London there is a very much lower standard. I believe that is one of the causes that influenced the auditors in their decision. The Industrial Council, which represents all the local authorities, fixed the scale and, if that scale be exceeded in three or four districts, the auditor takes that scale to be excessive. I suggest that the real way to get over the problem is to reform the system of government. It is quite clear that in large areas, such as Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, none of these problems arise. It is true that city corporations come out of the ambit except for education or housing. Those are two very important items, and if they came into conflict they would be subject to audit. That shows that where you have these large local government units these problems do not arise, and the need of surcharges does not arise.
    I feel that what the Government ought to do is to define what is illegal. Take the question of wages. The Government cannot escape responsibility. It is very difficult to say what is a fair wage and what is a reasonable wage. On many occasions when the Minister has been challenged, he has refused, and from his point of view rightly, to give a lead to the country. If the question of wages is going to be a question of legality or illegality, surely the Ministry of Health, which is the supreme local government authority, ought to give some guide to

    1905
    the auditors. It is not fair to put on the auditor the responsibility of saying where the line is exceeded, where the figure is reasonable and where it is unreasonable. It is putting on him a responsibility which is not reasonably his, because the responsibility should be in the hands of the directing authority of the Ministry. After all, it is no use trying to get round it. The problem has largely arisen because of the variations of wages throughout the County of London. My opinion is perfectly clear that the right figure is that fixed by the Joint Industrial Council. It is not fair to put the decision on the auditors. It would be much wiser and fairer to the local authorities and to the auditors for the Minister to bring in a Bill making it clear how wages should be fixed by local authorities when they employ a large number of men. Then the responsibility would be Parliament's. When local authorities are engaging labour, they should engage it at trade union rates or, alternatively, according to figures fixed by the Joint Industrial Council, fixing the wages for a reasonable local government area, and it would not be difficult to find what that would be in each part of the country. In London, of course, it would be the Metropolitan area. That would be a far more satisfactory way to deal with illegalities.
    My own feeling about this Amendment is that if the words "or illegality" were put in, it would be reasonable. That would be a fair, right and just limitation. It might be said that here we are up against Judge-made law. That is most unsatisfactory. The Minister would admit that. We know the circumstances of a surcharge by an auditor, and the Judge being forced to say a certain thing is legal or illegal. A question of wages certainly cannot be said to come within the purview of the law in the ordinary sense of the word. If at the same time that we add the words "or illegality" you undertake to pass legislation to give the Minister power to fix wages, or direct the basis of fixing wages, all your problem of local government would be removed. It is very unfortunate that local government should be made the battleground of wages. There are far more important duties to carry out in local administration than having a battle royal, first with the auditor, then with
    1906
    the Government and then with the electors, on the scale of wages to be fixed for what is, after all, a comparatively small area. Questions of economic conditions and wages are far larger than the fixing of them for one little local government unit. That has been the mistake made by some municipal councils of trying to use the local government authority in order to have a small battle on wages. It is weakening the power of the local authorities, it is confusing the issue, and they must share the blame with the Minister for the necessity for this Bill. Some sort of legislation is necessary, I admit. At present, it is unsatisfactory. I realise that the Bill is necessary, but I am prepared to try to make it fairer and more just by supporting reasonable, and not unreasonable, Amendments.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I wish the hon. Member had consulted the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), who sits beside him, because I do not think I ever heard a more muddled statement of the whole position. In the first place, he referred to Judge-made law, and seemed to think there was something wrong with it. Some of the greatest decisions in this country have been achieved through Judge-made law. There is no particular reason why a judgment should not define the law of the country and lay down an interpretation of Act of Parliament.
    Mr. HARRIS.I thought it was unsatisfactory to leave to Judge-made law the fixing of wages.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member totally misunderstands the position if he thinks the Judges are fixing the question of wages. This is not simply a question of wages. He has totally misconceived the whole position. We had a Debate on this very question of audits in 1924, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) was Minister of Health. It did not turn on the question of wages or whether they were reasonable. It turned on the question of Poor Law relief, and what did the hon. Member's leader, a man who speaks with great authority and is acceptable in many parts of the House, say?
    "In the first place, I think the present sanction of the law, namely, the power of

    1907
    surcharge, is quite inadequate and illusory. The ratepayers get nothing out of it. I will not say for the moment what substitute there ought to be for it, but I am quite sure it is a thing which is not worthy of Parliament. Here is an expenditure "—
    an illegal expenditure, and this expenditure, is not a question of wages at all,
    "practically admitted, of very nearly £100,000, and the only remedy which the ratepayers, many of whom, remember, have no votes—in Poplar 55 per cent. of the rates are paid, I believe, by people who have no votes—docks, railway companies, and so on—and their money, the money they have contributed, is expended by these guardians for purposes which are admittedly illegal. Indeed, the guardians glory in it.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1924; col. 867, Vol. 169.]
    Mr. THURTLE: Whom is the hon. Gentleman quoting?
    Sir K. WOOD: This quotation is from one of the leaders of the Liberal party, then known as Mr. Asquith. This matter lies at the very root. If the effect of the Bill were only to apply in cases of corruption and negligence it would practically defeat altogether the object of the Bill. There are already sufficient remedies in law for negligence and corruption on the part of local authorities. Many Statutes have been passed many years ago dealing with that matter. I agree that our local government is one of the finest in the world, and there are very few cases indeed of corruption or negligence. That is not what we are aiming at. I am fortified by the opinion not only of Lord Oxford but another opinion, which will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. This is from the Debate on the same Motion. It is some years ago now, and nothing has been done.
    "The next point is whether the power of surcharge will be retained. I join with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Wheatley) in saying that in my experience the power of surcharge has not been effective. We know perfectly well that if a Board of Guardians is surcharged and if it refuses to pay and finds its way into prison, the Ministry of Health has the board of guardians in prison, and it has a policy of surcharges which it must enforce, at any rate from the point of view of its own dignity. A deadlock takes place; no money is paid, the taxpayer is not relieved, the board of guardians are 'Poplarised,' and in the end the situation is the same. The only victim is the poor Ministry of Health, which is given an abso-
    1908
    lutely impossible law to administer."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol.: 170.]
    That is a statement of the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. What we are seeking to do is to carry out what the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal party said has been too long a scandal, and this Bill is designed to deal with cases which have been referred to in such strong terms by Lord Oxford and by the Leader of the Opposition. If this Amendment were carried, it would defeat the very object of the Bill and the very thing which the leaders of both those parties say has to be done.
    It is beyond the point to say that local authorities in the future will have any difficulty in connection with the matter. They have had no difficulty in the past. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has spoken as if there were some confusion in the mind of local authorities as to how to administer the law and what wages are to be paid. My answer is that, with the exception of five or six notorious authorities up and down the country, there has been no difficulty whatever. This Bill, in fact, only concerns five or six authorities. No other local authorities have any difficulty in the matter whatever. There is no need whatever to imagine that local authorities are going to be in grave difficulties as to what the law is. The only local authorities who will be in difficulty about the Bill are those which, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, are being "Poplarised," and even towards them the Bill is perfectly reasonable and just. Anyone would think if the auditors surcharged them, that is the end of their public career and nothing will remain for them but to retire from the service of the local authority. The hon. Member who spoke just now cannot have read the Bill. All that any member of a local authority has to do is to go to the Court. I have known of no difficulty in hon. Members opposite going to the Court. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has had no difficulty in going to the Court. When they get to the Court, all they have to do is to satisfy the Judge that they acted reasonably, or in the belief that their action was authorised by law.

    1909
    Do hon. Members tell me that if any member of a local authority is not prepared to satisfy the Law Courts of this country, that he has either acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law, that he is fit to remain a member of a local authority? If members of local authorities in these very limited cases are not prepared to satisfy the Courts that they have acted legally or in the belief that their action was authorised by law, they have no right to be members of a local authority. The idea that there is something very difficult about this Bill and that there is grave reason for misinterpreting it has not been justified as far as past experience is concerned. If this Amendment were carried, it would go against the whole object of the Bill, which seeks to deal with circumstances which have been specifically mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald). As far as any ordinary prudent member of a local authority is concerned, he need have no fear as to the operation of the Bill. The only people who need have any fear are those people who are not prepared to look after the ratepayers' money as trustees and in the same way as they would look after their own money; people who act deliberately and persistently illegally. As far as those people are concerned, the Bill is necessary, and I believe that it will commend itself to the whole country.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary has made it perfectly clear that the arguments put forward from these benches are quite sound and correct. The Bill and the penalties are aimed at five or six cases, referred to by the hon. Member as notorious cases where people have deliberately broken the law. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the law, as he calls it, was definite in every case until the House of Lords gave the decision which we have called the Judge-made decision. He knows quite well that all the cases, from the Westminster case to the Irish case, where the question of the right of the local authority to determine to whom it would give its contracts had been decided on the side of those of us who believed we had the right to fix wages which we considered reasonable. It is beyond the point for the hon. Member
    1910
    to say that in bringing forward this Bill he wishes to deal only with people who wilfully break the law. The House ought to understand that until this particular decision of the Courts against the Poplar Borough Council, in the first instance, and against other borough councils later, it was always understood that the law was on the side of the councils. The hon. Member is overlooking the fact that the auditor is now so stretching his power, or what he considers to be the power given to him under the House of Lords decision, that not only is he saying to the councils of London what wages they shall pay, but he is declaring into what grade a particular man or a particular woman should be placed for the work they are carrying out. The auditor is doing that in spite of the fact that no one, not even the House of Lords, has yet decided what is or is not a reasonable rate of wage to pay to a workman, or what is a reasonable salary to pay. The hon. Member talks, and the right hon. Gentleman also talks, as if this House of Lords decision had really decided something quite definite. What the House of Lords decision really amounted to was that £4 a week was a wage which ought not to be paid. They have not decided what is a reasonable wage or what is a legal wage to pay. That is the point that we are raising in this Amendment.
    The councils may fix a lower wage than £4 a week; they may fix £3 a week, and we have no guarantee that the auditor will not come along and say that £3 a week is too much. It is true that the particular auditor who has made the surcharges up to the present has laid it down that in his judgment we might be allowed the discretion to pay what we considered a fair wage, to 10 per cent. over the Joint Industrial Council award or 10 per cent. over the trade union agreement. We have no certainty that the next auditor, when the present auditor retires, will not say, "You have no right to have a discretion to 10 per cent. You ought only to pay the actual amount that the Joint Industrial Council has decided, or the amount agreed upon the trades unions and the councils." We do not know, and the right hon. Gentleman does not know, whether the next auditor will hold the same view as the present auditor with regard to what is reasonable, and

    1911
    because we may happen to disagree with a new auditor who has not had any chance of consulting with us as the present auditor has had, he may take a different point of view, and the borough councils of London are to be in the position of semi-criminals.
    It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that all he wants to deal with are the people who are guilty of misconduct. Will he deny that he has no power to control what the next auditor will do? Will he deny that it is possible to conceive that the next auditor may disagree with the present auditor and say that even up to 10 per cent. shall not be allowed or even that the Joint Industrial Council's award should not be allowed? One of the Judges said that there ought not to be any question of awards or agreements and that we ought to pay just whatever we could get the men to work for, that is, the lowest wage possible. Some auditor may be appointed who will hold that view. A council, even a Tory council, may conceive that that is the wrong sort of principle on which to fix wages, and they may be surcharged, and the only thing that they can do will be to appeal to the Courts. The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to myself on this point. I think it was rather unfair and misleading to the House for him to say that we can go to the Courts and that because I have been to the Courts it is a proof of how easy it is for aggrieved councillors or guardians to go to the Courts. He knows perfectly well that under this Bill it will not be the council who will go to the Courts and it will not be the council who will pay the expenses. The individual councillors will nave to find the money. I could not possibly have gone to the Courts and have spent £3,000 fighting a case which ultimately we lost, and the hon. Member knows that. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary know that they have taken good care in this Bill to make it impossible for poor men to fight the auditor in the Court; therefore they will have no choice but to submit to whatever the auditor chooses to lay down.
    When we come to the question involved in the last part of the hon. Member's statement, with regard to the Poor Law, I wonder if the House realises that up
    1912
    to the time when the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), became Ministers of Health, there was always an unwritten rule in the Local Government Board in its dealings with boards of guardians not to interfere with scales of relief, not to lay down scales of relief and not to say whether the board should or should not pay a certain amount. Under the right hon. Gentleman's administration he has, in effect, laid down what shall be paid in individual cases. At the present time an auditor, acting I take it on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman, is going through a series of cases in different boards of guardians in the metropolis and compelling the boards of guardians, against their own better judgment, to reduce the amount that they are paying to people who need relief. He is enforcing that reduction by saying that this Bill is going to become law and that if the guardians continue to pay the larger amounts they will be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. Before the House of Commons gives the Minister power or the auditor power to determine what relief shall be given in individual cases, this whole new principle ought to be thrashed out on the Floor of the House. It ought not to be done in this indirect manner. It is true that this Bill does not, apparently, give the auditor any new powers, but because of the penalties of surcharge put into this Bill, the auditors are using the Bill in order to force the guardians to administer the Poor Law in a manner which they consider wise, proper and reasonable as against the wisdom of the elected guardians. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if his Department were asked to insist that the board of guardians should pay proper relief he would be the first to say that that is a subject for the discretion of the guardians, but when it is a question of giving adequate relief or what the guardians consider to be adequate relief, the guardians are to come under the penalties imposed by this Bill.
    I wish to call attention to another fact in regard to this penalising of Labour boards of guardians. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough during the Debate on the Second Reading to say that people like myself, when we said that the people who elected us had the right to expect another kind of policy

    1913
    to be adopted when we had been elected, were really bribing the electors. I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to this House that within the limits of the Poor Law, and within the limits of a borough council's operations, members of those bodies have a perfect right to go to the electors and say, "If we are elected we shall do so and so as against the policy of those whom we oppose." When they do that they are no more bribing poor people than is the right hon. Gentleman bribing when he advocates Tariff Reform in order to bring more trade to Birmingham or elsewhere. It may be that we are very dense, but I cannot see the difference between Tweedle-dee in Birmingham and Tweedledum in Poplar. The people in Poplar are entitled to elect me to this House, hoping that by doing so something will be done to help to improve their standard of life. That is perfectly legitimate, just as the manufacturers of Birmingham have a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman will back them up.
    The point in regard to Poor Law relief is that by a side wind, and the introduction of this penal legislation, the right hon. Gentleman is taking out of the hands of boards of guardians the right to deal as they think fit with individual cases. He is determining what the law is to be. Under the Act of 1834, the right hon. Gentleman is expressly prohibited from laying down scales of relief for boards of guardians, but by the penal Clauses in this Bill and giving this power to the district auditors, he is positively going to break that law, and in a roundabout manner. We want guardians and councillors to come under the provisions of this Bill only when they do something which is corrupt, illegal and wrong, and we hope the House will support us in this Amendment. The only crime and offence that has ever been charged against any of these terrible boards which are said to be Poplarised is that they have given a family a few shillings extra relief or paid a small sum extra in wages. That is the only crime charged against them. That is the only crime for which he is imposing this penalty on poor men and women who give as much time, thought and energy to their work on these boards and councils as any hon. Member gives to his work on this House. They give untold hours of labour in order to administer the affairs of their borough
    1914
    in an efficient manner, and now the right hon. Gentleman, not because of any corruption or wrongdoing on their part, but because their judgment as to what is right happens to disagree with the judgment of his own party or the officials of his Department, says that they are to be penalised by banishment for five years from public life or to be made bankrupt in the Law Courts.
    The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has said that this penalty can be applied now; but that is hardly true. All that can happen now, although the Minister has never dared to impose it, is that their goods and chattels might be seized, and a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment imposed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if he sent us to prison for six weeks, our people would think very much more of us after we came out than before. But instead of doing that, instead of coming to this House in a straight-forward manner and saying that local authorities must no longer be allowed to fix scales of relief or to judge what is a proper amount to be paid to able-bodied men who ask for out-door relief, he introduces this miserable, mean and despicable Bill, which imposes penalties on men and women who ought not to be called upon to do this work. If the problem of poverty were dealt with as it ought to be, the Poplar board of guardians would not have to face this burden.
    In my opinion, it is sheer cowardice to bring in a Bill with such penalties in it. These people are not wilfully breaking the law. They hold that if they give relief at all it should be adequate, and, indeed, the Ministry of Health itself has laid down the principle that if you give relief at all you should give it adequately, so that it will be able to maintain the men and women who get it. When it comes to wages, there is not a council or local authority in London which has any sort of standard to go on as to what is right or wrong. The auditor at this moment—I must repeat this—is to-day interviewing borough councils and fixing with them what wages shall be paid. There is no law in this country which gives him that authority. The only power he has is given him by the penal Clauses of this Bill. I repeat that it is a cowardly and despicable thing for one

    1915
    political party in the State to try to down its political opponents by these methods.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is a tendency to discuss the whole Bill on this Amendment. That should come on the Third Reading.
    Mr SNELL: It is perfectly clear from the speeches from the Front bench that the Minister of Health is determined not to be in the least degree helpful to the House in a very real difficulty. We are led to believe that the legality or illegality in this matter is quite patent to anybody who wants to understand, but yet in the minds of hon. Members on this side, and in the experience of borough councillors and boards of guardians, there is a real difficulty as to what is legal and what is not, The Minister of Health comes down here in a spirit of complacency as though it did not matter in the least that men who are doing their best in local government are to be penalised and thrown out of public life, or rendered poverty-stricken and bankrupt. If it were a question of removing any hon. Member opposite from his London club, or from his position as an officer in the Army, the whole of the Government side would be up in arms against it. We claim that these men, who are doing public work, are entitled to the same consideration in regard to their position.
    Who are these men engaged in public service? One would imagine that they were a Bill Sykes' regiment in the community. Nobody in this House has a greater experience of local government than the Minister of Health, and few men have a higher reputation than he has as a local administrator. In the limited sphere which Birmingham offers for observing the work of working men on municipal councils, he knows that as much ability and the most sterling self-sacrifice any men could ever offer to any cause is offered by working men to the great principles of English loal government. There is no country in Europe or America that does not stand in admiration of the purity and efficiency of the men who are doing this work. We ask, at this late stage, that the Minister should refrain from putting this stigma
    1916
    upon them. It is not as though they are supposed to have transgressed and do not try to do what is right.
    I know the case of one council which earned the displeasure of the district auditor. There was a real difficulty. The council gave an undertaking and desired most honourably and most loyally to abide by it. Men were engaged in very hard work on roads and sewers, where the earnings at any time are quite small and subject to all the delays of bad weather; the wear and tear upon their clothes and health were serious, and they asked the council for soma variation in their wages. The borough council, loyal to its undertaking to the Ministry of Health, did not feel able to meet their demands and applied to the Ministry of Health for advice. But neither by correspondence nor in answer to a question in this House will the Minister say more than this, that the borough council must do what it thinks right. If the district auditor agrees, it is well; if he does not, then they must bear the consequences. Further, he says that they have an opportunity of appealing to him; but that is only within certain limitations. These amounts run up very quickly, if you have 200 men employed on a job. It is really playing with the Opposition to reply in this manner.
    Before this Clause is passed, the Minister should give to the administrators on borough councils some assurance beyond a mere gamble on the temper of the district auditor on any particular day. These men are entitled to a greater amount of sympathy, and to some advice. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that borough councils must have some discretion in regard to what it does, and, if it is to have some discretion, then the question is, to what extent it should be given and where it should cease? We have put a very real difficulty before him, and I suggest we should not leave these men at the mercy of the district auditor in this way. As far as we can, in our approach to local government, it is our practice and desire to obey the law. If the law be not right we are sent here for the express purpose of trying to put it right, but until it is put right we want to obey it. But we do want to know what the law is, and we have a right to expect from the Minister a greater

    1917
    guidance than he has been willing to give us so far in a very difficult matter. I will not question the impartiality of the district auditor. I am quite sure that, according to his lights, he administers the law as he thinks it is. But borough councils have some responsibility, and we ought to know what that responsibility is. If a borough council is culpably negligent, or corrupt, that is another matter; but a mere fault of discretion in a very human matter should

    Division No. 461.]

    AYES.

    [6.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Albery, Irving James

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cen'l)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Astor, Viscountess

    Drewe, C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Atkinson C

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    lane Fox, col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Barclay-Harvey, C M.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Loder, J. de V.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Long, Major Eric

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Bennett A J

    Fermoy, Lord

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Fielden. E. B.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Berry, Sir George

    Forrest, W.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon Angus

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macintyre, Ian

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Gates, Percy

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Boothby R. J. G.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Brassey. Sir Leonard

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Meller, R. J.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Grace, John

    Merriman, F. B.

    Briscoe. Richard George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Brittain Sir Harry

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Brocklebank C. E. R.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Brooke Brigadier-General C R. I.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Buchan John

    Hall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Buckingham. Sir H.

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hall, Capt, W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harland, A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Campbell. E. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Oakley, T.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cecil. Rt. Hon Lord H. (Ox Univ.)

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Henn. Sir Sydney H.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Pilcher, G.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pllditch, Sir Philip

    Clayton. G. C.

    Hopkins. J. W. W.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Preston, William

    Cochrane Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cockerill. Brig.-General Sir George

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cohen Major J. Brunei

    Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Colfox. Major Wm. Phillips

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Cope. Major William

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tl'y)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Illife, Sir Edward M.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    not be visited by expulsion from public life, and does not merit the stigma which this Clause implies.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 98.

    Rye, F. G.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wells, S. R.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Storry-Deans, R.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Sandon, Lord

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Savery, S. S.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Withers, John James

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hardie, George D.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barnes, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Crawturd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    March, S.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Owen, Major G.

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Paling, W.

    Wright, W.

    Groves, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    Division No. 462.]

    AYES.

    [6.9 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Gosling, Harry

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Mackinder, W.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Greenall, T.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    March, S.

    Baker, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Montague, Frederick

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hardie, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Harris, Percy A.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cove, W. G.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lansbury, George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawson, John James

    Scurr, John

    Dennison, R.

    Lee, F.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Duncan, C.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    The House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 247.

    Smith Rennie (Penistone)

    Townend, A. E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Snell, Harry

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Windsor, Walter

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wright, W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Westwood, J.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Whiteley, W.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Drewe, C.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Albery, Irving James

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Loder, J. de V.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Darby)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Long, Major Eric

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Astor, Viscountess

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Atkinson, C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fenby, T. D.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fermoy, Lord

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Balniel, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Forrest, W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gates, Percy

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Meller, R. J.

    Berry, Sir George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Merriman. F. B.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Goff, Sir Park

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Grace, John

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Morris, R. H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Oakley, T.

    Buchan, John

    Harland, A.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Owen, Major G.

    Burman, J. B.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Perring, sir William George

    Campbell, E. T.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pilcher, G.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Preston, William

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Christie, J. A.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hurst, Gerald B

    Rye, F. G.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sandon, Lord

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Savery, S. S.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    1922

    1923

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Titchfield. Major the Marquess of

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Winterton Rt. Hon. Ear,

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Withers, John James

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Major Cope.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "with an amount exceeding five hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "on more than one occasion in respect of recurring expenditure."
    There are two points involved in this Amendment. It is aimed at meeting two of the more obvious absurdities and injustices in this Bill. In the Bill, as it stands, we have the extraordinarily arbitrary figure of £500 fixed in connection with this Clause. The Minister in Committee was quite unable to explain why this figure had been selected. It seemed to be a favourite figure with the right hon. Gentleman just as in years past the number seven was regarded as a sacred number—or perhaps it is rather more like the old cases in which people were hanged for stealing if the amount involved was more than 40s. The point is that this figure applies very differently to people in different circumstances. For example, £500 is a very different sum to the right hon. Gentleman and to myself; and it is a very different sum to the London County Council and to one of the small urban districts. If a London county councillor makes an error of judgment and fails to satisfy the auditor that the expenditure incurred in some such matter as the wages of night watchmen is reasonable, he will have committed an offence which may involve over £500 and he will be caught under this provision. On the other hand, in a small urban district council the members may pay two or three times those wages to a much smaller number of men. They may be surcharged and yet the amount involved will not be £500 and they will not be caught under this provision. Of course, the Bill is not aimed at small urban district councils. It is probably not aimed very much at county councils, except at a few of them such as Durham, perhaps, or Lanark. It is mainly aimed
    1924
    at the larger urban authorities which have not the good fortune to have elected auditors. In the case of London boroughs with populations ranging from 100,000 up to 300,000 the penalty of £500 may easily be incurred for some quite minor error of judgment.
    The Minister failed to rid himself of the accusation that this penalty depends not upon anything that is done but on the view taken by the district auditor. You never know where you are with the district auditor to-day. A short time ago the district auditor came round to my own borough. I do not know who he was, but I should imagine that his name was Parker, with the Christian name of "Nosey." He proceeded to go into the question of the letting of the town hall. We let the town hall as an institution which is for the benefit of the whole of the people, and the auditor began to inquire as to whether, when we let it for entertainments, we managed to make it pay. That was a case where a surcharge of over £500 might have been involved. It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman in Birmingham. I see they have a very fine art gallery there which is open free. They cannot be surcharged but if we try to do anything, such as using the town hall, the auditor may say that we are not charging a reasonable amount.
    Again, there is the question of contracts. We never know where we are with regard to contracts. Take the case of a contract for electrical apparatus. We had one last week which ran to something like £88,000. It was a question of whether we should take the highest or the lowest tender and there was a difference of about £30,000. The lowest tender happened to be a foreign tender. If we accepted the English tender we should have been liable straight away under this Bill, and we did not know what the district auditor would say. If he had been brought up in the tenets of some, at all events, of those hon. Members who sometimes sit below

    1925
    the Gangway, he would hold it to be totally unreasonable in the circumstances to give the contract to the British firm. On the other hand had he been brought up in the school of the right hon. Gentleman opposite he would, no doubt, say it was perfectly reasonable to do so. We do not know. On the other hand, a small council might make a mistake of the same sort in regard to ordering a mowing machine, and the matter would only involve a few pounds. Therefore, this £500 is no criterion as to the offence committed. The Minister objected to our suggestion that there was anything except illegality involved, but it is a pure matter of right or wrong judgment.
    I have a suggested Amendment later on the Paper which may not be called upon, providing for a sliding scale, and I should like the Minister to say why this £500 has been selected. Does he really think it just that a person who is a member of the London County Council or the Durham County Council, which passes a certain resolution, should be brought under this Act and penalised in respect of an expenditure of over £500, when precisely the same resolution may be passed by an authority of the same character, only it happens to be a small authority, involving less than £500, and the members in that case get off scot free? It is obviously unjust and anomalous. The second part of my Amendment suggests that the good old English principle that a dog should be allowed one bite might also apply even to people who are so much worse than dogs—people such as Labour borough councillors. At present we have to play a guessing game with the district auditor, in which there are no prizes and very heavy penalties. We have to try to "spot the winner" when we are fixing wages. You get some special sort of work which is being done for the borough council and you have men working at sewers, or some unpleasant work of that nature. These men complain that their clothes are being ruined by this work, that they are frequently wet through and that they suffer in health and they ask for better wages. When the matter comes before the council it is not open to us to consider it in that businesslike way in which we are told these matters should be considered. It must not be dealt with as a business matter at all. All the council have to think about is
    1926
    how their decision will appeal to the district auditor. If they put on too much he comes round and allows a surcharge.
    There are occasions on which you can get an expression of opinion from the district auditor, but very often you can get no expression of opinion at all. The Minister says, "Wait and see!" "Wait and see" may have been all right in the old times when the surcharge was not in force, but to-day if you wait and see you may find yourself faced with a surcharge, you may find your public career brought to an end, and you may find yourself bankrupt. I always understood that if an offence was set up under an Act of Parliament, with a penalty, that offence should, at all events, be certain. In this case the offence is hypothetical. It is an offence which does not exist as written down in the law. It exists in a rather irresponsible official's social conception of municipal government. We do not know what view he may take. For years we may have carried on one particular practice in local government. The fact that we have done so does not show that we have not been wrong all the time. A new district auditor may arise, or the same district auditor may come round and suddenly begin to question some practice which has been in force for a long time.
    I have mentioned the question of charges for a town hall. That is quite a new point. Elsewhere, questions have been raised concerning the charges made for baths and wash houses. There you have a question in dispute which has been left to the broad interpretation of the council. Some councillors think that the baths and wash houses constitute a municipal trading concern which ought to make a profit and pay its way. That is what used to be known as the business view. But other people regard the baths and wash houses as part of the public health system and are quite willing that a loss should be incurred on them, as long as the people have the benefit. If we make a mistake, if we fail to fix the right amount, we are liable to be surcharged and to be brought under this Bill. How are we to know what are the ideas of this unknown official on a matter of municipal government of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage tried to narrow this point down, and he

    1927
    tried to suggest that this only applied to cases where councillors went outside the law. That is clearly wrong. The Bill is not needed at all if it is only a question of going outside the law. You can deal now with people who break the law. I sometimes wish the right hon. Gentleman would deal with some people who break the municipal law when they fail to deal with the conditions in some of our great cities, not excluding Birmingham. But this proposal extends the law in an extraordinarily vague way and the result is to put local authorities into confusion. We have to guess at what is right.
    The right hon. Gentleman just now rather sneered at our suggestion that we regretted the carrying out of a certain policy. We had, I am glad to say, an extremely enlightened opponent on our borough council, and when we started to do just the thing the Minister objects to he said, "I do not oppose this; you are right. You told the electors you would do it, and you are doing it." That is the sound constitutional position, but it is not that of the right hon. Gentleman. If we are to have this Bill, let us try and make it a little more fair all round, and let us see that we do not penalise the men who live in a big urban district and entirely let off the men who live in a very small district. I have no reason to think that their judgment or reason is any better because they happen to live in smaller aggregations of population, but that is what this Bill says in effect.
    Let us substitute for the £500 limit that there must, first of all, be at least one occasion on which the auditor may say, "This thing is wrong." Let there be an opportunity of testing it in law, and then let the auditor come along and surcharge if people do it again, but as long as you leave the matter in such uncertainty that none of the councillors know what is happening, it is most unfair. Not even the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to know what the district auditors are doing. This Bill is being pushed forward by the right hon. Gentleman, with very eminent strategy and tactics, as his part of the class war, and I suggest that this Amendment will at least mitigate the Bill, restore it to some degree of reasonableness and sanity, and not leave it, as it is now, a game in which we councillors have perpetually to go in
    1928
    for a gamble, with a certainty that we cannot win and that, if we lose, our political life and probably our economic life, too, may be totally destroyed.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am not sure whether those who are responsible for this proposal in the Bill really appreciate what is continually happening on our municipal councils. To take the case of some matter of expenditure, it is passed in the first instance by a sub-committee, who go into the particulars and satisfy themselves as far as possible that the expenditure is entirely warranted. It then goes forward to the larger committee, consisting of perhaps 15 or 20 members, and it is passed by them on the recommendation of their sub-committee, after which it goes forward to the council as a whole. If this Clause really means what it says, it creates a position practically involving almost every member of the council at one time or another in these illegal proceedings; and then, as has been pointed out already, when the auditor comes along, he will say that this expenditure, which has been incurred in perfectly good faith, having gone through all the usual processes of checking and so forth, is an expenditure which ought not to have been incurred, and all the members of the council will be liable because of their share in it; they will be supposed to have some responsibility for it.
    It is most unfair, more particularly when we consider that an individual member is never going to know until afterwards whether he is right or wrong. I have signed these things as a member of an audit committee, and I have passed many of these accounts. I have passed them as a chairman of committees, and I have passed them again when it has been a question of signing a requisition. Sometimes there may be 10 or 20 sheets, with as many as from 30 to 50 names, and they are signed in good faith, with reason to suppose that every check has been placed upon them, and then the individual member is placed in this position under this Bill. However good may be the faith of those who are taking part in public life, if anything of this sort is going to be imposed on the very first occasion on which not some deliberate offence, but some mistake, is made, a mistake of which the district auditor alone is to be

    1929
    the judge, you are going to intimate to people that they should not go into public life at all, because really they are not going to accept a responsibility of this kind.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, did so, if I may say so, in a very able speech, as he always does, and I notice that he was very careful to devote 99 hundredths of that speech to criticisms of the Clause and very little indeed to his own Amendment. I must say I cannot conceive of a more extraordinary suggestion than the one which he himself proposes. Apparently the idea is that every council is to have one bite, and after that the penalties of the law are to fall upon it. I can conceive the case, as I dare say the hon. Member can, where you have a council such as is known to us which intends deliberately to break the law, a council whom nothing can restrain. Such a council may have no regard to what anybody says and can snap their fingers at the present procedure, because that is the present position under the law. It has already been referred to this afternoon. Under this Amendment all that such a council, with that motive and idea in their mind, has to do is to arrange for a certain number of them, first, to vote for the illegal expenditure, then retire, and then the next body of gentlemen, actuated with similar feelings, come along, and they pass their resolution. They all have their bite, they go on filling the ranks of this particular council, and they could keep it going for I do not know how long, at the very considerable expense of the ratepayers of the district.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: This is not Gilbert and Sullivan.
    Sir K. WOOD: No; this is the Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member is dealing with the form of the Amendment. Does he agree that people should know the law before they are penalised for breaking it?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not going to be tempted into discussing a question which we have just debated at some length. We were discussing only a little while ago the question of auditors and how people should know the law, and I think
    1930
    we very exhaustively dealt with that topic. What we have to consider now are the very extraordinary words of this Amendment, and my answer is that it would obviously defeat the intentions of the Measure. It would, by a little ingenious working, mean that members of a council could persist in their illegal courses, and obviously such a proposal should not be contained in this Bill. We have had endless discussion of the question of the £500 and the particular methods adopted to enforce the law, and I am content now to say that, so far as this Amendment is concerned, I cannot advise the House to accept it, because not only is it ridiculous on the face of it, but it would defeat the intention of the Bill.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why £500 is taken? I should like to know that.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is it not the case that all the Amendments dealing with the £500 were closured upstairs? When have we had an opportunity of discussing them?
    Sir K. WOOD: If I remember aright, the hon. Lady gave many lengthy disquisitions on the iniquity of the £500, with very great force, no doubt. I think it was mentioned on almost every day on which the Committee sat and that the only day when it was not mentioned was the day on which the Labour party absented themselves in a body and did not attend.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the Amendments on the £500 were closured?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady has exhausted her right to speak on this Amendment.
    Mr. GILLETT: I support the Amendment, and I confess that the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with it seems rather amazing, in view of the way in which he has let London down. We can commend the Minister of Health if he is looking well after the interests of his own city, but the Parliamentary Secretary might have watched over the interests, if not of the London borough councils, at any rate of the London County Council, because it seems to me that when you consider what the figure of £500 means, having regard to the total

    1931
    expenditure of London—an expenditure larger than that of many countries on the Continent—the £500 is a mere nothing. The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, at one time a member of the London County Council. It is probable that they did not allow him to sit on the Finance Committee, but, if he had had that privilege, he would have been aware that this sum is absolutely nothing. When you are on the Finance Committee, the bills come up in vast numbers, and the members of the committee sign them without the smallest idea in many cases as to their details, but they sign them on the word of the chairman of the committee.
    I have myself signed many accounts on the word of Conservative chairmen of many committees, and it is impossible for the members of finance committees to know all the accounts that come before them; yet, when a proposal is made that some opportunity might be given of reviewing something that has taken place, the Parliamentary Secretary treats it rather as a joke, and says that anyone ought to be exceedingly glad to go to the Courts and explain what he has done on the London County Council at his own expense. It would no doubt add to the profits of the legal profession of the hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, I understand the way in which he looks at the matter and why he seems to think it would be a pleasant afternoon's outing for a member to explain all these various accounts to the Court, but to the ordinary member of a local authority these things are nothing like so easy, nor is attendance at a Court quite so pleasing as it would seem to be to the Parliamentary Secretary.
    This matter is far more serious than the Parliamentary Secretary wishes us to think. One of the greatest problems, as anyone who has served on a local governing body in London knows, is the difficulty of getting suitable men to serve on these bodies; and I say this irrespective of party. I had at one time the duty of getting a list of names for a borough council, and at another time I had the duty of getting a list of names for the London County Council from the political party with which I was connected, so that I am not speaking on this question without knowledge of what it means to go about trying to find suitable men to stand as candidates for
    1932
    election to these bodies. I am perfectly certain that if you could interview members of other parties they would tell you exactly the same thing as to the difficulty of getting men to stand. When you come to the position created by this Bill, what you find is, that when you ask these men and women to serve on these bodies the whole liability which they may incur is left uncertain, for the Clauses of the Bill place in the hands of the auditors such amazing powers that no one will know exactly the position in which he stands.
    The whole matter really comes down to two points. One is this point of the liability imposed upon members, with which I have tried to deal, and the other point is the matter that has been raised in regard to wages. The amount of money that has been placed in the Clause practically prevents any experiments in the wages question. I should have been glad if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) were here, because I should like to say with what amazement I listened to his speech. If this Clause had been in operation a number of years ago, when his party was in control of the London County Council, the work of bringing into force a system of wages by which trade union rates were recognised would never have come about. This Bill would have made it impossible, and the Progressive party of the London County Council would have been called what was then the equivalent of the term Bolshevist, and told that they must adopt the wages that were in force by local authorities in the various districts in London, and that if they did not do this they would be disqualified. This is one of the most serious objections to this Bill. In the past the great municipalities have done a great work as pioneers in the question of wages. Supposing that to-day a body said they wanted to give their employés a week's holiday with pay; supposing the London County Council decided to put it into force, they would be penalised by this Bill, and what might be very useful reforms in regard to the treatment of employés of a great council would be rendered impossible.
    It is a. disaster that this Bill should prevent work of this kind, and all because the Minister of Health is dissatisfied with

    1933
    four or five councils. That is practically what he has told us. The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that if we are going to give self-government to any set of people, we are not going to have all the councils or public bodies doing exactly what he wants at a certain definite time; and if we think a mistake has been made, the wisest thing is to recognise that time will inevitably cure ills of that kind, because the great underlying principle is that the people decide policy, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman is making such a mistake in regard to this Bill. I view it with very great concern. I think London is going to suffer very much as a result of it. To have auditors going about in the way we have heard will be most unfortunate, and it can only have an evil effect upon councils, because the great difficulty which there is now to get men and women to serve will be greatly increased.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that the hon. Member has been discussing the whole Bill. On the first Amendment I allowed great scope, but hon. Members must please adhere as closely as possible to the Amendment.
    Mr. PALING: I have listened to speeches of Ministers in which they have said much in reply to an Amendment, but nothing about the Amendment, but I have never heard such a successful effort as that of the Parliamentary Secretary just now. He was successful in jibbing at the Amendment, but he said not a word as to why the £500 was included in the Bill. He contented himself with saying that there had been a lot said about this. There was a lot said from our side in Committee, but, as far as his side was concerned, the answer was vague. An answer is due to the House as to why the £500 was included, and it is not treating the House with courtesy to avoid the question in the manner just illustrated by the Parliamentary Secretary. After all, he must have some reasons. The Minister himself indicated that he hardly knew. Somebody had put down figures varying from 1 to 1,000,000 and, pricking them with a pin, had hit on the £500. It appears now that he knows no more about it than he did then. Arguments have been adduced showing how arbitrarily this £500 is likely to work, even in one council and certainly as between one council and another. It might be that to one council representing
    1934
    200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, £500 would be a small sum, but to another representing 17,000 or 18,000, it would be a very large sum, and the Minister has not made the slightest attempt to show how it is likely to work. I would like to ask him whether he can give the House any idea as to whether the £500 is likely to act in the direction of some of the illustrations put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    There is another question I would like to ask. I am told that an auditor has already indicated to certain authorities in London that, in regard to the question of wages being paid for holidays and sick pay, he will have to review the whole position, and that he is not quite sure that he will not have to surcharge. Are we to understand that if more than £500 is involved in this question of payment for holidays and sick pay, the members of the councils responsible are likely to be surcharged; and that if they failed in their appeal they are to be disfranchised for five years and have a stigma put upon them which is equal to a stigma of being guilty of corruption? These are serious things which the Minister ought to answer. A glib reply such as we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary is a positive insult to the House. What is going to be the position of some of the smaller authorities? The Parliamentary Secretary said something about the fact that these people went on to councils willing to break the law. I have known nobody who put up for election saying that if elected he was going deliberately to break the law. I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman means by a statement of that description, and when he refers to the Amendment as having the effect of enabling, say, a majority on a certain council going in with a declared intention of breaking the law, and arguing to themselves, "We can break the law this once because we can have one bite at the cherry, and then, after having had one bite we shall all be discharged and disfranchised for five years, but we will have another election and send another lot of our people in, and so we can go on ad infinitum"? Does he seriously put it before the House as a serious argument that any party would go before the election with a programme of that description? He knows very well it is not true, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for making such a suggestion.

    1935
    He knows that nothing of the kind is in the minds of these men. Most cases that are likely to come under this Bill arise from the utmost purity, with no question whatever of corruption in mind. In view of these facts, I am hoping that the Minister himself, as the most responsible person, is going to try to give a serious answer to the indictment that has been made with regard to the £500. Let him get up and explain why the figure was put in, and how it is likely to act. If he cannot explain that, let him tell the House that he cannot, and let him be man enough to withdraw it.
    Mr. THURTLE: The Parliamentary Secretary is a most disappointing man. You never know whether you have got him. Even for a Conservative Minister, he shifts his ground with extraordinary ability. I was listening to him lees than two hours ago, and he said that the purpose of the Clause was to punish those who were deliberately and persistently breaking the law. "Persistently" is the whole point of this Amendment, and we ought to get his support for it, because we want to establish the point that members of local authorities shall not be surcharged until it is proved that they have been persistently breaking the law. "Persistently" surely involves the breaking the law on more than one occasion. That is why I say that the Parliamentary Secretary is so unreliable, because within two hours he has entirely shifted his ground. I said that we are merely asking in this Amendment that members of local authorities should be treated, as it were, as first offenders, that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, even if they have, as it appears to the Minister, committed some offences against the law, which surely might be reasonably conceded, the law being so vague and uncertain that they did not know what they were doing. Therefore, they ought to be given the same kind of chance that the first offender is given.
    A greal deal has been said about the excellent services rendered to the community by men and women who serve on public authorities, and I think, before we impose upon them heavy penalties such as these, we ought at least to see that, in the matter of law, they are put on an equality with other people
    1936
    who are apt to transgress the criminal law for the first time. The whole point of our argument in connection with this Clause is that you are attempting to penalise opinion. It is a clash of opinion as between this new Daniel come to judgment, who is the district auditor, and the opinion of the local authorities. It is also a question of political opinion. I see that the Minister himself, speaking in Committee on this Clause, said:
    "Under the new form, we divide cases of disallowance and surcharge into what I will call the ordinary and extraordinary. The ordinary are the cases of error made in good faith, which have been the subject of surcharge in the past and where the surcharge has frequently been paid. The extraordinary are cases in which disallowances are made in respect of expenditure whch is due to political policy rather than to purely local municipal considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 23rd June, 1927; col. 42.]
    7.0.p.m.
    Therefore, the point at issue as between the district auditor and a local authority is as to what is a reasonable political policy. The Minister will admit that in the Debate on the last Amendment his whole contention with regard to reasonableness was completely shattered. That was proved when the Minister said the point at issue was not whether a thing was reasonable or not, but whether it was so unreasonable as to become illegal. If the auditor is the judge as to the degree of unreasonableness which makes a thing illegal, he, surely, is the judge as to what is reasonable or not. The whole issue, therefore, is narrowed down to this. A local authority may have a policy which it holds quite sincerely, and may attempt by means of administration to carry that policy into effect, and the district auditor comes along and says, "In my view this is not a reasonable policy. Although you put this policy before the electors and it has been approved by them, and although you are carrying it out in good faith, and in all sincerity, and not believing that you are breaking the law, yet, in my view, exercising my judgment as to what is unreasonable and what is not, you are breaking the law, and I am going to punish you."
    I do submit that in a situation like that, where everything is so vague, nebulous and uncertain, at least we might ask that, before final judgment is passed on these people, they should be given

    1937
    the benefit of the doubt, and that the first offence should not count. I am quite willing to concede that if a district auditor, in regard to any given act of policy, says, "This is illegal, and you have done something here which clearly transgresses the law," then, if a local authority deliberately flouts that opinion, having had the law laid down for it, and commits that act a second time, it may be said to have brought itself properly within the purview of this Clause. In that case it might be punished, though not to anything like the extent proposed in this Bill. Still, there would be reasonable ground for punishing it, but I think there is every reason why, as the law is so uncertain, members of a local authority should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should not be punished for the first offence.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: We hear a good deal about the limited number of the authorities upon whose case this Bill is based, and the relatively small number of offences which will possibly accrue under it, but I hold the view that this Bill is a kind of preparatory Bill. The Minister is preparing for developments in the realm of municipal administration, and this Bill is intended to deal with any advance that may take place in that direction. There are a number of public authorities who are now passing away from his school of thought to the school of thought represented on these Benches. They are being administered from an entirely different point of view, and the policy sought to be administered will be of a different character. The Minister is getting ready for that by providing himself or his office with these particular powers. The peculiarity about this law is its invidious character. You may have two members of the same town council. One may be a member of the water committee and another a member of the housing committee, and they may carry out almost identically the same policy in regard to the building of certain types of houses, and one man may be penalised under this Bill and, I take it, the other will not be touched at all. It leaves him entirely alone. This Bill refers to housing and education committees, and expenditure on certain town councils, but it does not refer to expenditure on other commodities, so that a certain policy may be pursued on certain committees and
    1938
    escape this Bill, but the same type of policy applied in other committees will bring the members of those committees under the whip of the Minister.
    I should like to know how far this is going, and how members of local authorities are to be instructed as to what they are to do, and what the district auditor is likely to pass? For instance, I have seen examples lately. I suppose members of various authorities have been encouraged to pursue their policy, because of certain propaganda that is going on in the country. There has been an agitation over the question of the use of certain motor spirit. I saw in the papers that certain public authorities had refused to purchase a certain spirit, supposedly Russian, although it was cheaper than the spirit supplied from other companies. These authorities had deliberately chosen a more costly spirit instead of using what is known as R.O.P. What would their position be? We have heard all about the interests of the ratepayers. Surely it is in the interest of the ratepayer, if he can get a certain commodity of equal quality, that the cheaper commodity should be taken. Generally it is supposed that the interests of the electors and ratepayers are served by getting equal quality at the lowest possible price. If local authorities—I suppose Conservative in colour—because of political bias chose an expensive material as against a cheaper one, where will they stand under the Bill, and how is the district auditor going to deal with them? Is this only to apply to questions which arise over wages or allowances by Poor Law guardians? It is very difficult to know where this law can be made to stop and how it is going to apply.
    Take the question of Poor Law authorities to whom this will apply. During the coal dispute of last year the Minister himself declared from that Box that the miners' dispute and their struggle had been maintained at the expense of the public purse, and that the public authorities had assisted the miners in maintaining their struggle. Are we to take it that he is to lay down the law in that particular way, and that the district auditor can say that in his opinion certain allowances should not be made? I suppose that the law can be enforced in that particular way for a purpose affecting a trade dispute where you have a question of the distress of a large

    1939
    number of people. Is this particular law going to be used toy a Conservative administration for the purpose of helping to break down industrial disputes, in the way in which it was indicated by the Minister in his speech during the dispute of last year it might possibly be done? It is because of questions of this description that we who are opposing this Measure desire that this particular Clause shall be altered in the way we suggest.
    It is difficult to see why a sum of £500 has been selected. In the expenditure of local authorities £500 is a comparatively small amount. I suppose that on every committee and on some housing committees of some local authorities the difference between a Yale lock and another one can make a surcharge of £500 possible, or a slight alteration in the architecture or the front elevation of a cottage, or the fact that some housing committees may desire a more beautiful type of house, can be taken up by the district auditor, who may declare that in his opinion it is utterly unnecessary. Quality can come into the whole question, and because a local authority in its wisdom believes it is cheaper to pay for a good thing, the district auditor can say that, in his opinion, they are entirely wrong, and a surcharge can be made. In all questions of that description, where there is no moral obliquity or political obtuseness whatever, men can be pursued and driven out of public life, their goods can be distrained upon, and their wages and salaries can be garnisheed at the bidding of a district auditor, acting, very probatory, it may toe, because he has had some glimpse of what is in the mind of the Minister of Health and understands what the Minister probably desires in that direction. I am quite sure that anyone who does not know the mind of the present Minister of Health must be a very obtuse person, and he will know if a policy he is pursuing is acceptable to the Minister.
    It is undoubted fact that this is directed against the Minister's own political opponents, and it is fair to assume that the district auditors are not immune from political tendencies. It is for these reasons that we are opposing this Bill all the way through, and it is because of the possibility of this small amount of
    1940
    surcharge of £500 that we urge this Amendment should be accepted, and that men should be given some freedom as far as public life is concerned.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I really must ask hon. Members once again not to speak on the whole Bill on each Amendment. It was done on the first Amendment, and now the same speeches are being repeated on other Amendments.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I hope I shall succeed, Mr. Speaker, in following your advice in the spirit and the letter. I did not intend to take part in the discussion on this Amendment, but I felt, and do feel still, that it was entitled to more recognition from the Government than it received in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman attempted to dismiss it contemptuously by describing it as a claim that a council should have one bite, and he wanted to impress the House with the fact that he was very strongly opposed to any such policy. I hope that the borough councils, when the time comes for expressing their judgment on this Bill, will remember that the hon. Gentleman ranks them as lower than his dogs. It has always been regarded as the privilege of a dog to have one bite. The hon. Gentleman would not extend that privilege to the honourable people who serve us in the local authorities.
    I think this is particularly an Amendment against which the Minister will have great difficulty in putting up a case. You have first of all to consider the ambiguity and the vagueness of the present words in the Bill in regard to the £500. I quite agree with the Minister that if you must take a lump sum it matters very little whether it be £500 or £l,000, because I have no doubt that all the objection that will be raised to the £500 could be equally raised against the £1,000. As I read his speeches, he has put that view with great force, and I think every one must admit there is a great deal to be said for it. But the very difficulty he encounters is the one which should induce him to give greater consideration to the possible consequences of the figure he has adopted. I may say, in passing, that the present Minister of Health seems to be frequently encountering difficulties in securing a reasonable basis for the Measures he introduces, and this one is no exception.

    1941
    Having secured our agreement that there would be difficulty in differentiating logically between the figure of £500 and that of £1,000, he should then recognise what inevitably follows. What may be legal for one authority within the Bill may be illegal for another authority which is also within the Bill; or, at any rate, if it be not legal, the action of one authority would not entail upon it the same consequences as would fall on another. Let me illustrate this. It might be, and I suppose it would be, and is, held to be illegal for the Poplar Board of Guardians to pay £4 a week to its manual workers. If the Poplar Board of Guardians were to do so, that would bring the members the banishment from public life prescribed in the Bill. On the other hand, if a small local authority in a rural district were to pay £4 a week to its manual workers, the fact that the amount so paid would not bring the total of the expenditure up to £500 would save the members of that council from being banished from public life. I think that is not disputed.
    That brings me to this point, that having ascertained the difficulties of making the Measure equally applicable in all cases, we should take steps to protect as far as possible the people who are likely to come under the hammer. Neither the Minister nor any of his supporters has claimed that the class of people we are dealing with here are people with criminal intentions. The Bill is not designed to deal with that class, it is designed to deal with honest men. It is really a Measure to punish honest men. The men and women who come within its ambit are people who are just as honest and just as desirous of respecting the law as are the right hon. Gentleman and the auditor himself, but they misunderstand the law, and one can easily excuse them for that misunderstanding, because there is no definition of the law. It does not follow, because it is legal at the moment to pay £3 10s. a week to labourers in Poplar, that it will be legal to do so next year. The action takes place first and the punishment is to be laid down afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman always escapes from the contemplated punishment by saying, "Oh, but the Council have the right to appeal." I think that argument about the right of appeal has been shattered, and that no
    1942
    one now says that it will be sufficient protection for the honest man who has given his vote believing he was acting within the law. The Amendment asks that the auditor when he examines the accounts dealing with recurrent expenditure should intimate to the council what he regards to be so unreasonable that it amounts to illegality.
    As I have pointed out already in another discussion, this Clause is aimed at poor men, not only honest men but poor men. It is laid down to this poor councillor that what he has been doing, however unconsciously is an illegal act, and that he is about to be surcharged. He has not the means to enable him to appeal to the Courts, and even though it be his first offence, it means that he is to be heaved out of public life. The Amendment says that he ought to get another chance. The auditor having laid it down that the expenditure is illegal, he will know that if he continues to sanction that expenditure in future he will do it with his eyes open, and be subject to the punishment of the Bill. I submit that is a very reasonable Amendment to put forward. If we have to accept the Bill, the Government should make it read in such a way that honest men who cannot afford to protect themselves by the right of appeal to the Courts should be protected in the manner indicated in the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had not intended to speak upon this particular Amendment, but one or two things which were said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have tempted me to get up, because I think he has omitted to give attention to important parts of the Bill which follow the particular Clause we are discussing. He has seen what some of his friends with less logical minds have not seen, that on this Amendment the question of the amount of £500, or why it should be £500, is entirely irrelevant. The question is not the amount of the surcharge which should entail disqualification, but whether any lump sum of any kind should form the basis of disqualification, or, rather, whether it should not be sought to take an entirely different test for those cases which are to be surcharged and those which are not, namely, whether or not a person has been surcharged twice for the same sort of expenditure. That being so, I have

    1943
    not to defend the figure of £500, but rather to defend the proposition that a lump sum of some kind should be fixed, and to show why the proposal in the Amendment is not one which can be accepted by the Government. It has been stated over and over again that a perfectly honest member of a local authority might very easily, although in good faith, and with no intention of breaking the law, be led into a course which would expose him to these penalties and disqualifications by reason of the caprice of a district auditor or a difference of opinion between one district auditor and another. That is not really what this Bill does, and any account of it which gives that impression is misleading, because it does not take into account the fact that we have endeavoured, and I think successfully, to put in careful and effective safeguards for the member of a local authority who makes a bona fide mistake.
    Scorn has been poured upon the procedure of appeal which is provided in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says the Bill is aimed at poor people, and poor people obviously cannot go to the Courts because of the risk of the cost which they may incur. I dispute that, in the first instance because I say that the cases which would come under this Clause are not the outcome of action taken by individual poor people merely to satisfy whims or caprices of their own, but are cases following on a deliberate policy adopted by a number of persons, and those who are responsible for persuading them to take up that policy will, I have no doubt, find means to protect them if they are surcharged by an auditor. That is not all I have to say. The poor man who has made a mistake unintentionally, who in his doubt as to what the law was has been led into voting for, or sanctioning, or becoming responsible for, expenditure which afterwards is shown to be or is deemed to be illegal by the auditor, has not to appeal to the Courts. He has an appealing to the Minister. [Interruption.] Really, hon. Members are getting a little unreasonable. First of all, they say it is so expensive to appeal to the Courts that a man cannot undertake it, and when I point out that he can go to the Minister, which costs him nothing at all, they apparently are still not satisfied.
    1944
    If he can show that he acted in the belief that his action was within the law, he can get a declaration from the Minister. [Interruption.] The Minister will not always be a Member of this party.
    Mr. HARDIE: The question of party ought not to be a matter of getting justice.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of whether this proposal to allow two bites is going to work out in practice, I say it is perfectly obvious that it is a method by which the members of a local authority, if so desiring, can, by a careful and ingenious distribution of functions among themselves, so arrange their proceedings that the same person does not ever have to be surcharged twice. Therefore, it is merely another method of wrecking the Bill and defeating the object with which it is put forward.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The Minister of Health said at the beginning of his speech that the figure of £500 had nothing to do with the matter.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) also said it.
    Miss LAWRENCES: The figure of £500 worries me in this way. The cheap and easy appeal to the Minister is only possible when the sum is under £500. That is one of the things which we talked about in Committee, and that is why the figure of £500 is important. In the case of a large body, a very small mistake on items of expenditure might easily bring the surcharge over £500. For instance, a difference of a farthing a week on certain items of London County Council expenditure would mean more than £500. That is where the £500 comes in.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 2.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Sometimes the Minister finds me out, and sometimes I find him out. I admit that the Minister is right on this occasion. Now I want to come to the question of costs. The Minister stated in Committee what is the law and the practice. He was asked who paid the costs if the auditor lost the

    1945
    action, and he said the ratepayers pay the costs, because the auditor is supposed to be acting on behalf of the ratepayers. On the other hand, supposing the member surcharged lost his case, he would have to pay his own costs. These costs are not a little thing, either for the ratepayers or for the individual, if a case goes right up to the House of Lords, as happened recently in one instance. Even though the Council are proved to be right the costs in that case will fall upon the ratepayers—the whole of their own costs and the whole of the costs of the auditor. They may be the costs of a case through three Courts, right up to the House of Lords. I say that is a monstrous thing. In every case the ratepayers have to pay, and the individual may have to pay an enormous amount of costs incurred by having to go up to the House of Lords. All those who have taken advice in regard to their private affairs by consulting a solicitor or a barrister know that they are generally told that the law is a very uncertain method indeed. Consequently, it is almost impossible for a layman to judge what the cost of an appeal is likely to be. It is not easy for a learned gentleman to do this, and that is why we are pressing this Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Health said that it was not his duty to explain why the sum of £500 had been inserted in this Measure. All he said was that it was his duty to try and fined some particular test which would meet all sorts of cases and which would come under the terms of the Bill. By making that statement we feel that the Minister has more or less justified the criticism which we have made from these benches, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately set out to find ambiguous words in order that no administrator would know whether he was doing right or wrong, when he was culpable, or when he was acting in accordance with the desires of the Minister. This will only create a world of uncertainty, and local men anxious to do the best that they can for their own district are going to be prevented in many cases from giving their services to their particular locality because of the conditions laid down in this Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That argument has already been used by other hon. Mem-
    1946
    bers, and I must point out that the hon. Member is contravening the Rule by repeating arguments which have already been used.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Health, in reply to my arguments, said that this figure of £500 was of little or no concern, and the second Amendment is really consequential upon the Amendment now under discussion. It was because I thought the second Amendment would make the position clear to every local administrator that I entered into the Debate at all. The Minister of Health said a moment ago, when referring to the poor persons who might be brought under the terms of this Bill, that it is not quite fair to argue that it affects poor persons any more than the rich section of the community. We have been told that it would not be the individual who had been performing his local duty as he thought in a perfectly justifiable and legitimate manner who would be called upon to appear before the High Court. My contention is that it is the poor person who is likely to be brought under this Clause, and that has been fully justified by the statements which have been made by the Minister of Health. The figure of £500 is aimed at the right hon. Gentleman's political opponents, and that is something unworthy of any Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench.
    If the right hon. Gentleman will only try to show an element of consistency, he must admit that his political opponents administering in any local sense are quite as desirous of doing their best as any Members of his own party, and to create a world of uncertainty by this figure and a position under which no individual knows whether he is doing right or wrong is the last thing which the Minister ought to do. This figure of £500 is a very dangerous one, and ought to be eliminated. The Amendment which we have moved ought to be included so that when local town councillors have done what they conceive to be right, but which the auditor may decide is not right, they shall not be culpable and be placed in a position in which they will have to appeal to the Minister. I would not like to be the person who under those circumstances would have to appeal to the present Minister of Health. If a comparatively poor person is concerned in a matter of

    1947
    this kind, lack of finances would prevent him from getting justice, with the inevitable result that he would be disqualified, and would not be able to serve his locality for a period of five years. This Bill and the figure of £500 are not only inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's own actions and speeches, but they are inconsistent with the actions and speeches of the Members of his own party. Might I remind the Minister of Health, merely as an illustration, that each political party when appealing to the electorate is entitled to submit its own programme, and, if a programme be approved and afterwards applied, that should not be regarded as a criminal offence. The Members of the party opposite not long ago made an offer of £1 per acre for arable land—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going too far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am only illustrating what the party opposite did when they were appealing to the electorate. Town councillors are elected to perform their duty to the electorate. If

    Division No. 463.]

    AYES.

    [7.42 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Christie, J. A.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Albery, Irving James

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Atkinson, C.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Balniel Lord

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Bearnish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cope, Major William

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Harland, A.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Dawson, Sir Phillip

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Drewe, C.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Briscoe. Richard George

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    False, Sir Bertram G.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Buchan, John

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Forrest, W.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Cassels, J. D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Camber, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Gates, Percy

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    after a period of 12 months or three years they find themselves giving holidays to their employés, or exceeding the amount of wages paid by other local authorities, they may ultimately find themselves in the hands of the auditor, and I suggest that that is very unfair. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try and show some element of political fairness. Let the person undertaking public work understand exactly where he is, and, when he makes a mistake according to the interpretation of the auditor, he should at least have the chance in his future work of putting that matter right without being compelled to appeal to the Minister of Health or to the High Court. I think this Amendment is one which ought to appeal to the sense of fairness of the Minister of Health.
    Mr. LANSBURY Mr. LANSBURY rose—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 115.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Oakley, T.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Starry-Deans, R.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Preto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Pilcher, G.

    Sudden, Sir Wilfrid

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Preston, William

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tasker, R. Indigo

    Long, Major Eric

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Looker. Herbert William

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Waddington, R.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Rye, F. G.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Wells, S. R.

    Meller, R. J.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Merriman, F. B

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wilson, R. R. (Safford, Lichfield)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Savery, S. S.

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Withers, John James

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Morder, Col. W. Grant

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Skelton, A. N.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Slithers, Waldron

    Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scurr, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sinclair. Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch. Charles H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Travelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mackinder, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Duncan, C.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Goslings, Harry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 464.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Albery, Irving James

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Field, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Oakley, T.

    Atkinson, C.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Herring, Sir William George

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Balniel, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Bearish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Phillips, Mabel

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Pitcher, G.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Preston, William

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hanbury, C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harland, A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rye F. G.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Salomon, Major I.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hills, Major John Wailer

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Buchan, John

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Burman, J. B.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sassosn, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Savery, S. S.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Skelton, A. N.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Clayton, G. C.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cent'l)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)

    Cope, Major William

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Suqden, Sir Wilfrid

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Tasker, R. Indigo

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Locker-Lampoon. G. (Wood Green)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Long, Major Eric

    Burton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Looker, Herbert William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Waddington, R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Luce Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Drewe, C.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wells, S. R.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fenby, T. D.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Withers, John James

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Forrest, W.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Monsen, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Gates, Percy

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Morris, R. H.

    Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Barnes, A.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bate, Joseph

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')

    Baker, Walter

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    1952

    1953

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Snell, Harry

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Compton, Joseph

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Duncan, C.

    Mac Neill-Weir, L.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gardner, J. P.

    Montague, Frederick

    Townend, A. E.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Westwood, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hardie, George D.

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Windsor, Waiter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wright, W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Mr. MARCH: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words six months."
    I do not think that the Minister can nicely refuse this Amendment, because I am certain that he is not inclined to have such a penalty imposed upon any person in a local authority who may make a mistake. Everyone is liable to make mistakes, and honest mistakes can be made as well as bad mistakes, which the Minister seems always to have in his mind. At a meeting the other day I heard an archdeacon say: "Everyone is liable to make mistakes; they make mistakes every day." Indeed, he went so far as to say that the person who never makes a mistake never gets very far ahead. That also applies with great force to the Minister of Health himself. In the matter of Poplar's position, the Minister made a mistake, and I am inclined to believe he made an honest mistake; and it was not because it was done hastily or hurriedly, or with any pressure upon him, that he made that mistake, and it could not have been due to want of knowledge of the law, because he has the opportunity of getting the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown before he gives a decision. I do not think he did it because of his great
    1954
    love for Poplar or the Parliamentary Secretary's love for Poplar. He has no love for Poplar or for any of its representatives. He has proved that over and over again.
    A little further on we shall find that the House will be asked to indemnify the Minister for having made that mistake, and if the Minister, as I believe he is entitled to be, is indemnified for his honest mistake, there is all the more reason why humble persons on the borough councils or boards of guardians or boards of education should also have consideration given to them. With regard to an appeal, we find that it is only where a surcharge has been imposed that appeals are allowed, and then comes this disqualification period of five years, which we think is exorbitant for a case of that kind. Having made a mistake and committed an error and the penalty for a surcharge of £500 or over has been imposed there is no question of a reduction or an opportunity to appeal against the five years disqualification. If the surcharge be upheld, persons are unable to put up as a candidate for any local authority. That is a very severe sentence which ought not to stand. We consider six months would be ample to meet a case of that kind. If we were to apply the same principle to the Minister

    1955
    of Health who committed an honest mistake, and we imposed a penalty in proportion he would be disqualified for 50 years. I think we ought to try to equalise things. Ordinary people who do not know much about the law do their best to deal out justice to their employés and transact the business of the council in the way of contracts for goods, and it is not right that they should be so penalised if they make a mistake which is pointed out to them probably two years after the mistake has been made, for the audit does not take place probably for a year after the year in which the mistake has been made. All this disqualification ought not to be in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give the Amendment his consideration and realise that he has made a mistake.
    Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It seems to me that the figure of five years, like the figure of £500, has been selected haphazardly. Having £500 as a surcharge, the Ministry told themselves that they would have five years as a. disqualification. I could have understood it if the Ministry had made the proposal that the disqualification should be one period of service on the council. Local authorities which are brought within the provisions of this Bill are elected for three years with the exception of a small number of aldermen. Here we have a period which is neither two periods of the council's existence nor one. The five years is selected without any basis at all, and I suggest that there is no reason at all why this period should be inserted in the Bill. On the other hand, I think the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) are absolutely cogent. If a man has honestly made a mistake, he is going through all the legal paraphernalia of the provisions of this Bill, and that will be quite enough worry and responsibility for him without having these further penalties imposed. A six months' period seems much more reasonable than the one incorporated in the Bill.
    I do not suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is in any sense of the word open to conversion on this point. The Ministry are in a condition of what the theologians call invincible ignorance, and
    1956
    persons who are in invincible ignorance cannot be reasoned with. They are only to be pitied. We can only pity the Members of the Ministry responsible for this Bill. They are really trying by a side wind to bring into this country a procedure that is carried on abroad. They believe in central control of local government and that they ought to follow a French method. They have not the courage to say that, but they appoint a district auditor over whom the Minister himself has no control, who goes along his own sweet way in the same position as a Judge of the High Court with nobody to call his action into account except that we can call the High Court Judge to account by resolution. We cannot attack the Minister on the auditor's work, because the Minister is not responsible for it, and merely to move the reduction of the salary of the Minister will not affect the district auditor at all. That gentleman goes and makes his interpretations of the law and says that people who are giving their full time and energy to the service of the council are to suffer as they will be made to suffer under this Bill. It is an absolute scandal, and I would prefer the Minister to be honest about it and say what he really wants instead of proposing this Bill which only aims at five councils in the country.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) said that the Ministry of Health were not prepared to accept any reasonable Amendments to this Bill, because I notice that on the 20th November the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) stated at a Labour meeting that
    "Mr. Chamberlain had so far amended the Bill and brought forward other proposals that authorities in London recognised that it was impossible to resist the Bill any further."
    Amendments were accepted in Committee, and it is unfair to suggest that the Ministry of Health are not prepared to accept any Amendment to this Bill. The hon. Member for Bermondsey is certainly an authority on the matter, and, when he says that the Bill has been so far amended and other proposals have been brought forward that it is impossible to resist the Bill any further, I think his view may be accepted.
    Dr. SALTER: I am bound to say that is an entire misquotation of my speech

    1957
    on that occasion. It is a reporter's error, anyhow, and the report did not in the least degree reflect what I said.
    Sir K. WOOD: I was quoting from the "Daily Herald," which I thought the hon. Gentleman would not dispute. Dealing with the Amendment in question, I think there were unfair accusations against my Department, because I gathered we were guilty of what the hon. Gentleman who spoke last calls invincible ignorance on this matter. I suggest to him that he might reconsider his own view of this particular Amendment. I think he has said that if a particular authority made a genuine error or honest mistake, five years' disqualification would follow so far as the members of that borough council were concerned who made this particular error. If he looks at the terms of the Bill, he will see that it is only in the event of a member of the local authority being unable to satisfy the Court that he acted reasonably or in the belief that the action was authorised by law. I put it to the hon. Gentleman who has had many years in municipal life, that if a person acts neither reasonably nor in the belief that his action was authorised by law, it is not a cruel or harsh thing that he should be disqualified for five years from service in public life in this country.
    Mr. MARCH: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not expecting it is going to happen to me, because I am not speaking for myself, I am speaking for others.
    Sir K. WOOD: I have too much respect for the hon. Member to think that it would ever happen to him. [Interruption.] Under this Bill, the penalties are increased, and I think rightly so. I must put it to the House that if a person acts in this way and is guilty of persistent illegality, which has been the subject of reference by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal party, I do not think a member of a local authority can complain if he is disqualified from serving for five years. If he is unable to go to a Court and say, "I acted reasonably and in the belief that my actions were authorised by law," I do not think he has much ground for complaint. As regards the exact period of five years, we have taken
    1958
    what may be called a middle course. A person who was guilty of certain offences under the Act of 1889 was disqualified from service on local authorities for a period of seven years.
    LANSBURY: What was the offence?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member is interested in it&—I hope he is not&—it was corruption. In this case, so far as ratepayers are concerned, the loss is very considerable indeed. There is no reason why they should permit the offence, and my own belief is that, after the passage of this Bill, we shall have very few people, perhaps no one, who will suffer the disqualification mentioned in this Clause. At any rate, my reply to the hon. Member is that, if a person acts unreasonably and in flagrant disregard of the law, I do not think he can complain that he is going to be disqualified from serving on a public body for five years. For that reason, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. OLIVER: Does the hon. Gentleman justify two penalties being imposed for one offence, because, if a member is surcharged, he is likely to be proceeded against in civil proceedings for the refund of the money, and, in addition to that, he now suggests a penalty of a five years' disqualification?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the answer to that is that unfortunately the remedy of the surcharge has proved wholly illusory, and that is the difficulty of the position. If we had been able to enforce the provision, as was said in the Debate I quoted, and make the persons concerned really suffer for the offence they had committed, there would be some reason for not proceeding with this Bill, but it has not been possible to inflict the penalty, and it is for that reason that we have been obliged to adopt this other remedy. It is simply on that account that the further penalty is imposed in this Measure.
    Mr. GROVES: I desire to support the Amendment. The main provisions of the Bill do not affect West Ham, but the work connected with our Education Department will be in large measure affected by it. Therefore, I am very

    1959
    interested that we should change five years to six months, and I do not think we ought to move that six months be inserted. I would much rather have a Judge-made decision than a Ministerial decision. I think the law you are now going to impose upon us has not that degree of general British understanding associated with exposition in the Courts. I think it is an imposition by Ministerial minds, who desire to impose restrictions on local authorities and the particular branch with which I am dealing, that is, the education side. The reason I am against this is because in West Ham we are obviously confronted with increased expenditure connected with the educational side. Whether we like it or no, we face it. We are feeding so many additional children that in the ensuing year we shall incur over £10,000 additional expenditure. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that this expenditure, which has been incurred in face of the powers and the persons sent us, again by Ministerial authority, will not come under the ban of the Government auditor? There have been times in the history of this country when men in this House have been justified in standing up against the application of the law of the land in certain specific instances, and when the law is being used merely to circumscribe the activities of local representatives merely because in their application they are broad and democratic. I come back to my point and ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can assure me whether the £10,000 additional expenditure that we are compelled to incur exclusively for feeding school children, mainly resulting from the Ministerial decision to impose the three guardians instead of 50, will not come under the ban of the local district auditor.
    If it does, it is reasonable for me to assume that that £10,000 will be considered to be excessive expenditure. From all other standpoints, moral or human, the expenditure is justified, but probably from the standpoint of the district auditor it is not only not justified but it would bring the person responsible for it within the ambit of this imposition. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that we should find ourselves surcharged jointly or severally.
    1960
    There are about ten of us on the Special Schools and Welfare Sub-committee. If we were warned by the local district auditor that this expenditure of £10,000 was unlawful, I could not come here and say we should withhold our work and discontinue. I think this position ought to be faced. In the history of civic administration there is a certain moment at which men have to face realities and not abstractions.
    Hon. Members will remember the origin of the adoptive Act which enables local authorities to feed school children. A Committee appointed by this House, after very comprehensive investigation, arrived at a decision and laid it down that the physical deterioration of Britain's manhood was due to the malnutrition of the children. I defend the position, whatever may be the consequences in the future, that the children in the County Borough of West Ham who are in attendance at our schools and need feeding, must be fed. If we did not incur this £10,000 a year additional expenditure, whatever may be the consequences under this Bill, there could be no defence for the men who refused to incur the necessary financial commitments in order to feed the children. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure me that in the incurring of this £10,000 expenditure we shall not be surcharged? There is no reply, and therefore I think we may reasonably assume that we shall come within the ban which is placed upon people because they are prepared to face the obligations of civic administration.
    Mr. VIANT: How many members will be affected?
    Mr. GROVES: The hon. Member wishes to know how many members of the Special Schools Sub-committee will be affected. Ten members will be affected. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that he will be doing England no great service if he removes from public life ten people connected with the administration of this money in the County Borough of West Ham, and imposes a disfranchisement of five years upon them. That will not be merely a punishment of a particular individual or individuals. These persons have been responsible for this particular expenditure, the money has in reality been expended, and when I speak here 12 months hence I hope that I shall be able to say that a further £10,000 has

    1961
    been expended in feeding the poor children of West Ham. We shall say that we have spent a further £10,000 on these poor children, and we shall be proud of it. If you surcharge or disfranchise the ten people concerned, you will be punishing the council and the area, because most of these people have been civic administrators for over ten years. They are thoroughly qualified and acquainted with all the details connected with our great Borough, the second largest borough in the kingdom, with a population of over 300,000 and a school population of over 62,000.
    By the interposition of the powers given in this Bill, you are repressing and oppressing the democratic working class thought in this country and there is no justification for such action. It is very extraordinary that in a country such as ours, where the democratic march has gone steadily on by repressing the Crown, the Barons and the Lords, that you should now be proposing measures of an oppressive and repressive character on democratic public representatives. It is a Gilbertian situation. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that we in our borough have had about enough of it. We have been trying to prevent the destitute from becoming greater in number, and now we are presented with a Bill which will crib, cabin and confine the activities of working class representatives. Such a course cannot be defended in the Courts, and what cannot be defended in the Law Courts should not be defended in the British Parliament. I support the Amendment because I feel that the borough which I have the honour to represent will be enmeshed in it. It will not make the work of administration more pleasant in areas like West Ham. We have had enough, we have suffered enough, and we do not want such a Bill. I hope that hon. Members will support us when they realise the kind of injustice that has been and is to be imposed upon working class democratic representatives in this country, men and women whose only disability is that they have no money and they have not the financial power to defend their interests in the Courts and, because of that, a great, strong, Tory Government with money takes advantage of the representatives of the poor.
    Mr. VIANT: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has raised
    1962
    a very important point. The Bill is devised to act as a deterrent. It will have a deterrent effect in more ways than one. My hon. Friend has given an instance where an expenditure of £10,000 has been embarked upon in circumstances of administration from which the members of the West Ham authority could not escape. They have been compelled as administrators to come to the assistance of these children. The expenditure has been incurred to the extent of £10,000, and I understand that 10 persons are responsible for the administration of that amount. According to the provisions of this Bill, those people are liable to a surcharge of £1,000 each. From the point of view of equity, instead of laying down a definite penalty of five years, the Government might have laid down a graduated scale, because the circumstances spoken of by the hon. Member for Stratford are twice as bad as those anticipated in the Bill. The men or women who have been responsible for an expenditure involving a surcharge of £500, are to be banned from public life for five years, and those who have incurred a surcharge of £10,000 are only to be banned from public life for five years. There is no sense of equity in it.
    It will be exceedingly difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary to defend that principle, although I know he is exceedingly clever. I would not care to be put in his position and be asked to defend it. We have had experience of the Parliamentary Secretary defending some very extraordinary principles. The Bill will be a deterrent in a way that has not been anticipated by those responsible for drawing it up. Since when have we been confronted with a situation where we have a surplus of capable men and women prepared to stand for election on local authorities? I should be pleased to learn that even the Conservative party are in that fortunate position. At the present time, they are confronted with a situation in the rural and urban districts where they are at a loss to find candidates to contest seats.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I do not think that that matter has anything to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. VIANT: I am giving an illustration of the effect of this Bill; the diffi-

    1963
    culty there will be in getting men and women to stand as candidates for local authorities. At the moment no political party has a surplus of efficient men and women who are prepared to come forward as candidates, and when the penal Clauses of this Bill become known we shall be far less able to persuade them to stand as candidates. What are the reasons for these penalties imposed? For what crime are they to be imposed? They are to be imposed for a crime which is undefined. There is no definition in the Bill, and rather than run this risk men and women will not allow their names to be put forward as candidates. If a man or woman serving on a local authority commits an error they are to be penalised, although they may have done so with the best of intentions. There is no give and take in this matter. The Minister, or his Department, takes the matter up. It comes to the Court, and ultimately it is found that the right hon. Gentleman, through the recommendations of the district auditor, has brought a charge which cannot be proved. But the Minister, or his Department, is not to be subjected to any penalty whatever. There is no sense of equity there. Our Amendment is quite reasonable. If it is not, then the right hon. Gentleman should suggest an Amendment which will be more in keeping with the equity and justice than the Clause is at the present time. On these grounds I support the Amendment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary gave us just now the greatest condemnation of the provisions of this Bill and the greatest justification for the Amendment we are now moving. He quoted from an Act of Parliament which imposes penalties on persons who act corruptly, take bribes and generally behave themselves like scoundrels, and quoted it as an example of the legislation proposed in the present Bill.
    Sir K. WOOD: With the exception of seven years.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You want to put us on a level with that class of person? I really think the Parliamentary Secretary should take that back, because in his heart he does not put us on the same level&—even the worst of us at Poplar, myself if he likes&—as people who are willing
    1964
    to sell their political opinions in order to make money for themselves. No one at Poplar, or in the East End of London, has been charged with such an offence as that to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except Conservative and Liberal candidates!"] I did not want to say anything like that, because for my part I never feel inclined to sit in judgment on other people. What I want to rub in to the Parliamentary Secretary is that he himself will not stand at that Box and say that the people proposed to be dealt with under this Bill are in any way comparable with those who are dealt with under the Act he quoted. His quotation was entirely beside the mark. The other point, which has never been met, is that before these penalties can be imposed upon us we have a right to appeal to the Minister or to the Court, or in some cases to both. In the first place, the hon. Member has not answered the case that the man who is surcharged is not only to be punished by the disability of five years, but also has to make up the money, or become bankrupt, which is an entirely new penalty proposed to be put upon local government administrators. Up to now this side of the penalty has never been imposed, because it could not be imposed on poor people or on relatively rich people. There are very few people who have sufficient property in their house to cover a big surcharge.
    This House does not realise that this little Bill is imposing an entirely new penalty on a set of people against whom no criminal offence is charged. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour have given no answer to the case we have put forward. The Parliamentary Secretary says that when you go to the Courts you have to prove that you acted reasonably. It is very often a difficult question in law as to what is reasonable. I am speaking within the recollection of some hon. Members who followed the discussions which took place in the Courts between myself and other borough councillors and the Judges. The Judges said over and over again that they were quite convinced of our bona fides, that we had all acted in what we considered to be a proper manner, but we lost the case all the same. We went to prison for six weeks. It did not matter whether we had acted according to the best of our judgment or not. Then

    1965
    the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary never attempted to meet this point, that we have to find the money to take proceedings in order to escape the five years banishment. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there will always be some people, some organisation, willing to find the money for us to fight it. He is making a great mistake. We have no rich corporations behind us, we have no rich people who want to, buy honours. We have no means of raising the money, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member. It is quite an illusion that we should be able to get the money to go to Court. Neither have they met the point that if we won the case the auditor's costs have to be paid by somebody. I am not sure whether under this Bill they have not to be paid by the person who is appealing against the decision. Secondly, in any case, the costs have to be met by the ratepayers or by those who make the appeal.
    The point I emphasise more strongly than ever is that the money which is to enable them to go to, the Court cannot be found by the majority of those who will be attacked. The Minister knows perfectly well that in the main they will be only poor men and women who will come under the ban of the auditor in this sort of case. The Minister says to us, "After all you have an appeal which will not cost you anything; you can appeal to the Minister." I have a great respect for the Minister of Health and for the Parliamentary Secretary in some ways, but I have not the least respect for their impartiality where I and my principles are concerned. They are both my political opponents; they think that the putting into practice of my principles and my ideas of what is right is an evil to the community, and it is their duty to pull me up if they can, because they think I am going to do evil not only to my own district but to the nation. I can quite easily envisage them standing at the Box opposite and defending the non-remission of a surcharge in the case of myself and my friends. Therefore, I have not the least faith in their impartiality or in their freedom from prejudice in judging whether I am a person who ought to be subject to these penalties.
    I want again to recall to the House the fact that, although this is a very little Bill and although it looks a very
    1966
    harmless Bill that is merely going to put right some small matters, yet it is a Bill that is going to interfere very heavily indeed with the rights of working people acting as administrators. When the Parliamentary Secretary tells us about our right of appeal he knows that the people who have launched the campaign which has resulted in this Bill with its penalties, represent branches of the Federation of British Industries, and that they are determined by hook or by crook to cripple Labour administration on local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary is acting merely as a kind of catspaw for this federation, in order to prevent local governing bodies being controlled by working people. If there were any chance of the Bill being operative against county councils or borough councils manned by rich people, the benches opposite would be filled by Members who would be fighting the Bill. When the auditor deals with a poor borough he surcharges the members in a big lump sum and so brings us within the scope of these penalties. If it were in order I would be able to prove that statement by giving numberless instances, but I realise that I would be out of order in doing so. In the case of authorities that are dominated by persons of the same political opinion as the Parliamentary Secretary, when the auditors deal with them in the matter of surcharge, instead of taking a bulk sum that amounts, say, to £1,000 or £5,000, they pick out several tiny items and make it what is called a token estimate, so that if the Courts decide against the authority it is quite easy to have those items wiped off the minutes and off the financial statement. Under this Bill it will be possible for the auditors who have class bias to exercise that bias in future as they have done in the past. Because that is so I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LAWSON: One of the things that we have wanted to know from the Minister is why he has set the standard of five years and £500. I remember that the Parliamentary Secretary, when asked, said that he had taken the middle course. He did not explain why this was the middle course, except by referring to the seven years' penalty for corruption. Apparently that was sufficient, because he did not use any other illustra-

    1967
    tion to show why this was the middle course. So also we were told that £500 was the proper amount because it was the proper amount. It is necessary to recall now and then what we are doing by this Bill. If a member of a local authority is surcharged he can be penalised for five years, not only in respect of the local authority immediately concerned, but in relation to every and any local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who has just spoken, has said that there are those who think that this is a small matter, but I can see how it is going to be a very important matter. Take an area like that which I represent. Labour has a majority upon practically every local governing body, up to the county council in the county town. There are forces and interests that object to that very strongly. The people whose lives are at stake in the various matters that are discussed day by day are working-class people.
    The logic of this Bill will be that you will have insignificant persons who, being wealthy and having social position, would band themselves together in hole-and-corner ways in order to punish men who were members of boards of guardians or rural councils and other bodies, and were at the same time members of the county council. You will have little cliques of individuals, representative of vested interests in each area, getting together in order to harass the auditor and call his attention to all kinds of matters, to compel him, by the Press and by publicity in various ways, to take an active interest in all kinds of items; and these cliques will concentrate upon the auditor in respect of boards of guardians and rural authorities in order to penalise and punish and to break up such representation as Labour has on, say, the Durham County Council. The Minister of Education has paid a tribute to the educational efficiency of that body during the past few years, and the Minister of Transport has paid tribute to its efficiency in respect of roads. But those same men, who are members of county councils, who may be aldermen, who sometimes have filled the position of chairman of the county council, if they are penalised as members of a board of guardians, will no longer
    1968
    be able to act on a county council or a rural council. That is a disgraceful attitude for any Government to adopt. On the question of appeals I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister should insist that there is any real value in the so-called appeal to the Courts. There is an appeal to the Minister, but what is the good of that if the Minister is a Tory Minister and the appellant is a Labour representative.
    Sir K. WOOD: It may shorten the discussion on this question if I state that, as far as the five years' disqualification is concerned, there is no appeal to the Minister. He has nothing to do with a matter of that kind.
    Mr. LAWSON: I appreciate the correction, but it might have been mentioned to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves).
    Mr. LANSBURY: And the hon. Gentleman might also communicate it to his chief.
    Mr. LAWSON: In the light of the statement just made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think the Minister of Health is entitled to make an apology to the hon. Member for Stratford. The appeal, I take it then, is to the Courts, but, as I say, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman insists that there is any chance in this provision for the average man or woman who is going to be penalised. There are people serving on local authorities to-day whose only asset, whose only wealth, is the ability which they are giving to the work of local government day by day. In areas such as I represent, there are men devoting experience and mental power to the public service who possess little more than the clothes they wear. There is not the slightest chance that they will be able to go to the Courts.
    In any case, we ask that six months should be substituted for five years. I agree that even six months is too much but, at any rate, the Amendment minimises the proposed penalty. I can imagine that the result of this penalty—and I think that is the intention—will be that many able men and women who are not of the same opinion as Members of the Government will be debarred from public life. The Government's line of action is clear cut. This Clause and the Bill as a whole, form part of the policy

    1969
    of the Government. I only hope that if ever we again occupy the Benches opposite, we shall be equally thorough and clear and forcible in pushing forward our policy. While the Committee Room upstairs in which this Bill was considered was not a haven of peace during the discussions, I imagine that matters will not be debated in the cloistered atmosphere in which we are now debating this Bill, when the time comes for us to put our policy into operation. I hope when that time comes, hon. Members opposite will be as well conducted and, if I may say so, as respectable as we have been to-day but I very much doubt it. I doubt if we shall get such an object lesson in conduct from hon. Members opposite as we have given to-night when we drive home our policy; although hon. Gentlemen opposite often claim to be able to teach us the rules of conduct in these matters.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I think we still want a little more light on this question. The penalty for making mistakes for a Government is to have an election and to get out for at least five years, and I think this five year penalty is probably an intelligent anticipation by the Minister of what is going to happen at the next Election—only in that case the penalty will be a recurring penalty.
    Sir K. WOOD: What about the last Election?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that we had no majority at either of the previous Elections. If we made mistakes, and I dare say we did, we had not time to make as many as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The question here is as between five years and six months and I think the Amendment raises a point which is worth consideration. An attempt is being made here to cut down the number of persons of a political complexion different from that of the Government, who will be able to take their seats on local governing bodies. This proposal is the complement of the general Conservative policy, which was admirably and frankly put at a recent conference where one of the party's representatives said that what they wanted was by hook or by crook—presumably mainly by crook—to see that the Conservative party was in power, whatever way the people voted. That statement was in reference to the House of Lords
    1970
    reform. I take it that this policy in the present instance has been dictated by the London Municipal Society—one of the most deplorable bodies with which a great city was ever cursed. These persons and the Ministers know that in the industrial areas they have no chance of getting Members returned by fair election and so they consider the question "How can we get rid of these people?" They say, "We will take them in batches and clear out a lot every year for five years and perhaps by the end of that time, we will have cleared out the lot." But that is not going to happen.
    What is going to happen is that the Labour representatives are going to be so harassed that many will find it an unjustifiable risk to remain on public bodies. It will be an unjustifiable risk for a man who has to look after a family and maintain children at school to go in for a gamble of this sort. What is the Minister inviting him to do? If he stands on behalf of the Labour party, he might just as well gamble a year's wages with a "three-card trick merchant" in the certainty of losing or try to guess under which thimble the pea is located. The district auditor is the only man who knows. We only know we are going to lose. The result is that these public bodies will lose the men who are the best local representatives at the present time —the steady, experienced, thoughtful man. Hon. Members opposite hope that then they will get Conservatives into these bodies, but they will not. The people have had enough of Conservatives. The only result will be that the character of the personnel of the councils will change for the worse. There are plenty of men of straw whom these penalties will not affect. They are the people who will man these councils, and the position will grow worse and worse.
    This five years' period is an endeavour to cut off the supply of capable councillors. It will not operate much in places like Poplar, West Ham, Stepney, and Shoreditch, because there are so many Labour people there that they will always find enough candidates to run, but it will operate in the smaller areas of the country, where employers and the Conservative party can bring pressure to bear on people so that they shall not stand as public representatives, and where there are only a few people who can give the time or have sufficient inde-

    1971
    pendence to be able to stand and voice the Labour view. They think that by putting this Bill into operation they will be able to eliminate those, and so stifle the voice of Labour on a number of the smaller local authorities. That is a pretty mean design; it is an extraordinary effort, which reminds me of a wealthy football team playing another team which is very poor but which plays well. The wealthy team find they cannot win, so they try to eliminate the players in the other team. If they could, they would buy them, but they cannot be bought, so they ruin them.
    It is all part of a general campaign, that is very clumsily conducted. We had a very clumsy exhibition during the past week on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, but all these Ministers play their part in one class war and endeavour to knock us out of Parliament in one way or another. They might get rid of a dozen Members of this House, they think, by first bankrupting them, and then there is the other method, of attacking the political organisation of Labour. They also attack the industrial side of Labour, and if, in spite of all this, we happen to get a majority on a board of guardians, they have the idea that the majority can be shoved out, and the Minister of Health can put in one of his Russian Commissars to run the show. I wonder that a really bureaucratic Minister like the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not go the whole hog and extend the other Act. Why did he not put in his representatives to run any council he does not like? Why do it in this retail manner, picking off a member here and a member there, and ruining him? Why not sweep away the whole lot? Why not pass a simple Bill and say that no Labour people shall ever get on any governing body? It would be quite in consonance with the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, with his friends, is frequently attacking Labour on the ground that we have made councils political.
    It comes extraordinarily well from the heirs of the people who are responsible for the Birmingham caucus rule—Birmingham, the most party-run town that ever was. I had the pleasure of visiting Birmingham the other day, and I was very much surprised at what I found was
    1972
    still going on in the heart of West Birmingham, after 50 years of representation by members of the right hon. Gentleman's family. If the right hon. Gentleman would only put in force the law against some of the Birmingham councilors—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how this is in Order on this Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I was led away perhaps. I must apologise for a combative spirit and a slight military training which leads me naturally to attack the opposite Bench. To return to the five years point, which I have not mentioned just lately, if there is any sportsmanship left in the Minister he would think it enough to restrain these councillors for six months instead of for five years. Where he will hurt people by his Bill will be in the smaller districts, where political liberty is still very much hampered, where it is quite possible that most useful Labour members will be knocked off by these rather devious methods, and where the right hon. Gentleman will entirely suppress that excellent criticism that has done so much to make Conservative councils advance a little way on the road to good government.
    Mr. POTTS: I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision on this Amendment. When I see the small number of Members of the opposite side who are in the House, it shows to me clearly that they are disinterested in this matter. They think they have no responsibility, but the other side as well as our side, I hope to show, will have some responsibility under this Clause. The object of this provision, as I take it, is, in the Minister's mind, to prevent extraordinary expenditure by public authorities and to provide that money shall be expended in accordance with what he, as Minister, thinks ought to be expended in different places. Take the case of the guardians. The Minister proposes, apparently, to terrorise the guardians from making any extraordinary expenditure, with the object of driving them out. Supposing he succeeds in doing that, he cannot get rid of Labour representation, however he looks at it, because if he drives one man out, we have always another ready to take the position.
    Take the intention of the Minister to disfranchise men for five years in the administration of public work. We might

    1973
    agree with this period if it were intended for men who were criminals and were taking money not belonging to them or conniving at contracts to get money for themselves, but the object here is to deprive people of the opportunity of administering the law of the land. If the object is to diminish expenditure, it will simply result in making more criminals in this country than there are to-day, for if you take money from the relief of poor people so that those people cannot exist on what you give them, they will resort to doing anything in the way of theft and so on, and the result—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. POTTS: No doubt strictly you are perfectly right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I want to see the effect of this Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Every hon. Member might wish to state what he thought might be the effect of this Clause, and if that were done, we should never get to the end of the discussion.
    Mr. POTTS: Very possibly so. I happen to be one of those who have been surcharged. Under the existing law, the person who signs the cheque is liable. I happen to be the chairman of a committee, and we increased wages to what we thought was a reasonable figure. What happened? The auditor surcharged us, and because I was chairman I was surcharged for £100, but I had not signed the cheque, and it was ultimately found that the person who signed the cheque was the one who was liable, and not me as chairman of the committee. The Ministers object will never be effected. I want the Minister to look into this, because it will be found to affect his side materially. Take assessment committees. Nearly all the assessment committees in the country a short time ago were appointing valuers for the assessment of property without considering the guardians at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the actual Amendment.
    Mr. POTTS: I am giving a reason why the period ought not to be five years. The assessment committee appoint valuers, and that is illegal unless they have the confirmation of the guardians before they do it. Supposing an assess-
    1974
    ment committee appoints a valuer and spends £2,000, and that is found to be spent illegally, who will be responsible? It simply means that so far as assessment work is concerned the guardians will have to do everything and give orders before the committee can do anything in any shape or form. Six months, in my opinion, is far too much. There ought not to be any penalty at all, for the Minister ought to be well pleased that men, without receiving a single penny, are willing to devote themselves to public work. The way he is going means that men will not volunteer to do public work for nothing, and that he will have to pay for the work to be done. The Minister knows that, if all the work that is done has to be paid for, they could not go on. Therefore, I think the Minister ought to reconsider his position, and consider taking this penalty out. It is a monstrous demand. There are not a dozen individuals, on the Labour side at all events, who could pay £500 if such a penalty were inflicted upon them. If that be so, what does this mean? It means going to law. Who is going to pay the expenses? It will fall upon the ratepayers. Then, when you have secured a conviction, you cannot get the money. You can levy distress, but what earthly use is that?
    I hope, from a common-sense point of view, that the Minister will agree to take out this five years, and incorporate the six months, but I think that even the six months ought not to be there. If a man is not doing his duty, you ought to disqualify his service, and prevent him continuing in his position. I hope that these severe penalties, which can only be intended to get Labour men out of their positions, will be withdrawn. If it be not withdrawn, it will only convince the country that the Tory party mean to monopolise all positions of authority in this country; and the further the Minister carries it out, the worse it will be so far as his side are concerned. Do not imagine for a moment that we shall forget these things at the next General Election. We are not allowed to go into the case of Birmingham, but I know something of Birmingham and on another occasion I may get a chance of saying something about it. I do know this, that in Birmingham the right hon. Gentleman himself is being resisted in many ways, and things are not going smoothly there. Money

    1975
    beyond the average is being spent in Birmingham and the Minister has nothing to say. Not only that, but the law is being evaded in Birmingham and the Minister does not interfere. I still hope that the Minister will use common sense and withdraw this five years. His own side of the House make mistakes, and they have made mistakes in the past. What about the Irish question? Was not a mistake made then?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going very far from the Amendment.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Surely it is in order to take as an illustration the First Lord of the Admiralty and the action that he took, and to point out that if this Measure had applied to him he would have been out of this House for five years.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was quite out of order.
    Mr. POTTS: I got in the point, and it fits very well. The only other point I would like to make against the Minister is that I know of one occasion when the Government in one particular contract threw away £200,000. I can prove it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must really ask the hon. Member to obey my ruling; otherwise I shall have to order him to resume his seat.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to submit that a Member is entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a crime involving £200,000 may be committed in Birmingham, and that nothing to prevent such a crime is put into this Bill, where another one, involving only £500, results in serious penalties to the person who permits it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not seem to me to arise at all. The question is the difference between six months and five years.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Are we not in debate entitled to point to the partisan character of this Measure to show, on this Amendment, that it is not directed towards laying down general law for the country, but that it is merely a case of the Minister of Health and the Conservative party using their temporary power to put on the Statute Book of
    1976
    this country laws that in practice will apply to their political opponents only? Are we not entitled to point that out?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is far too great a tendency at the present moment to discuss the whole Bill on every single Amendment. It has been already debated by agreement on the first two Amendments. On the subsequent Amendments, hon. Members must confine themselves to the point at issue—in this case as to whether it is to be "five years" or "six months."
    Mr. ATTLEE: I submit that the question that we are discussing is as to how long a person who has made a mistake should be debarred from taking a part in public affairs. Is it not germane to refer to instances of Ministers who have made mistakes and been thrown out and have subsequently come back into power?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It seems to me singularly remote from the matter under discussion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This is a Bill directed against poor people, and surely it is in order on this Amendment to say that by this Bill the sentence on a poor person is five years, but that, if he belongs to His Majesty's Government and does a similar thing, there is no period of suspension at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would not be in, order on this particular Amendment, which deals only with the question of "five years" or "six months."
    Mr. BUCHANAN.: Surely a Member can bring out this point to prove the merits of the case. We can only prove merits or demerits by illustrations of similar things in other walks of life. I submit that a casual reference to the fact that a Minister of the Crown has not been punished for mistakes like these is perfectly in order, provided that it is not too long developed.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Is it in order for hon. Members to question the ruling of the Chair four or five times in succession on the pretext that they are raising points of order?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member suggests that I questioned the ruling of the Chair; I did nothing of the sort, but in a perfectly Parliamentary way I

    1977
    submitted an argument and asked the Chair what was the exact extent of the ruling.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it in order for an hon. Member to reflect in this way on the conduct of the Chair?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These points of Order have gone far enough, and all this has nothing to do with the Bill or with the particular Amendment. I hope hon. Members will return to the Amendment which we are discussing.
    Mr. POTTS: I should like to ask the Minister if he can give any information to the House as to whether assessment committees who appoint valuers are spending money illegally, and, if so, whether, if this Bill becomes law, it will apply to those particular people, who are largely represented on the other side of the House? Will he take the necessary proceedings against them? Again, supposing that a certain authority accepted a contract and that contract is afterwards found to be excessive and unreasonable, will the Minister take action against the contractors? I hope that the Minister, so far as Labour representation is concerned, will make the necessary alteration in this particular Clause.
    Mr. THURTLE: I would not have intervened in this discussion had it not been that the argument was so thoroughly one-sided. I have sat here listening to speech after speech of a most cogent character all relevant to the point under discussion, and there has not been a single reply from the other side. I should like to know what the great Conservative party is thinking on this very important point in connection with local government. We know what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are thinking, but we have had no sign whatever of what the great serried ranks behind them are thinking on this point. I cannot believe that the Conservative party or its members are so entirely indifferent to local government that they have no views on this matter. The Minister of Health in a devious manner is trying to emulate the tactics of the Fascisti in Italy. I regard this Clause as one great attempt to destroy local government. When the Fascist in Italy sought to destroy local government they adopted different means. Instead of enacting in their Parliament any Measure of this kind they resorted to force and
    1978
    to castor oil, and in that way they destroyed local government in the municipalities and communes of Italy. The Minister of Health is pursuing a different method. It seems to me that, if he pursues it thoroughly enough, he will in the end destroy local self-government in this country as effectively as the Fascisti have done it in Italy.
    I am very much concerned about our being able to get a satisfactory supply of candidates for our local authorities. It is a particularly acute question in the great East End constituencies. We have this tendency operating there. Conditions of overcrowding are very pronounced, and there is a tendency for the better type of citizen to seek to get out with his family into more congenial surroundings. That has the effect of diminishing the number of people whom we can call upon to act as candidates for our local authorities. The duties on those local bodies often involve heavy calls upon the time of the councillors and guardians. The men and women to whom we look are mostly working men and working women, and they find it very difficult to give the necessary time on relief committees and sub-committees in order to discharge their duties properly. Hitherto, in spite of those difficulties, They have decided that the cause of doing service to the public was of such importance that they were willing to share in those difficulties and hardships and sacrifice time which they could not very well spare.
    If in addition to that there is the threat to disqualify them for five years, many of them are going to throw up their hands in despair and say, "We are not going to offer ourselves any more as candidates for public bodies." That will increase the considerable difficulties we have in the East End in finding the necessary number of suitable persons to carry on the work of local government. In a place like Shoreditch, for example, we require no fewer than 42 borough councillors and 24 guardians, so that 66 members of the working-class men and women are called upon to sacrifice a good deal of their leisure time in order to serve the community. It is difficult to get that number of men and women who are really fit and capable for public work. In the East End of London we take the duties of local administration

    1979
    very seriously. We would not put up a man as candidate for the borough council because he has a title, for instance, if he were not fitted in every other respect to serve the public. Before putting forward a panel of candidates we have to consider very carefully whether they are men and women who are fitted in every respect to discharge their duties to the public, and it is not playing the game by local government to impose this very heavy penalty upon them for a crime which they may easily commit unwittingly.
    I would like the Minister to tell us on what grounds he has fixed the period at five years? A borough council is elected for three years, and so, too, is a board of guardians. If it so happens that a borough council commits an offence under this Act after the first year of office has elapsed, it will mean that the whole of

    Division No. 465.]

    AYES.

    [9.40 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Drewe, C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Atkinson, C.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    England, Colonel A.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Bellaire, Commander Canyon W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Gates, Percy

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Long, Major Eric

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Buchan, John

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Burman, J. B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Makings, Brigadier-General E.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Hanbury, C.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cazalet. Captain Victor A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harland, A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Merriman, F. B

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Christie, J. A.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Churchman. Sir Arthur C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Morden, Colonel Waiter Grant

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hills, Major John Wailer

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Cope, Major William

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Oakley, T.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Perring, Sir William George

    the members of the council will not only be excluded from offering themselves as candidates at the next borough council election but at the one succeeding that as well, so that they will be excluded from office for practically three periods. That is an unnecessarily heavy penalty, and in view of the weight of argument which has come from this side of the House and the complete absence of support for the Clause from his own side of the House, I think the Minister ought once more to reconsider the matter and see if he cannot agree to accept this proposal to substitute six months.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 210: Noes, 118.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, From)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Waddington, R.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Pilcher, G.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Preston, William

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Div., Belfast)

    Watson Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Skelton, A. N.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, C.)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wells, S. R.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Robinson, Sir T (Lancs, Stretford)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Withers, John James

    Rye. F. G.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sudden, Sir Wilfrid

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)

    Tasker, R. Indigo.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Savery, S. S.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snitch, Charles H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, Walter

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe,

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lannbury, George

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Mac Neill-Weir, L.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    March, S.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Diversities)

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Morris, R. H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Murnin, H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Duncan, C.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

    Owen, Major G.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Chine)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wright, W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barnes.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Question put accordingly, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Bill."

    Division No. 466.]

    AYES.

    [9.47 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bourne. Captain Robert Croft

    Albert, Irving James

    Balniel, Lord

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bearish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Allen, Sandman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Atkinson, C.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 114.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Price, Major C. W. M

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Buchan, John

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Burman, J. B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hills. Major John Walter

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Cayzer, Mal. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Rye, F. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Huntingfeld, Lord

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Clayton. G. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cope, Major William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Div., Ballet

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Slithers, Waldron

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmoreland)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Loader, J. de V.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Damson, Sir Philip

    Long, Major Eric

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Crewe, C.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    England, Colonel A.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tanker, R. Inigo.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Tinned, J. A.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Waddington, R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Gates, Percy

    Merriman, F. B.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Wells, S. R.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Morris, R. H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Withers, John James

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Oakley, T.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Hanbury, C.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Owen, Major G.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Harland, A.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wragg, Herbert

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Philipson, Mabel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Pilcher, G.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr

    Headier, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Preston, William

    Penny.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Cape, Thomas

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Closer, W. S.

    Gosling, Harry

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Baker, Walter

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenall, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Dalton, Hugh

    Groves, T.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Grundy, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Duncan, C.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    1984

    1985

    Hardie, George D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Sutton, J. E.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Paling, W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Townend, A. E.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Riley, Ben

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Ritson, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lansbury, George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Lawson, John James

    Scurr, John

    Westwood, J.

    Lee, F.

    Sexton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Whiteley, W.

    Loath, T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Mackinder, W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Mac Neill-Weir L.

    Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    March, S.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Windsor, Walter

    Montague, Frederick

    Snell, Harry

    Wright, W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Murnin, H.

    Stephen, Campbell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
    "nor to any person who has been surcharged unless he was a member of the committee responsible for recommending to the local authority the expenditure in respect of which the surcharge has been made."
    Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you are omitting the Amendment which stands in my name in line 17, after the word "authority," to insert the words "in respect of whose account the surcharge has been made"? This Amendment raises a very substantial point of principle, and my own Division will be very hardly hit by the harsh judgment that is laid down in the Clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to use the best judgment of which I am capable in all the circumstances of the case, and I call the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Ham North.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
    "nor to any person who has been surcharged unless he was a member of the committee responsible for recommending to the local authority the expenditure in respect of which the surcharge has been made."
    With this Amendment we enter on an entirely new branch of research. We have discussed the penalty, we have discussed what the crime may be, and now we are
    1986
    discussing who commits it. I said earlier in the evening that the one thing in the Bill about which there was no doubt was the penalties. Here they are in black and white—good, solid, substantial penalties such as any Member might rejoice to inflict on his political opponents. The extreme difficulty has already been pointed out of knowing exactly what the crime is, so that any councillor may be careful to keep himself clear; but, even if you know the crime, you are by no means certain what constitutes the committing of a criminal act. The Section under which we are working is Section 247 (7) of the Local Goverment Act, 1888, which reads as follows:
    "Any auditor acting in pursuance of this Section shall disallow every item of account contrary to law, and surcharge the same on the person making or authorising the making of the illegal payment,"
    and shall charge against that person the amount lost by his deficiency or negligence, and so forth. The important words are those which state that it is the auditor's duty to surcharge such items on the person making or authorising the making of the illegal payment. But who is the person making or authorising the illegal payment? There is no answer to that. The practice of auditors differs widely from time to time, from place to place, and from auditor to auditor. It used to be believed that the persons making or authorising the illegal payment were the signatories of the cheque, and the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) has told us that that is even yet

    1987
    the practice of the auditors in his district. That practice used to be followed almost uniformly, and, if you read the text-books of the year 1900 or thereabouts, you will find that it is set down by the London School Board in black and white that the usual practice of auditors was to surcharge the persons responsible for signing the cheque. If you look in the law-books you will find that that was due to the decision in a certain case in Ireland, namely, the Queen v. Calvert, in the Queen's Bench Division, 1898. In that case the Judge said:
    "In my opinion the only persons who may be legally surcharged are those making the illegal payment or directly authorising the payment out of the funds over which they have control."
    That seems to be all plain sailing, and the auditors of that day did, and, as we have heard, certain auditors even at the present day do, uniformly follow the practice of surcharging the person who signs the cheque. The practice of the auditors, however, varies in this way, that they sometimes make a token surcharge, which could not reach £500, and sometimes they make a surcharge of the whole amount.
    10.0 p.m.
    I want to give the House an illustration of how widely the practice of auditors varies, and how desirable it is to put some certainty into the law. We have increased the penalties, and the more we increase the penalties the more important it is to define the crime. Once upon a time there was an auditor who made a surcharge which upset the whole foundations of local government, a surcharge which occupied the time of Parliament for a Session, and which I think was a contributory cause of the downfall of one of the largest Conservative majorities even seen. The name of that auditor was Cockerton. Mr. Cockerton surcharged the London School Board, and he also surcharged, by implication, nearly all the other school boards of England and Wales—all the forward ones; and the interpretation of the Judges was that the London School Board and other school boards had entirely mistaken the meaning of the word "elementary" in the Act of 1870. They had spent vast sums of public money, with the approval of successive Boards of Education, in grants for this illegal purpose of education,
    1988
    which, in the opinion of the Judges of the lower Court and the Court of Appeal, was education other than elementary. The result was that, not merely was the Education Bill of 1902 brought on in a great hurry, but other indemnifying Measures, and a special Act for London, were passed, and the time of Parliament was occupied, with results which we all remember.
    I am saying all this to show what an extremely important case that was, and what large sums of money and what great questions of local government are concerned. But who and what did that auditor surcharge? The total sums involved would have been enormous, but he only took three tiny items. He took for that surcharge, involving in London hundreds of thousands of pounds, and a great deal more over the whole country, one sum of £36 6s. 10d., another of £4, and a third of £58. That was not £500 altogether, but it was a surcharge which raised the important political issues to which I have alluded. Moreover, he did not surcharge the Committee, he did not surcharge the school board, but he surcharged the six people who signed the three cheques, and, in this important matter of an enormous amount if illegal expenditure, he did not get up to £500 or anywhere near it. But our new auditors have quite different views. Take the Poplar case. In the case of the first Poplar surcharge, the auditor took, not token sums, but the whole expenditure —the £5,000, the £22,500 next year, and the £23,000 odd—I am quoting the last figure from memory. Those sums represented the whole of the expenditure by which the Poplar Borough Council had exceeded the amount of wages that the auditor thought fit. There is one point of difference between the token surcharge and the surcharge of the whole amount.
    If this were not so serious, I should say it was comic to take the whole council. He took every man for the £5,000 surcharge—every man and woman on that borough council—and so widely did he throw his net that he worked in the six Conservative members of the opposition, the six members of the municipal alliance. I have seen these gentlemen. They used to sit through in a state of unhappiness, bewilderment, and absolute helplessness. In council meeting after council meeting they have sat and shaken their heads saying a few words at the

    1989
    close. They were unwilling spectators, but when it came to the surcharge the auditor pulled them all in, sheep and goats. I remember the Judge looking down upon them from his great height, touched with compassion, and saying: "You find yourselves, gentlemen, in an unlucky position." We were all perfectly happy. We made speeches. It was a great occasion. We were proud and pleased to stand and explain before the Court the views which led us to take the course that we did. But the unfortunate six had nothing to say. The next time, I suppose, somebody in high position said to the auditor, "This is somewhat silly," for he carefully left out the whole Conservative minority. I am not quite sure what that was, but he did. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing knowingly to commit a crime and a very different thing if you cannot by any reasonable care guard yourself from the commission of a crime.
    I will give an instance of the minority in the council. They most certainly gave us no moral support, but I ask anyone to look at the position of members of a very large and complicated council. It is very difficult for any man to be quite sure in a big council whether or not the cheques which he signs are for legal expenditure. It is excessively difficult if you consider the sub-division of business in local authorities such as a rural county council. Take the case of an education committee. The council keeps in its hands only the general approval of the estimates. An educational authority in the country is as nearly as possible independent of its council, except for that one field-dress day in the year on which the estimates are settled. It is no use saying to me that an education committee in the country is sufficiently controlled because the council have fixed the estimates. Within these estimates the committee have a considerable amount of room. You have in the annual estimates so much money allocated to the cleaning of schools. An education committee will have discretion as to the material and the amount of money that is paid to humbler servants such as school cleaners; and school cleaners are precisely the people in regard to whom the education committee might get into trouble. The point in the mind of the Judges was not so much the
    1990
    wages for the men as the excessive wages supposed to he paid to the women. The auditor can surcharge the members of the council for crimes the members of the education committee create.
    What is done in the housing committee? So technical a branch as that is necessarily very little controlled by the parent body. There is the purchase of materials, for instance. It might very well be that the housing committee might use too expensive material. There have been instances where the Minister of Health has conferred with councils about that matter. The members of the council on this technical point necessarily accept the judgment of their committee. That is what you have a committee for, so that the council can lay down broad questions of principle and the business details can be dealt with by the committee. I would point out that the members of the education committee would not, and could not, examine the electricity accounts, for instance, so as to be quite sure of the correct wages and the correct amount of money, and yet in the absence of any instruction any member of the council may be surcharged for technical matters within the range of another committee, and there is no safety for members unless they themselves know not merely their own province in the council work but every other province with sufficient intimacy to be quite sure that there is no danger of any committees of the council, electricity, housing, baths and education overstepping the mark. That is quite an intolerable state of things. I know the Amendment is in effect an Amendment to the existing law. The existing law allows the auditor this very strange amount of latitude, but the matter becomes ten times worse when he affixes new penalties to the old ones, when you have not merely a crime which is shadowy but when you have no opportunity of knowing what makes a man a criminal, how far you are an accessory, and how far you are a principal. That always has been a very bad blot in the law. It has led on some occasions to the interests of justice being defeated.
    I gave in Committee an interesting case of how the auditor, by exercising a wrong discretion as to whom to surcharge, allowed a set of people for whom no word of defence could be spoken altogether to escape. I should rather like to remind

    1991
    the House of the picturesque and varied circumstances of the Killarney case. This is the case of a town council that behaved in a way no one could excuse, but the bad state of the law not giving the auditor sufficient clearness of direction, the whole gang got off. The story is this. The town council of Killarney had two irreconcileable factions. One wished the gas supply to continue, and the other wished the town to be lit by electric light. The electric light people got a majority of one or two, and they signed and sealed and duly delivered a contract to the electric light company. The partisans of the gas company were bonny fighters. They awaited their time, got a scratch majority together, and passed a resolution that the town should be lit by gas, and, under very irregular circumstances, they signed and sealed a contract for the supply of gas. All went on perfectly happily. The two contracts were running, one for gas and one for electric light. When I first read the report, I thought that the electricity had not been delivered, but I made further researches. I believe that for a few months Killarney blazed like the brightest jewel on Erin's bosom. The electricity people whipped up another council, got their little precarious majority, denounced all that the parisans of the gas committee had done, rescinded their resolution, and refused to recognise the contract. The gas company sent in its bill and the partisans of electricity, being in a majority, refused to pay it. Then the gas company county-courted the town council, and the county court Judge, giving judgment against the council, said that the gas had been duly supplied and the little irregularity in the contract was not sufficient to vitiate it. Then they had to pay up. Under the judgment of the Court, a cheque was signed to pay for the gas that had been supplied as well as the electricity. The auditor came down and was not altogether pleased with the disgraceful quarrel that had led to the unfortunate ratepayers paying twice over for gas and electricity, and, relying on the precedent of a wrong interpretation of a Section of the Act I have read, he surcharged the signatories of the cheque. The Judge, in giving judgment, said that he thought the only persons in the whole business who had acted decently and reasonably were
    1992
    the councillors who signed the cheque giving effect to the judgment of the Judge.
    Is it fair that sometimes they should take everyone, sometimes they should impose the full amount of the overcharge amounting to many thousands of pounds, and that sometimes at their own will they should take token cheques and surcharge only the people who incidentally signed them. I have a great respect for civil servants, but all civil servants are not always actuated by the best motives. Is it right to put a man into a position where he can blackmail Members if he likes? You do not always have good civil servants. You may get a black sheep. Under such circumstances, he would have the power of going to the council and saying, "I can make it a, token surcharge under £500 which will not hurt one of you, or I will make it such as to bankrupt you and drive you from public life." I hope that no civil servant would ever be so wicked as to use such a power for blackmail; but is it fair and reasonable to give any official, not subject in this part of his duty to the Minister's control, such a great power as that? He could do it well within the law. He could do it in such a way as to ruin people to bankrupt them, or he could let them off with something which will carry no disqualification. We would not even put a Judge in such a position.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point is not raised by the Amendment. The Amendment only proposes that a person shall be liable if he is a member of the committee.
    Miss LAWRENCE: My point was that you should say to the auditor, when things are wrong, "You must surcharge the committee." I want to limit the excessive powers to which I have referred. It is too wide a discretion to put in the hands of a civil servant for whom Parliament is not responsible. He is a civil servant of a peculiar kind, and to put this power in his hands might lead to favouritism. Therefore we have put down our Amendment. If the Minister has any better definition to offer we shall be satisfied. So long as the auditor is tied down to a limit, we shall be perfectly satisfied.
    Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.

    1993
    I trust that the Minister will give at least one concession on this Bill on the Report stage. It is not necessary for me to argue at length the reasonableness of this Amendment. The Minister tells us that he is bringing forward this legislation in order to deal with an evil which has arisen. If he desires to deal with an evil which has arisen he should bring the responsibility upon those persons who are guilty of the practice which he is trying to stop. At the present time, owing to the discretion which remains in the hands of the auditor, it is uncertain upon whom the surcharge will fall or as to the amount of the surcharge. In this Amendment the responsibility would come on those persons who are members of the committee which has settled in detail the policy which is being put forward. In every case the committee would have had the advantage of consulting the officials of the council and of having had pointed out to them what in the opinion of those officials is the law on the point. Therefore, when they have made their decision they will have made it with full knowledge of the facts, and there will then probably be a case, which the Minister wishes to stop, of people deliberately defying the law. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on most local authorities the work is actually done in the committees of the authorities. After all, the meeting of the council itself is practically only a recording machine for the business which is done in committee, unless there happens to be some great question of principle between the parties on the council. The right hon. Gentleman will know that in every council hundreds of recommendations go through every year without opposition, because the point has been fought out and considered beforehand in the committee. I suggest that the members on the committees, who are responsible for the expenditure which the auditor may deem it necessary to surcharge, are the people on whom the surcharge should fall.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment rightly quoted the Section of the Statute which defines the duties of the auditor in this respect, namely, that he has to make a surcharge on the person making or authorising the making of the-illegal payment. The hon. Member recognises that the present Bill will not make any
    1994
    difference in the existing law, but she founded her case on the fact that two penalties were being inflicted and that therefore it was necessary to lay down in the Statute some method by which the actual responsibility should be fastened upon the person who really ought to have the responsibility. I should agree, if a case had been made out that under present circumstances the system was working badly, that it would be necessary to look around for new methods to deal with these cases. But that is not so. It must be generally recognised that the present audit system is working extremely well throughout the country, and it is not the case that there have been constant complaints that the wrong people have been surcharged or that the responsibility has been placed other than on those who were really responsible for the acts so surcharged. It is significant that the case the hon. Member cited—a case with which I am not personally familiar—was from Ireland. I do not know that it has ever been thought necessary that what happens in Ireland must necessarily happen in this country, and when I come to the actual Amendment proposed by the hon. Member it seems to me that the remedy she proposes is a great deal worse than the disease she professes to cure. If you are to surcharge the members on the committee who recommend the authority to undertake the expenditure, you will not be sure that you are getting at the right people. I should certainly traverse the statement of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) that the work of local councils in reviewing the work of their committees is purely mechanical and there is practically no discussion on the matters brought before them—
    Mr. SCURR: Much of it, not all of it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, there are many subjects which are non-controversial which go through without any discussion, although they may have been the subject of prolonged discussion in the committee. But if you come to matters which are at all controversial my experience is that members of a council accept their responsibilities—
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will it include the minority as well as the majority?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am speaking of the members of a council as a whole.

    1995
    Neither the majority nor the minority of a council can evade the responsibility for the work of the council. The committee is not always the initiating body in expenditure. It is a common practice for committees to appoint sub-committees, and those sub-committees are in the same sort of relation to the committee as the committees are to the council. If therefore, you are to say that the committee which recommends expenditure is the only body upon whom a surcharge ought to fall, you must carry it further than that. The hon. Member recognises that that is so. Take the case of an Education Committee or a Housing Committee. They may have members who vote on the subcommittee for expenditure which comes before the committee; that is, all the members of the committee present at the particular meeting at which the matter is discussed. Are all the members of that committee, even those not there, to be subject to the surcharge, if a, surcharge is to be made?
    It is really impossible to tie down the auditor without knowledge of the particular circumstances in each case. The practice of the law, which is that the auditor is to use his own discretion and to try in the light of all the circumstances of the case to fasten the responsibility where it really belongs, is the only practicable way of working in this matter. I can imagine a still further case, where a committee may have recommended expenditure which, say, is doubtful and may not turn out to be legal. Some member of that committee, perhaps persuaded by the eloquence of those who are supporting the proposal, votes for it in committee. Before it comes up to the main council further information comes before him which leads him definitely to the opinion that the expenditure is illegal. Therefore, when the vote comes before the council, he votes against the proposal in favour of which he voted in committee. According to this Amendment that person would be surcharged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] All the members of the committee that recomment the expenditure are to be surcharged.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Amendment does not say so. It says that a man is not to be surcharged unless he is a member
    1996
    of the committee responsible for recommending the expenditure.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: That does not mean necessarily that all members of the committee are to be surcharged.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will concede the point that as the Amendment is worded it is so possible to exclude some particular individual. Nevertheless, I still return to the point that members of the council itself, who in the last resort have to sanction the proposals of their committee, must accept the responsibility for their decision, and I feel that the discretion of the auditor must be left unfettered, so that he may examine the circumstances in every individual case, take them all into consideration, and give his decision in the light of them. If, after all, he makes a mistake, there are methods open to those who have been wronged by his decision to put it right by appeal to the Courts and to seek the remedy there provided.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman must surely be forgetting the whole of his own experience in local government. He knows perfectly well that when the reports of committees, especially the reports of a finance committee, are brought up, it is impossible for the members of a town council to go over every item of the expenditure that comes before them. They would have to sit very much longer than this House would have to sit if we were to go through every item of expenditure which we authorise. In a memorable case where a Member of the Cabinet incurred illegal expenditure, we did not indemnify the whole Cabinet. We indemnified the particular Minister who committed the error, because any reasonable person would say that you could not hold all the Cabinet responsible for the error of one Member. Here you are saying that the auditor may have the power to deal with a borough council or a board of guardians in a manner which the right hon. Gentleman knows is quite unfair. I am certain, if he were to own up, that when he served in Birmingham he acquiesced in the expenditure of millions of pounds, most of which he knew nothing about.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am certain I am right in that statement, and I am speak-

    1997
    ing in the presence of many hon. Members who have served on local authorities. They know that a local body trusts its finance committee and they know that the finance committee has not time to overhaul every item of expenditure. When we come to the boards of guardians the case is even more on our side. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, the money for relief has to be voted and paid over to the relieving officer before the cases are dealt with, and, week by week, sums are handed to the relieving officer in order that when he comes to administer relief, he may have the funds at his disposal. What comes before the board for approval is not what is going to happen but what has happened. That is inevitable in cases of relief. You cannot possibly wait for the meeting of the board of guardians which may only be held once a month. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that he is misleading the House when he says that boards of guardians, as well as town councils, ought to be able to exercise this control over expenditure. It is quite impossible.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that the present system has worked well. What is the purpose, then, of this proposal? The simple reason for the proposition is that the London auditor—and I charge him with this as I charged him with it from this box before in dealing with Labour councils and Labour boards of guardians has instituted an entirely new practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows this better than I do because in this matter he has had more experience. He knows that it has only been in the case of Labour boards of guardians and Labour borough councils that the auditor has lumped the whole sum together and put it in such a fashion that the men and women concerned would be ruined by his action. When he deals with a county council he takes what may be called a token sum; but when he deals with a board of guardians or a borough council like Poplar, Stepney, Bethnal Green or Bermondsey he takes the whole amount. I say that is a deliberate policy which I believe has been instigated by the department—I am not going back on this—in order to defeat a policy of which the right hon. Gentleman disapproves. If it were not so; if the right hon. Gentleman were as fair as he wants the House to believe he is in this matter; if he only wanted to prevent the illegal expendi-
    1998
    ture of public money, then if our words are not the right words and if our plan is not the right plan let him propose words and a plan which are right. We say that this is the only method we can think of to prevent innocent people being brought before the Courts or to the right hon. Gentleman to get excused for something they never did. If you can tell us a better way to do it, we are willing to accept it, but do not lead the House to believe that under the present administration everything is all right, because your auditor has differentiated in his treatment—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not my auditor.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, your auditor. He sits in your office, and I am under no delusion about it. The auditor is continually in correspondence with yourself, both as regards Poor Law administration and as regards borough council administration. You cannot deny that at this present moment your auditor is down at the Poplar board; and he is acting under your instructions as to what he is to do at the Poplar board.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You say, "No, no," but I say, "Yes, yes." I shall not take that back, because it is obvious from what is going on there that it is being done in collaboration with the Department in Whitehall. But the point of this whole matter is that your auditor surcharged a whole body of men and women at Poplar, and when they came to the Court, the Court had to excuse a certain number of them who had had nothing whatever to do with it. That proves that the auditor had taken no sort of pains to inquire who was and who was not responsible. We all know—and the right hon. Gentleman cannot truthfully contradict it, no matter how much he may lead the House to suppose that it is not so—not what happened in Ireland, but what happens in London; we all know that when the auditor deals with the county council, he deals with them on an entirely different principle from when he deals with a Labour board of guardians or a Labour borough council. We do not assert that this Amendment is the most perfect way of dealing with the situation, but it is the only way we can think of in order to safeguard large numbers of people who

    1999
    might be put to the trouble of surcharge and be liable to all the penalties of this Bill when they are entirely innocent of any offence.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have seldom heard from the Minister a more unreasonable or misleading statement than the one he has delivered on this Amendment. The last point that he submitted to the House was that a strong objection to this Amendment is that it takes from the auditor the right of selection. I should have thought that the representative of a Government sitting on the Treasury Bench would have laid it down that it was better that selection should be in the hands of Parliament than in the hands of a servant, who is not, strictly speaking, even a civil servant. If he were a civil servant with the ordinary status, we might have some control over him through the representative of the Department here, but he is out with even that indirect control by Parliament. The selection of the victims here is entirely in the hands of the auditor, and an auditor is no more likely to be unbiased than is an ordinary member of the community. He may select a political opponent like the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), with whom he has very extreme differences; he may select another person because he is likely to get money out of him; or, as I said before, he may select a man who cannot afford to exercise the right of appeal.
    The Amendment proposes that, instead of a person in the position of the auditor having that power placed in his hands, Parliament should direct him how he is to select the people for prosecution. The Minister of Health referred to the normal practice in local authorities. I do not know what his experience of local authorities is, but, quite obviously, it is different from mine, and I am sure from that of most Members of this House. To lay it down that every member of a large local authority takes a keen and detailed interest in the whole business of the council is quite absurd and quite foreign to the truth. It is quite impossible for any member of a local authority to do that. What actually happens in practice is that members of a local authority specialise on certain committees, and they leave to the other committees the
    2000
    work of managing the departments under those committees. Finance committees have been mentioned. How is it humanly possible for a man who is a member of a finance committee of the London. County Council or one of the large county borough councils, when he is asked to sign cheques, to satisfy himself that every item covered by that cheque is so reasonable as not to be suspected of illegality? It is quite impossible. He cannot do anything do the kind.
    It is true we are not dealing here with laws that have been clearly defined. We are dealing with questions that are suspected of illegality because, in the opinion of the auditor, they are unreasonable. He may be questioning them for the first time; they may have gone on for years, and the cheques for these payments might have been automatically signed, but at any moment, because he considers circumstances have changed he may question the legality of payments that have actually been made and for which cheques have actually been signed. To come forward and say that a member who signed those cheques quite honestly and never suspecting he was doing anything illegal, should be subjected to prosecution is something, I submit, that is not worthy of this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the audit system in the past has worked very well. That is a surprising statement to come from the right hon. Gentleman in view of the fact that we are discussing this Bill. If the system has worked well, where is the necessity for the Bill at all? If it has worked well in the past, is it not just as likely to work well in the future? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman is feeling that we are entering on a new area in local government, and that it worked well as long as there was no question of the majority in the local council being a Conservative majority or a Conservative inclined majority; but now, when we are entering on a new era and when we have people exercising their rights in democracy to banish the Tories into oblivion and to place Labour councils in office, local government is to take its legislation prompted by the right hon. Gentleman. We must take all these things into account, and I have no doubt that even if he fails to get his own way in this, his activities will be supplemented by other Measures he has recently placed on the Statute Book.

    2001
    Another of his objections was that, if you allowed this Amendment to pass, you would not know where to stop. He said that a committee dealing with tramways, housing or education might remit a certain question to a sub-committee for investigation and report. If he was familiar with the working of large local authorities, he would understand that the practice is entirely different in spirit from that. Mechanically it may seem the same, but in actual practice it is totally different. Where a large committee remits a particular question for consideration and report to a small sub-committee, the parent committee views and discusses very intimately the report of that subcommittee when it comes up. That happens on every local authority in this country. The relations between a parent committee and a sub-committee are entirely different in practice from the relations between that parent committee and the general council. We must not forget that we are dealing here with ordinary routine expenditure, and that the crime is actually committed before the people have an opportunity of knowing that it is a crime. The penalties are so severe that the greatest care ought to be exercised in order to insure that innocent people should not come under them. The auditor is not the man who should be placed in this autocratic and superior position, but he should have direction as to his activities from Parliament itself.
    Mr. W. THORNE: This Clause is giving a good deal of power to the Minister, and it seems to me that under it any particular person or persons may be penalised. I think my right hon. Friend is right when he says the Minister could select his own opponents. I myself had an experience in 1911 during the great dock strike in London. I am, and have been for over 30 years, a member of the West Ham Corporation. When the big dock strike took place, our local authority decided to feed the children of the men on strike. I was neither a member of the Education Committee nor of the Finance Committee, but in consequence of the

    Division No. 467.]

    AYES.

    10.57 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atkinson, C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Albery, Irving James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Balniel, Lord

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Bearish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    decision of the Education Committee to feed the children of the men on strike, their report was presented to the General Council. The General Council endorsed that report, and, to my great surprise, when the local government auditor a few weeks afterwards audited the accounts of the Education Committee, I received a surcharge of £112. Strange to say, the auditor only selected certain people and I was one of them. Not everyone on the council was surcharged, but only a certain number. If this Clause goes through, it appears to me that the same thing could happen again. The local government auditor can use his own discretion about the surcharge. He may surcharge one member or the whole committee. This Amendment, in my opinion, restricts his power, and does not give him the wide discretion he has under the present Bill.
    I am rather surprised the Minister of Health will not accept this Amendment, but, of course, it is quite obvious, as far as I can see, that whether it be this Amendment or any other Amendment throughout the whole of these two or three pages, and whether it is reasonable or not the Government have made up their minds that they are not going to accept any Amendment at all. [Interruption.] Well, we shall see later on. I think that is their considered decision already. I do not know whether there is any truth in the rumour floating about this House that the Government intend to get the Report stage and Third Reading to-night. If that be true, I can quite understand why they do not want to accept an Amendment, because I know the Rules of Procedure as well as they do.
    Mr. STEPHEN Mr. STEPHEN rose—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 117.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Waddington, Marquess of

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Radford, E. A.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Raine, Sir Waiter

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Surary, Ch'ts'y)

    Buchan, John

    Hilton, Cecil

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Burman, J. B.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rye, F. G.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen.

    Sir Aylmer Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Huntingfieid, Lord

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Christie, J. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Savory, S. S.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cope, Major William

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smithers Waldron

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Long, Major Eric

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    England, Colonel A.

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Tanker, R. Inigo.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Faille, Sir Bertram G.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Fenby, T. D.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tinned, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Waddington, R.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T

    Merriman, F. B.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Gates. Percy

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wells, S. R.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Goff Sir Park

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Grace, John

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wormer, Viscount

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Womersley, W. J.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Oakley, T.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hanbury, C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harland, A.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Majors Sir George Hennessy and

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Preston, William

    Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Buchanan, G.

    Crawford, H. E.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Dalton, Hugh

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Cape, Thomas

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dennison, R.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Clues, W. S.

    Duncan, C.

    Barnes, A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Dunnico, H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Connolly, M.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Bromley, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Diversities)

    Gosling, Harry

    2004

    2005

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Morris, R. H.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Greenall, T.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murnin, H.

    Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

    Groves, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palln, John Henry

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetlane)

    Paling, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hardie, George D.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Townend. A. E.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Potts, John S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Ritson, J.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Saklatvala, ShapurJi

    Westwood, J.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lansbury, George

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scurr, John

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Lawson, John James

    Sexton, James

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lee, F.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lowth, T.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Lunn, William

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Wright, W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    March, S.

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Montague, Frederick

    Snell, Harry

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    Division No. 468.]

    AYES.

    [11.7 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barnes. A.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    Lawson, John James

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lunn, William

    Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Mackinder, W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Compton, Joseph

    March, S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Murnin, H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Naylor, T. E.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wallhead. Richard C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Paling, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gosling, Harry

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Potts, John S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Greenall, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Westwood, J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Riley, Ben

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Windsor, Walter

    Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wright, W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Hayes. John Henry

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Atkinson, C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Balniel. Lord

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 234.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hanbury, C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Philipson, Mabel

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Harland, A.

    Preston, William

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Radford, E. A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Buchan, John

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Burman, J. B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Rye, F. G.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cazalet. Captain Victor A.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Christie, J. A.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Illffe, Sir Edward M

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Sheffield Sir Berkeley

    Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

    Jephcott. A. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Smithers, Waldron

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Loder, J. de V.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Long, Major Eric

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tasker, R. Inlgo

    England, Colonel A.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Tinne, J. A.

    Fairfax, Capain J. G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Waddington, R.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Margesson. Capt. D

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L

    Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moore. Sir Newton J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Gates, Percy

    Morden, Colonel W. Grant

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Morris, R. H.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Grace, John

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oakley, T.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wragg, Herbert

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Owen, Major G.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Penny, Frederick George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Major Cope and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the Minister of Health in page 1, line 23.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Before you call that Amendment, may I ask you, Sir, whether
    2008
    you have thoroughly considered the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) which raises a very important point of principle that was very little discussed upstairs and which we feel very strongly

    2009
    about indeed—in page 1, line 23, at the end to insert the words:
    "(2) If two or more persons are surcharged jointly for a sum exceeding five hundred pounds the amount surcharged on any of those persons shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a proportion only of such sum to be ascertained by dividing the sum by the number of persons surcharged jointly."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the matter. I have given my decision.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words
    "(2) Where more than one-third of the members of a local authority become disqualified at the same time by virtue of this Act, then until the number of the members in office is increased to not less than two-thirds of the full number of members of the local authority—

    (a) the quorum of the local authority shall be determined by reference to the number of the members of the local authority remaining qualified instead of by reference to the full number of members of the local authority;

    (b) no provision preventing a returning officer holding an election to fill a casual vacancy shall apply to any vacancy in the office of members of that local authority."

    This is to provide for a contingency which I do not anticipate is likely to occur at all, but in legislation one must provide for every contingency that is at all possible. The position I am endeavouring to meet is that, if so large a number of members of a local authority-are disqualified as to deprive the council of more than one-third of its members, we should make it possible to fill up the vacancies thereby caused at the earliest possible moment, and, in the meantime, see that the whole business of the council does not come to an end. If over a third of a council are disqualified, it might very easily be found difficult, if not impossible, to get a quorum, according to the existing provision of the law as to what is necessary to form a quorum. Under the existing law, a quorum has to be one-third of the full number of members in the case of a borough council, urban district council, rural district council, and board of guardians, and in the case of county councils, one-fourth of the whole number. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think of the provisions of the Bill, that I am sure is a position which they do not wish to see arise. Therefore, it is provided in the Amend-
    2010
    ment that where so large a number of members of a council are disqualified, the quorum of the local authority shall be determined by reference to the number of members remaining qualified instead of by reference to the full members.
    I do not think any further explanation is needed of the first part of the Amendment, but in explanation of the second part I would remind the House that, under Section 48 of the Local Government Act, 1894, it is provided that, where a vacancy occurs within six months before the ordinary date of re-election, it is not to be filled. In the case of disqualification of a considerable number of members, that might mean that the council would be seriously crippled for the remaining part of the financial year, and, therefore, we provide that the provision is not to apply and the vacancies may be filled where more than one-third of the council are disqualified.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I feel far from satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. It is the sort of contemptuous explanation to which we have been accustomed. We have not really had anything like an adequate explanation of the Clause. I am still far from understanding why it is that, in the case where more than a third of the members are disqualified, certain provisions are to operate until the number of members in office is increased to not less than two-thirds. I see no reason why it should not be the whole council. We have had no explanation of what is to happen in case the whole council have been disqualified. One-third or two-thirds of nothing means nothing. We have had it explained to us that in cases of surcharge the auditor should have unfettered discretion, and it may well be that there will be cases where the whole council or board are incriminated in some so-called illegal or unreasonable action, and no provision is made to deal with a case of that kind. What the new Sub-section means is that, until such time as the electors have had an opportunity of reaffirming their previous choice of candidates, there shall be undisputed authority on the part of the Tory rump. More than one-third of the council or the board of guardians are to be disqualified before this Sub-section operates.
    Let us assume that one-half of the members have been disqualified. Then

    2011
    in the case of borough, urban and district councils and boards of guardians, the quota is one-third. One-third of one-half is one-sixth. It will, therefore, be competent for one-sixth of the members of any local authorit—presumably the good boys, the white sheep whom the Minister loves; ex-hypothesi, they are that or they will be disqualified—are to remain in full control, without any sort of other control, until the elections have taken place. That is to continue for a period of time, because it may well be that a number of those disqualified will have an appeal pending, or they may-subsequently appeal, and the whole situation on the council will fall into a state of utter comfusion. During the whole time the elections are being prepared for and in progress the henchmen of the Tory party will be trying to restore the old Tory prestige on the council, and going back to the bad old days. No doubt that is what the Minister wants in proposing this arrangement. I See no reason why there should be any alteration in the election law in this Bill, made in this particular way. It is true that within six months of an election in the locality the returning officer cannot hold an election; but to attempt to make an exception in the law of election because of a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman says is hardly going to apply to anybody, seems to be taking the matter much too far. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not imagine that there was really any need for this Sub-section, because it was unlikely or remote that one-third of the members of any local authority would be disqualified. He does not know. Nobody knows but the district auditor. But if the number of cases is so few, it seems unreasonable to go to all this legislation to deal with a difficulty which may never arise. This proposal shows the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to meet every contingency. It indicates that he means business on this Bill. It is not to be a dead letter. It will be used ruthlessly against those people who err on the side of Labour policy, broadly speaking, and for the suppression of Labour majorities. I am not at all satisfied that my hon. Friends should support this proposal in the Division lobby. It so clearly reveals the right hon. Gentleman's mind on this Bill
    2012
    that we are fully entitled to vote against it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I hope we shall go to a Division. We are opposed to this Bill root and branch, from A to Z. You are giving a tremendous power to the district auditor, although the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe the contingency will arise. No, because the district auditor is not going to be foolish enough to surcharge one-third of the council. He can surcharge the whole lot, but I do not think the auditor will be foolish enough to do that. We are not going to give you any accommodation at all. Why should we? We are opposed to the whole thing, root and branch.
    Mr. GILLETT: I want to ask two questions. Am I to understand that the disqualification of a councillor does not take effect if he appeals to the Court and that he is entitled to go on in the council until a decision is given? Then I want to know whether the Amendment does cover all the emergencies which might arise. On the metropolitan borough councils, if a vacancy occurs, the procedure is that the attention of the clerk is drawn to the vacancy by two members of the council. I put the case: Suppose the auditor surcharges the whole of the members of the dominant party and they are all disqualified, the position can easily be that the minority on the council need not draw the attention of the clerk to the vacancies and remain in control until the life of the council came to an end. I should like to know whether the clerk has power to order a new election without his attention having to be called to the fact that vacancies have occurred?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to the words in the Clause,
    "and if he is a member of a local authority his office shall thereupon become vacant."
    Mr. GILLETT: That is not my point. If it becomes vacant, has the clerk liberty to move in the matter without his attention having to be first drawn to the fact by other members? Has he power to order a new election? Usually it is two members of the party to which the retiring member belongs who draw attention to the vacancy, and sometimes this is held up for the convenience of the party.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is any two ratepayers, not any two members of the council.
    Mr. PALING: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's explanation of the Clause. One of the things he said was that the contingency was not likely to arise where more than one-third of the members would be disqualified, but that this provision has been put in in case it should arise. I cannot follow that line of argument. The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary on the last Amendment, which proposed that the responsibility should be placed on the members of a committee directly responsible for expenditure, was "No, it must be placed on the whole of the council and the whole of the responsibility must be placed on the whole of the council." The Government would not accept the Amendment putting the responsibility on the committee. I take it that before any expenditure can be made in the direction indicated it must be approved by a majority of the members of the council. If it is, is it not likely that where a surcharge is made the whole of the members who have approved the expenditure are likely to be surcharged, or, if not, how is the auditor going to pick one man or two or three of the council and surcharge these people as having more responsibility than the whole of the members who voted in favour of the expenditure? If the auditor is not going to pick and choose in that way, how can he avoid, in cases where the majority approve the expenditure, surcharging the lot and bringing, not one-third but more than half of the council, under the surcharge?
    Take the case of an urban council with a membership of 13. There are 11 members of one party and two of another. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that it is within his knowledge that these people tell the electors that if they get into power they will put into operation a certain policy. The 11 get returned as members of the council. They put into operation the policy on which they have been returned, and the whole of the 11 vote for it as a party. Then the auditor comes down and finds that the expenditure is illegal as indicated in this Bill He makes a surcharge. How would it be possible for the auditor to surcharge one or two or three or any number less than the whole lot? The
    2014
    Parliamentary Secretary agrees with my argument. Therefore he must agree that the whole of the 11 must be surcharged. What is to be a quorum of the other two members? Suppose a case where the whole of the members were of one party, or that the 11 convinced the other two of the justice of the case they put forward, and the vote was unanimous. Again it would be impossible for the auditor to pick and choose and he would have to surcharge the lot. Who then are to form the quorum? How can you form a quorum out of nothing? Who is to carry on the business of the council?
    The Minister says he cannot visualise a set of circumstances like that. Cannot he? Is he going in such a case to send out nominated members? Is the Minister going to bring in another Measure on the lines of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act and send down appointed members? What an easy way out it would be to nominate Tories where the electors had voted for Labour! Supposing the majority of a council were disqualified because the district auditor surcharged them and a email minority of the original council were left to carry on the business, would that minority have the power to repeal all the resolutions previously put into operation by the majority—resolutions which the minority did not like and had opposed? Would the minority be able to take the splendid opportunity thus presented to them of undoing what the council as a whole had done? Is that one of the things which the Minister has in mind? I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for being very clever. In subtlety, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot excel him, and I hope he is going to answer these questions. But the right hon. Gentleman has not made much of a defence for this Bill and his only case for this very serious Amendment is that he cannot visualise such a state of circumstances. Yet those circumstances might arise and the House has a right to know what is going to happen if they do arise. This Bill is aimed at Labour majorities and, where there is a Labour majority acting as a party, a situation such as I have indicated may be created by a surcharge. If the Measure comes into operation and the auditor exercises these new powers, cases are bound to occur affecting a majority, rather than

    2015
    one or two members of a council—unless the auditor is going to pick and choose and submit an individual here and there to a penalty, which, if it is applied at all should attach to the whole body of those voting for the policy called in question.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Reference has already been made to the surcharge of £23,000 in the case of Poplar. All the council were surcharged with the exception of six members. Does the Minister mean that in such a case as that—a case which actually occurred—he would leave the six members to carry on the administration of the borough, in undisputed possession of the field, without a new election? If he did so, the quorum in that particular case would, I think, be one. There we have a reductio ad absurdum. Thirty odd members would be disfranchised and six would be left. If the present Bill were in force and if the auditor took the same view as he did in the second and third cases which I mentioned in relation to Poplar, all the council but six would he disqualified from public life. Six would be left as the council and, as I say, the quorum would be one, or it may be one and a half. I do not know what view the Minister takes with regard to the fraction, but does he contemplate such a ridiculous position?
    Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister on this point. He seems to have the idea that when things are done which are surchargeable, they are done by a majority riding rough shod over a minority. But it is not so, by any means. I have a number of these cases where there has been a unanimous decision by a council. Take the much-debated £4 minimum. It went through in our council without a division. The district auditor goes on extending his sway from one subject to another, and what he is now attacking are things which have been the common practice of all parties for years. The Minister is going to find himself with a whole borough council membership surcharged unless he is going to have some system of picking and choosing according to the people's political opinions. This Bill was very badly considered in Committee. The Minister never realised, until after the discussion upstairs, and when he had closured us so that he could not have time to answer, what this
    2016
    Amendment meant, and even now he has not considered it.
    What is he going to do in an area where he enforces this and finds that no one will stand for the Council and take the risks involved? If you are going to have respectable members of society, quite likely of all parties, doing their duty and being brought up for a mere failure to judge correctly the mind of the district auditor and surcharged for amounts over £500, you are going to have such a reign of terror that no one will stand for the councils. You may declare your vacancy, but I would like a little more light from the Minister on that point, for he suggested that that could be done by two ratepayers. I never heard of that before; I always understood that it had to be done by a council. It would have been a little more dignified and worthy of this House if the Minister had troubled to find out some of these points before putting down this Clause. What steps is he going to take where, owing to his action under this Bill, or owing to the action of the district auditor and himself combined, you have a situation where no one will stand? He has not taken power yet to put in his pet administrators to run the show, but the method he is following is thoroughly vicious, and it shows what is at the back of his mind.
    By means of this Bill he is going, if he can, to turn out his political opponents from their seats on the councils, and he is not even content with that. The Minister, who is one of the most bureaucratic and least democratic of Ministers, is in this Bill already cutting at the whole basis of local government, which is that the people of a locality have, within the bounds of the law, the right to rule themselves. The Minister says, "No, I will turn out the people whom they have elected, and I am not prepared to wait to see whether they elect people of the same colour again. When I manage to get the Labour people out, and I have my own little rump of people in, I will give them special power so that in the interval they can have a majority on the council to enable them to reverse all that their predecessors have done." That is modern democracy! That is self-government according to the gospel of the Minister of Health! I think this is interesting as showing exactly how his mind works. He seems to me to be a

    2017
    sort of Whitehall Cromwell trying to do a "Pride's purge" of his own.
    Mr. SCURR: The surcharges in the Poplar case arose over wages, and the auditor said that in his opinion the wages paid ought to be either those of the Joint Industrial Council or ten per cent. above those wages as a discretion. The members of the Joint Industrial Council on the employers' side are appointed by the various metropolitan borough councils. I am chairman of one of these industrial councils, and if this "rump" be carried out, it means there would be a vacancy on that council, and they could immediately appoint somebody of their own to fill the vacancy. The result might be to alter the composition of the council and to bring about a reduction in wages Further than that, the borough councillors who are left would be able to elect the aldermen, because certain aldermen may be surcharged, and in the case which has been stated by the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) the Municipal Alliance members would be able to elect seven aldermen to the Poplar Borough Council. So they would come along and calmly carry out a policy of which the electors had not approved. That is an absurdity from beginning to end.
    Sir K. WOOD: With reference to the point raised as to election to vacancies, in the case of provincial borough councils, the election is to be held within 14 days after notice of the vacancy has been given by two burgesses. As regards the urban and rural district councils, notice has to be given by two councillors; and in the case of a metropolitan borough council, when there is a vacancy by resignation, disqualification or absence, an election has to be held within one month of the seat becoming vacant. In the case of a county council, "local government elector" is substituted for "burgess." That is the legal position. As regards the other points that have been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite—
    Mr. ATTLEE: What happens in an urban district when there are no councillors?
    Sir K. WOOD: We can wait till that event arises.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure about the borough councils? I am aware of a council where there are at least six seats which have been vacant for months, and I understand from the clerk of that council that they cannot be filled up unless attention is called to the fact of the vacancies by two members of the council.
    Sir K. WOOD: I have it here, but I will verify it later. Section 66 of the Metropolitan Borough Councils Act, 1882, modified by an Order of 1903, called the Councils Election Order, says that in case of a vacancy by resignation, disqualification, or absence, an election must be held within one month of the seat becoming vacant, no notice being required.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: The hon. Gentleman quoted the Act of 1882. That does not cover the case of the borough councils, which is covered by an Act of 1899.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will verify that.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Your people do not know what they are telling you.
    Sir K. WOOD: It is not an important matter.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, yes; it is.
    Sir K. WOOD: So far as this Amendment is concerned, I should have thought that it helped the object which the hon. Gentleman had at heart, because this Amendment in the first place deals with the question of what is to arise if a number of councillors are disqualified and the ordinary quorum is not able to operate. There are two things that will arise under this Amendment if it be put into the Bill. In the first place, another quorum is substituted. Secondly, all the vacancies which arise in this connection have to be filled and, as hon. Gentlemen opposite say they belong to a particular party and they are confident in their case, one can assume that the persons elected to take the place of the representatives disqualified will have the same political complexion, and by that means the authority will be duly completed. From what I have been able to gather, however, especially from what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has told us this afternoon, this event is not likely to arise at all. The hon. Gentlemen opposite would have us

    2019
    believe that, when this Bill comes into operation, such is the firmness of purpose of these people that we shall find them standing up against the provisions of this Bill, refusing to obey its provisions and gradually disappearing from public life under the operations of the Measure. I do not think that there is the slightest likelihood of that taking place, because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well, these proceedings this afternoon and their opposition are very largely a farce. They know that, in the case of every borough council affected by this Measure, so far from their being unable to fulfil its provisions or finding difficulty in doing so, they are all applying those provisions now. They are having no difficulty in interpreting this Clause. All of them, without exception, are at this moment carrying out the provisions of this Bill. So far from there being any difficulty, all of them, as far as I am able to ascertain, are obeying the provisions of this Bill. This is a case of a Bill so excellent that it has actually come into operation before reaching the Statute Book. Therefore, all these difficulties have disappeared. This Bill is already in operation and being obeyed by all the councils concerned.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think that we could have had a better justification of the hard things said about the Bill than the speech to which we have just listened. Speaker after speaker has attacked the Bill on the ground that it is a measure of terror, that its object is to break the will and power of Labour councils—particularly those drawn from the ranks of the working class—and to compel them not to carry out the policy for which they were elected and in which they conscientiously believe but to adopt the tactics of Whitehall rather than submit to the penalties of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has found a great deal of delight, if not of actual amusement, in the fact that before the Bill has become an Act its mere introduction has had such a terrorising effect on the minds of local councillors that they are already changing their policy. I wish that instead of gloating over his conquests he had made some attempt to reply to the questions which have been addressed to him. When pressed as to what would happen in the inevitable
    2020
    event of certain things occurring he flippantly told us that we ought to wait till those occasions arise. What does he mean by that? Does he mean we are to delay the passing of this Measure? After all, what we want is information that will enable us to pass an intelligent Measure, and he refuses to disclose the information. He advises us to pass the Measure and to damn the consequences.
    The Minister of Health, in introducing this innocent Amendment of his, said—I am sorry I was not present—that he could not visualise a case in which one-third of the members of a council would be disqualified. That seems to reveal a strange attitude of mind. I cannot contemplate a payment by a local authority which would be so unreasonable as to become illegal being passed without the support of a majority of the Members. That, I think, is perfectly obvious, and according to the Bill the council would then become liable to the penalties of this Measure. Only a few minutes ago we were discussing an Amendment, which was rejected, in which we sought to lay it down that only the members of the council directly responsible, the people indeed who recommended the expenditure, should come under the penalties of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman opposed that Amendment on the ground that we had no right to select certain persons for punishment, but that everyone responsible should come under the lash of the law. If my assumption is correct that this unreasonable payment must have the support of a majority of the council, and his argument holds good that all who support the unreasonable payment should be punished, how can the right hon. Gentleman visualise a situation where there will be two-thirds of the council remaining? I cannot contemplate a situation in which there will be a majority left, and that is one of my fundamental objections to the Bill. It is quite clear now from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that certain people are to be selected for punishment. His objection is not to a selection, but to selection being in any way dictated or defined by Parliament itself.
    The right hon. Gentleman desires the auditor to have full play and discretion in the selection of the victims of this measure. That is clearly revealed in the statement made by the Minister that he

    2021
    does not expect the auditor to select all the people who are responsible. In the case where the policy receives the support of the majority then the Minister would have to proceed against a majority of the council, and yet the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot visualise a situation in which he would proceed against the majority of the council, or a situation in which he would have to proceed against more than one-third of the council. I do not think the auditor should have this power of selection. We have appealed to the Minister in Amendment after Amendment not to place that oppressive power in the hands of one individual. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that a selection must be made and I think he might be frank with us and state how he thinks the auditor will act in making his selection. Although a majority of the council may have voted for certain expenditure they are not to be prosecuted, and the Minister says that not more than one-third will ever be prosecuted. How will the auditor proceed to select the victims of the law from the majority which is liable to prosecution? I wish the Minister would answer that question. Are they to be selected on political grounds? The right hon. Gentleman will not answer that question, and he relies, I will not say upon the battalions behind him, but upon his friends who, so far as we know, have not even read this Bill, and have taken no part in the discussions although they are quite ready to give their sanction to this Measure which will inflict untold misery on thousands of honest people in this country through the failure of the Government to carry out its legitimate Parliamentary duty. How does he think the victims will be selected? Will they be chosen on account of their political views? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the auditor is not his auditor, and he has said that several times in the course of these debates. I suppose that technically this official is not the Minister's auditor.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This Amendment only deals with what is to be done after they are disqualified.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The Minister has told us that it is very unlikely that a majority will be disqualified, and under those circumstances how can business be carried on?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was arguing as to who would select the members to be disqualified.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: From what the Minister has told us it is quite clear that he does not contemplate a situation in which all the guilty people will be proceeded against. He visualises a situation in which only a section of those who may be guilty will be selected for punishment. I was dealing with the point as to how the minority or section is to be selected for punishment, and that brings us to the question who is to make the choice. The person who is to make the choice is the auditor. That is mentioned all over the Amendment, and we cannot really consider the Amendment without considering this point. The whole power of selecting the victims is placed in the hands of the auditor. The House has already rejected an Amendment seeking to limit the auditor's selection, and now he is to make a selection from the whole council. Surely, we are entitled to consider who this auditor is in whose hands this autocratic and extensive power is placed.
    The Minister asks the House to believe that he is a State servant occupying an independent position and always exercising an impartial judgment. I suppose it might be bad taste to say that that is not absolutely correct, but we can begin by assuming that he is a human being, with all the weaknesses and strength of character and mind of other human beings. It is true that he is not the Minister's auditor, but I think I am not far wrong in saying that he is appointed by the Minister of Health. I know that he is paid out of Parliamentary funds, and, while he has not the full status of a Civil Servant, he certainly is not a person so absolutely independent of influence as the Minister would ask us to believe. I know that he, like other people, will respond very readily to the environment in which he works—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We really must not go back to the points that we have been discussing nearly all day. We have long passed the stage of the views of the auditor on the question of disqualification, and are now on the question of what is to happen after certain people have been disqualified.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure I do not want to attempt to go outside your ruling or advice to the House, but the point with which we were dealing was this: A selection has to be made by the auditor, from the majority of the members of the council, of those who shall be prosecuted—
    Mr. SPEAKER: At the point at which we are now, the selection has presumably been made, and we are only dealing with the consequences which will follow that.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am submitting that it has not been made until this House has decided that it should be made, and, in considering whether it should be made, we are entitled to take into account all the relevant considerations and influences that are likely to bear on the making of the decision. I do not, however, want to trespass on even the spirit of your ruling. I was not, when you entered the House, dealing with the duties of the auditor so much as with the character of the auditor, and the fact that he was, like the rest of us, subject to his environment and would

    Division No. 469.]

    AYES.

    [12.9 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Albery, Irving James

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)

    England, Colonel A.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Balniel, Lord

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Long, Major Eric

    Birehall, Major J. Dearman

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Buchan, John

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Burman, J. B.

    Grace, John

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Christie, J. A.

    Hanbury, C.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harland, A.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oakley, T.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hartington, Marquess of

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cope, Major William

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hilton, Cecil

    Philipson, Mabel

    Curzon. Captain Viscount

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Preston, William

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    hold certain political prejudices, and, therefore, should not be given superpowers, because he is not a superman.
    I object to this Amendment on another ground. I do not think the House should accept it, because it contains or supports or provides for the system of selection. I do not think that that system should be recognised by this House. It is dangerous to place in the hands of one person the power to determine the political life or death of any of his fellow-citizens, and I hope that on that ground alone the House will reject the Amendment. I am sure I can say for all of my friends that, if it is pressed by the Minister, we shall go into the Lobby unanimously and vote for its rejection.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 74.

    Radford, E. A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wells, S. R.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rye, F. G.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Savery, S. S.

    Waddington, R.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Wallace. Captain D. E.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Skelton, A. N.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Captain Bowyer.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Handle. George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

    Whiteley.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    Division No. 470.]

    AYES.

    [12.17 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)

    Cope, Major William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Aster, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hanbury, c.

    Balniel, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Harland, A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Dawson, Sir Phillip

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Ellis, R. G.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    England, Colonel A.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Buchan, John

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Burman, J. B.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Christie, J. A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Grace, John

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Loder, J. de V.

    The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 71.

    Long, Major Eric

    Preston, William

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Radford, E. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Waddington, R.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Warner Brigadier-General W. W.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Rye, F. G.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Wells, S. R.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Oakley, T.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barnes. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Montague, Frederick

    Townend, A. E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Greenall. T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Paling, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hardie, George D.

    Riley, Ben

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. whiteley and Mr. Charles

    Hayes, John Henry

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Edwards.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Appeals against decisions of auditors.)
    Major PRICE: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the words "may," in line 9, to the word "appeal" in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words "in all cases."
    As far as I can gather there has been no discussion of this point at any stage of the Bill. Under the Clause as it stands at present, where a surcharge of over £500 has been made, the person surcharged has the right of an appeal to the Minister or the High Court. It is most desirable, in all cases where a surcharge is made, that there should be uniformity of decision, and it is quite impossible for anyone at the moment to know his exact position under a Clause
    2028
    of this kind. Assume that a man has been surcharged and makes an appeal to the Minister. Ministers vary. Nobody will suggest that there will be uniformity in the decisions of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and the present Minister of Health. There might be three Ministers of Health of different political views in the course of a few years. There is no uniformity of decision, and we feel that in cases where it is a question of the legality or otherwise of the proceeding you should go to the the properly constituted authority—namely,the Court. We do not mean the High Court in every case, but that where a small amount is involved an appeal to the County Court should be allowed. If it is left to the decision of the Minister, in all cases up

    2029
    to £500, a large figure indeed might be involved. If you have 15 members of a council surcharged £450 each it represents a sum of about £6,750. That is left entirely in the discretion of the Minister; and it is not clear in the Bill whether the decision of the Minister will be given on evidence laid before him. In Sub-section (4) it would appear that the appellant is entitled to a personal hearing by a person appointed for this purpose by the Minister. I do not know whether it is within the option of the appellant to be heard by the Minister himself or by someone appointed by the Minister. It is not clear that the Minister himself will hear the case personally. In those cases which come before the Minister, those amounts under £500, there can be no question of publicity. If a case is decided in the Law Courts it is published in all the Law journals, provided it is of sufficient importance and involves some novel point in law, but if the matter comes before the Minister there is no publicity at all. At any rate it is not clear that publicity in cases up to £500 is contemplated. It is not at all clear also why cases just under £500 are not dealt with. Take Sub-section (3), which provides that any ratepayer or owner of property in the area to which the surcharge relates shall appear at the hearing and object. That is put in in order that the ratepayer should have some protection, but, if it is £499 that is in question, the ratepayer has no protection at all and no right of audience before the Minister. We feel that, as the subject has to make an appeal against what he considers illegal, he ought to make that appeal to the properly constituted authorities of the country, and that there should not be so much of taking before the administrative and governing authority those matters which really belong to the judicial authority. The Executive should be kept outside judicial decisions. We feel that in this case we should make a stand and ask the Minister to explain and justify why the Law Courts should not decide a legal question and say whether it be legal or illegal.
    Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In times past surcharges have been made by district auditors usually in
    2030
    respect of bona fide errors. But hon. Members opposite in their speeches today have openly gloried in the fact that in future it will be on members of their party upon various local authorities that surcharges will be made. Many of them have said that probably the whole council would be returned to carry out a certain policy involving illegal payments and in the exercise of that policy the whole council might be suspended from office. In view of their attitude, which they have openly admitted and in which they regard surcharges as being perfectly right and meritorious, what confidence can we have in an appeal by the person surcharged to a Minister of Health of the Socialist party? I would have been loth to say this and would not have said it if I had not heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite. On that ground and on the grounds put forward by my hon. Friend, I do not think a Minister of Health should be able to adjudicate on the appeal of a councillor or member of a local authority who has been surcharged, and I support the Amendment. If a Conservative Minister of Health were in office and a Socialist member of a local authority had been surcharged and the Minister turned down the appeal, it would give scope for saying that he had been biased in his decision, or a Socialist Minister of Health might be said to have been biased if he allowed such an appeal. Ministers of Health in this country have other duties to perform than that of acting as a Court of Appeal in cases of this kind.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. It seems to me to be based upon some misunderstanding of the actual facts. After all, the present law gives the power of appeal to the Minister in all cases of surcharges, and while this Bill has to some extent limited the powers of going to the Minister, we have left that power in the case of the majority of surcharges, namely, the smaller ones. My hon. Friends have suggested that different Ministers might take different views of their duties, but I would point out that the great majority of cases of surcharges do not raise any political question at all. They deal with quite small matters. It

    2031
    may be that the authority has not collected all the rents that they should have done, or it may be that they have paid interest on overdrafts where there should not have been overdrafts. These things form the great bulk of the appeals. In the last five years out of 456 appeals, 449 have been to the Minister and only seven to the Courts. It would place a burden on the Courts, and they should not be called upon to deal with such small matters. I have to take these Amendments as I find them, and the Amendments do not survive the tests that are applied. I really think, in view of what I have said, that my hon. Friends would not be justified in pressing this Amendment, for which there is no cause. Nothing that we can foresee justifies a change, and it certainly would, if carried, cause great inconvenience and congestion in the Courts.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I find myself in a difficulty over this Amendment, because, as a rule, we on this side view with great suspicion the exercise of judicial functions by Ministers of the Crown. That is why we protested against the Government in the Landlord and Tenant Bill. In this particular case, I think the Minister has made out a case for resisting the Amendment. As the Minister has pointed out, and on this point I must agree with him, it is obvious that a great many of these cases deal with small matters of administration. In spite of the polemical and political speech delivered by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), we know a large number of these surcharges have no relation to political affairs at all. There may be cases where auditors with excessive zeal make a surcharge where they should not have made a surcharge at all. But if one can only appeal to the High Court it means that whenever an error has been made by an auditor, and they often make errors in small surcharges, people will have to go to the High Court. The High Court as matters now stand would only construe questions of law. It has been laid down more particularly by the House of Lords that the question of reasonableness one way or another is a matter for the auditor, and that therefore, if you go to the High Court limited to the question of law, there is really nothing on which the High Court can act.
    2032
    A Minister can exercise his discretion in curbing the enthusiasm of an auditor for surcharging. I do not think that this is a question of a Minister of one political view or another. The hon. Member says that he would not trust a Socialist Minister. We might equally reply that we do not trust a Minister of a bureaucratic Government.
    Mr. RADFORD: I said that it was equally undesirable in either case.
    Sir H. SLESSER: In the larger cases, it may be admitted that there is a matter for the Court, but in the ordinary small cases of surcharge which have to do with small tenders—it may be that have to do with some small technical breach of the law and nothing to do with politics—it is absurd that everyone should be required to go to the Law Courts. The hon. Gentleman seems more anxious to deliver a political speech than to study the subject. Has he considered the existing law in this matter? There has always been power in the Minister to deal with these surcharges, and we on this side associate ourselves with the Minister and were glad that he refused to accept the Amendment.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) put this Amendment down. I put down one like it in Committee, and this will enable me to say what I had intended to say then. This Amendment calls attention to a departure which has provoked much controversy—the increasing tendency to repose in Departments all kinds of judicial functions which ought to lie with the Courts. The Minister, in his reply, pleaded the experience of the existing legislation. But this Bill proves that the present legislation on this matter is not adequate. That is why we have this Bill. It is because circumstances are arising in the country which have hitherto not been contemplated, and are in some instances of so serious a character that this Bill has become necessary, and this particular Amendment, which arises on it. I would ask the House to consider the opinion of a high authority on this matter, no less an authority than the Lord Chief Justice himself. In an address to some students in Birmingham, on the passage of the Electricity Bill, the Lord Chief Justice drew attention to this tendency to

    2033
    transfer judicial functions to Ministers. He has done it on other occasions. I am going to quote one extract from an address which the Lord Chief Justice delivered to the American bar:
    "It is a commonplace,"
    said Lord Hewart,
    "to say that the rule of law involves at least two things: (1) The absence of arbitrary power on the part of the Government, (2) equality before the law. In other words, every man, whoever he may be, and whether he be an official or not, is subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary tribunals. That is our system—the system we owe to the Common Law. But has there not been during recent years, and is there not now a marked and increasing development of bureaucratic pretensions, the essence and aim of which are to withdraw matters and topics from the jurisdiction of the Courts and set them apart for purely official determination."
    If we cannot persuade the Minister to do something, I hope that when this Bill reaches another place this kind of thing will be adequately considered. The right hon. Gentleman might have reduced the figure at which the appeal should go to the Minister. It might have been £5 instead of £500. There may have been something in the case he made out just now for a quicker and more convenient appeal in certain cases to his Department rather than to the Courts, but the figure of £500, in my view, is far too high for the differentiation between appeals to the Courts and the Minister. I hope that the Minister will realise that this Amendment is brought forward and supported by myself because we feel that the time has come when the Executive must realise that this practice of reposing judicial functions in the will of officials of Departments is contrary to the settled practice of this country, and is one which cannot be supported.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure that we may be permitted to congratulate the party opposite on having awakened to an interest in the Measure now before the House. The hon. Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) was very frank with us in his opening remarks. He told us that this was a Measure which was being promoted to deal with a new set of conditions that has arisen in this country. The new set of conditions, I assume, is the adoption of Labour and Socialist views by the electors in certain localities,
    2034
    and the need for oppressing these localities.
    Sir J. NALL: The new circumstances to which I was referring are the growing practice of bribing the electorate out of public funds.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I will not attempt to pursue the line of policy opened up by the remark of the hon. Gentleman or I might be tempted to ask what was in the minds of the party opposite in pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they are, to be ready with a reduction in the Income Tax on the eve of the next general election. The remarks of the Minister himself seemed to me to be rather inconsistent. He seemed to say, when replying to the Mover of the Amendment, that the complexion of the questions that usually come up for decision at the Ministry of Health is not of a political character, and that the Minister might be trusted to deal with them. That does not seem to agree with the report of a speech of his delivered to the Committee dealing with this Bill upstairs. Perhaps the OFFICIAL REPORT may be wrong. One can more easily visualise, if I may use one of his favourite words, the OFFICIAL REPORT being wrong than the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said:
    "Under the new form, we divide disallowances and surcharges into what I may call the ordinary and the extraordinary. The ordinary are the cases of error made in good faith which have been the subject of surcharge in the past, and where the surcharge has frequently been paid. The extraordinary are cases in which disallowances are made in respect of political expenditure which is due to political policy rather than to purely local municipal considerations".
    That seemed to reveal the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he was nearer the angels than he is to-night. When the Bill was before the Committee, his view was that it was a Bill directed at expenditure indulged in by local authorities for purely political considerations. To-night the right hon. Gentleman says: "Oh, dear, no; it is very seldom that there are questions having a political character at all." The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was right to a certain extent. On this question of surcharges it is not often, when you come to the real essence of the thing, that the party opposite differ from, say, a Socialist Minister of Health.

    2035
    The hon. Member seemed to think that we would take extremely different views. I can speak from my own experience. When I, as a Socialist Minister of Health—or as near to being a Socialist Minister of Health as circumstances would allow—laid it down that certain surcharges at Poplar were to be remitted, I remember with what horror that decision was received by the present Minister of Health and particularly by his Parliamentary Secretary. I can well visualise the Parliamentary Secretary sitting in this corner and virtuously appealing to heaven for vengeance on the head of the party that would so far depart from the traditional practice of this House. But both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, by their subsequent proceedings, have informed the country that they were not really serious in the attack that they then made on the Socialist Minister of Health. It was just the ordinary Parliamentary ladder by which in criticising your opponents you climb to office, and, the ladder having served its purpose, is dispensed with. The right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Health and the hon. Member became Parliamentary Secretary, and they have proceeded to pursue on straight lines exactly the policy of remission of surcharges against Poplar which was such a dreadful thing when it was done by a Socialist Minister of Health. I can therefore assure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that there will not be those violent extremes in public administration when the political colour of the Minister of Health is changed. They pursue, in a way, just the same policy and the speeches usually made on that side of the House or on this side of the House need not be taken too seriously I am not quite so sure about what advice I can give to my friends on this side of the House with regard to this Amendment. On strictly Parliamentary lines the Amendment having come from the opposite side of the House, we should oppose it. But as we have had so little discussion on it, and as we are glad to see hon. Members opposite at last taking part in the discussions, I think we should encourage them, and I therefore thin! that we should go into the Lobby against the Minister.
    Mr. BECKETT: I could not help thinking. as I listened to the hon. Member
    2036
    who moved this Amendment and to the hon. Member who seconded it, that it is a remarkable thing that even a small Bill—and the Minister has reminded us that it is a small Bill—of this character cannot be introduced into the House of Commons without a determined attempt by hon. and learned Members of the House to endeavour to make some little bit of extra employment for the lawyers. It was with very great relief that I listened to the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) opposing the Amendment and that I realised that the Whips were not being put on. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), but I do hope that this Amendment will not be carried. If it be pressed to a division, I shall find myself in the Lobby behind the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Amendment were carried, we should simply put on the shoulders of some of the worthiest, if least wealthy, members of local authorities in this country the intolerable choice of having to submit to a surcharge which they could ill-afford to pay or risk sums of money that they could ill-afford to risk in making an appeal to the Law Courts. I hope that the Amendment will not be carried for that reason, and because I think we have as much right to say on this side as hon. Members on that side of the House have, after the speech that was made seconding the Amendment, that it would be a very serious blow at the ordinary and, on the whole, satisfactory, manner in which Ministers and our Ministries have carried on their administrative work.
    As a member of a local authority, I have had occasion to see the late Minister of Health, and on several occasions to see his Parliamentary Secretary. Since the present Government have been in office, although I have not myself been a member of a local authority, I have been with the local authority of my own constituency to ask the Minister for remission of surcharges, etc. I will not pretend that we were anything like satisfied with what they were able to do for us, but we had to accept it in a sporting sense. If they are perhaps unduly harsh to us when it is a question of preventing children from starving, I am sure that they would not be unduly harsh to hon. Members opposite if it were a question of their having paid too

    2037
    much for a contract. When hon. Members opposite are on this side of the House and appeals for remission of surcharges are made, they will be treated not so badly, whereas if it be a question of a contract they will be treated worse. The essential point is that on these comparatively small details of administration it is ridiculous and entirely damaging to the whole system of party, constitutional and Parliamentary government for hon. Members on the other side of the House to say, "We do not mind decisions when one of our own people is in office, but think how terrible it would be if it were a Minister on the other side of the House." Therefore, I suggest that

    Division No. 471.]

    AYES.

    [1.0 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Radford, E. A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Hanbury, C.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Balniel, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Harland, A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rye, F. G.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Savery, S. S.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Buchan, John

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Burman, J. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N).

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

    Skelton. A. N.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Christie, J. A.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Loder, J. de V.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Long, Major Eric

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cope, Major William

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wells, S. R.

    England, Colonel A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Oakley, T.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Penny, Frederick George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Goff, Sir Park

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grace, John

    Philipson Mabel

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Preston, William

    Wallace

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Buchanan, G.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Batey, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Grundy, T. W.

    there is no ground for this Amendment. It strikes at the very fundamental decencies of Parliamentary government. It would put a tremendous burden on people who can ill afford that burden. It would be harder on local authorities than the Bill already makes it. I hope that the Minister's advice will be taken and that the Amendment will be rejected.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 53.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Montague, Frederick

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Murnin, H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scurr, John

    Lansbury, George

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Major COPE and Captain MARGESSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "of Health."
    This is a drafting Amendment. The Minister of Health is already mentioned in Sub-section I of Clause 2.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I should just like to make this observation. It is proposed by the Minister of Health in this Amendment to leave out the words "of Health." I think the Minister would be better to leave the words in the Bill. As I have listened to all this discussion to-day, I have found that the Minister does not himself seem to be very clear about his own Bill, and, if he leaves in the words "of Health," it might mark the fact that it was a particular Minister of Health that was in charge and responsible for putting this Bill upon the Statute Book and making it an Act of Parliament. I think that as a monument to the present holder of the office we should leave in the words "of Health." It is true, as he suggested, that elsewhere the Minister is defined as Minister of Health, but, in view of the character of this Bill and also in view of the fact that the policy of this Minister of Health with regard to the conduct of affairs is an attempt to bureaucratise the administration in this country, I think we ought to leave the words in here as a memorial to him and his attempt to do away with democratic institutions in this country.
    Mr. BECKETT: I should like to ask the Minister of Health to leave these words in the Bill. We have got into a lax way of putting Bills through the House. The Bills are not only for the guidance of those who are used to the study of Acts of Parliament, but, very often, they are the only sheet anchor of people who are not so well informed in the procedure of drafting Bills as many of the Members of this House. I would ask the Minister in the interests of those people not to press this Amendment as he suggested in his speech that it was only a formal Amendment. There is no very vital reason why this title, which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) designed after much thought, should not be repeated in the Bill. I think, when any unfortunate persons who are not used to the study of legal documents find themselves in the position of having to appeal against a surcharge or something of the kind, or if they wish to make an application against the Minister, it is very disconcerting for them to read that they have to make the application to the Minister. It is true that two pages back in the Bill it states that the Minister of Health shall be called the Minister, but the average person who has reason to read the Act will not read the whole Act through to find out to whom he has to appeal. The average person will turn to page 3, line 17, to find out to whom he can appeal or apply to help him out of the unpleasant predicament in which he finds himself. If the Amendment be passed, the Bill does not tell them to which Minister they should go, whether Health or Labour—a bad choice—and they cannot decide to which to go. The result will be that they must pay for legal advice which they can ill afford before they can find out to which Minister they ought to go in their trouble or to appeal for assistance. We have not had much given to us on this

    2041
    side of the House in the Debate, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, he may be of assistance to a great many poor people who are in difficulties over this Bill, and his name shall be blessed in the land.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: My reason for rising to address the House on this Amendment is largely for the purpose of protesting against the waste of time to which the House is being subjected by the carelessness of the Minister of Health He must have had this Amendment under consideration for a considerable time before presenting it to the House. I know that great care is given to a Measure of this kind by his Department, and I know he also has at his disposal some of the most competent members of the Civil Service. This Bill went through all its stages in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday afternoon that the Amendments had been adequately considered upstairs, but this Amendment by the Minister was not put down when the Bill was brought before the Committee. I do not think it is fair to the House that it should have thrown at it in the early hours of the morning shoddy workmanship of this kind. I can go throughout the Bill and give instances—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill is printed by order of the House. This is merely a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I did not want to pursue the point of the Amendment, but I think the House is entitled to enter a mild protest against having its time occupied in making corrections which should have been made by the Minister before the Bill was brought in. I do not want to trespass on your ruling, and I was only going to give you an illustration and examples of the bad draftsmanship of the Bill. I really think that as a protest against the carelessness of the Minister of Health the House ought to divide against the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Recovery of sums certified by the auditor.)
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move in page 3, in line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the word "in" in line 39.
    2042
    My object is to try to reduce by one of the number of penalties that are to fall upon the head of the unfortunate councillor. The Minister proposes to deprive him of his civic right to become and remain a representative for five years. That is fairly stiff to begin with. Then he goes on to surcharge him by way of fine for sums exceeding £500, and then, finally, he must strengthen the means of extracting the money from him by making it recoverable as a civil debt, in order, in fact, that he may make the councillor or alderman bankrupt. When he gets him down like that he will then say that he will have done with him altogether. But this extraordinary culmination of penalties seems to argue an entirely different standpoint to that of any we have had before. Of course, this Bill is directed almost entirely against the poor man. If he is a poor man he is to be made a bankrupt. I remember a line in Proverbs about the poor man who was the saviour of his city. But if he comes up against the Minister of Health the poverty of the poor man is to be his destruction. There is now the deliberate idea of bankrupting a person. All through the discussions on this Bill we have been trying to level up things; to get a little justice between persons of different financial standing. That is a point that is realised very often in the Law Courts, sometimes one way it is true and sometimes another. But all the way through here the Minister has attempted to do an injustice to the poor man. When we came to the £500 we pointed out that £500 is nothing to many hon. Members on that side of the House, but it is a great deal of money to people on this side. The vast majority of borough councillors in East London and in industrial neighbourhoods who belong to the Labour party cannot stand a surcharge of £500. When we proposed that it should be divided up amongst them that was rejected. The Minister is to have his pound of flesh out of every one of them, and his policy is so effective that he will bankrupt them. The reason for that is not mere vindictiveness on the part of the Minister. I am sure that the Minister is much too clever to go in for mere wanton pursuit. There is a reason behind it just as there is behind every provision in this Bill, and that is a political reason.

    2043
    It is not as a rule the custom of many hon. Members on the other side of the House when they reach the House of Commons to continue to be members of their local authorities, but there is a large number of Members on this side who endeavour to carry on their work in this House and on municipal bodies. The great advantage of this procedure of the Minister will be that not only will he be able to eliminate these people from local councils, but by pursuing them into bankruptcy he will be able to get rid of such Members in this House as are on local councils. The result will be many by-elections in constituencies represented by Members on this side. There are two things in this Bill. One is a class attack on the poor man as a poor man, and the other is a set attempt to injure political opponents, and to endeavour to prevent the onward march of Labour, whether on the local councils or in Parliament. I think that is a bad misjudgment, and in this case I suggest it is rather insulting. The law of this country has never been that when you have a charge involving no moral offence you should deliberately pile up penalty on penalty, and pursue men and women to the utmost extremity of taking all their goods.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated, and the Minister has occasionally agreed, that the present system works well, and that there are very few cases where there is any reason to complain. Now we come to a very old provision of the law. If you do not pay your rates, for instance, the law provides that your effects can be arrested, a man can be sent to prison for a short period, and then you have purged your offence. Now as to the law with regard to surcharges. If you are surcharged £50 or £5,000, at present the sole penalty is that your household goods are sold up, and, if that is not sufficient, you spend a certain period in prison and are then released. There is rough justice in that. Makers of the old law realised that those were not crimes for which a man should be ruined, that the sale of the household goods was a heavy enough penalty, and it was roughly proportioned to his means. Now the Minister is changing
    2044
    the present law, which provides for the household goods being taken to a plan by which all that you possess may be taken. That is an excessively cruel plan. We know, for instance, that very small people are on some of the borough councils, tradespeople, struggling people, people of quite small means, and it is a frightful danger that public life may bring you into absolute ruin and bankruptcy. We have pointed out several times, and I would repeat, that the crime itself is one on which there is some doubt, that there is also doubt as to the person on whom the auditor may fix. Where the crime is so indefinite, and where the person who may be fixed upon as a criminal is so uncertain, it is a horrible thing to say that the penalty is to be absolute financial ruin. This Bill enables the Minister to sell up and to discharge from public life persons who have been guilty of a surcharge up to £500, for £500 is enough to bankrupt any working man or any small shopkeeper. Anyone who knows how close some of the smaller shopkeepers live to the edge, as it were, knows that the loss of £500 would ruin many of the businesses.
    The first point is that you make the penalty the complete financial ruin of the poorer people who have been guilty of a surcharge of very much less than £500. We have had it said that £500 surcharge—the Minister has chosen to draw that line—ought not to disqualify a man from serving for years on a public authority, but if he is a poor man it will disqualify him as long as he remains a bankrupt. If we do say that a surcharge of less than£500 ought not to deprive a man from serving on a public authority, we ought not to disqualify a man from sitting on a public authority because he is a working man or because he is a struggling tradesman. The rich man can pay £500, and perhaps a little more, but It will have to be a very rich man to repay the whole surcharge, which would depend upon the size of the local authority. A very small error will accumulate to a monstrous sum. Where you come to the member of the rich authority, it is not only the poor man, but the rich man in his castle as well as the poor man at his gate whom this hits, because very few rich people, even, would be able to meet the surcharge on a rich authority. It might be, as it was in one case, not £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000, but £100,000

    2045
    or £200,000. That is the point which I want to press.
    There has been no reason shown for altering the existing law. You have disqualification if the surcharge is over £500, and you have the financial penalty by which you can take a man's goods. Why must you add to that, bankruptcy for the poor man? You find no safety in the fact that the auditor may surcharge the whole council, as the charges, jointly or severally, take from everybody according to their means, and turn them all out naked to the world with all the savings of their life stripped from them. You are doing something more. You are not merely making these people incapable of sitting on their local authority, you are making them incapable of sitting in Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. Now we have got to the bottom of this Bill. Although the Act in such circumstances would provide an automatic disqualification from a local authority by taking the whole of a man's property, in this way you can make the man incapable of sitting in this Assembly for the whole of his life perhaps. We all know that the Minister had his eye on Members of Parliament. We all know that he has been continually pained and troubled in his mind that he has had no more power than to take away their goods from them. Now he says: "Give me power to ruin my opponents. Take all they have got from them. Hound them out of public life."
    Sir ALFRED KNOX: Rot!
    Miss LAWRENCE: It is perfectly true.
    HON. MEMBERS: Rubbish!
    Miss LAWRENCE: Rubbish? What is the point of altering the law? The Minister has said, in the first place, that he is dealing with political questions and policy.
    Sir K. WOOD: Poplarism.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Add to that what is also said, that there are very few cases, and those mostly in the London district. What does that mean? The Bill is directed against the very few cases in London. That is the Minister's statement. It will apply to a great many cases in the country. I ask: What is the object of altering the law so as you can
    2046
    take a man's goods and all that he possesses? What is the risk, except that the Minister dislikes the persons in various London districts and desires to drive them out of public life? He is not content with disfranchising them so far as local authorities are concerned. He is taking power in this Clause to drive them out of Parliament. Do not tell me that the Minister, whose talents we all know so well, is acting inadvertently. I have never accused him of carelessness or want of intelligence. I know too well that this Bill, the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act are all part of one great encircling scheme directed against the political and industrial members of the working class. No one can be such a child as not to see how these things hang together. The Minister has partly brought forward and partly inspired the whole calculated scheme of attack. This is not a careless Bill, but is a carefully thought-out Bill designed to hamper the political activities of those who represent the workers, and the workers themselves, in precisely the same same way as the Trade Unions Bill hampered their industrial activities.
    Sir K. WOOD: I think anyone who has studied the present position with regard to the enforcement of surcharges in some of the cases which we have mentioned to-night will agree that some alteration in the law is necessary. If there be a conspiracy in this matter, certainly the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) must be in it, because he has been one of those who has pointed out the necessity of dealing with a situation of this kind. He has said:
    "We know perfectly well that, if a board of guardians be surcharged, and if it refuses to pay, and find its way into prison, the Ministry of Health has the board of guardians in prison, and it has a policy of surcharges which it must enforce, at any rate from the point of view of its own dignity. A deadlock takes place; no money is paid, the taxpayer is not relieved, the boards of guardians are 'Poplarised,' and in the end the situation is the same, the only victim is the poor Ministry of Health, which is given an absolutely impossible law to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol. 170.]
    It is to deal with that situation that this Clause is being introduced into the Bill. This Clause is, at any rate, an endeavour to deal with that situation, and, I think,

    2047
    a perfectly fair one. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), has given the House the impression that in cases where members of authorities are surcharged the next thing that happens to them is that they are committed to prison, sold up, and bankrupted. That is not the state of things at all. The only event in which members can come under this particular Clause is when they fail to satisfy either the Court or the Minister that they ought to be fairly excused wholly or partially from personal liability in respect of the surcharge. The hon. Member who spoke just now gave the impression that members of local authorities are in the hands of the Minister of Health in this matter. Nothing of the kind. If it is over £500, they have to go to the Court, and if it is under £500 they have the option of deciding whether they go to the Court or to the Minister. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who would not say that, if there were a reasonable case the Courts would excuse them, as has constantly happened again and again when the Minister has exercised his jurisdiction.
    We have not heard a word to-night about the poor ratepayer whose money is being expended and wasted. Is he not entitled to some consideration? You have the two stages which I have mentioned: the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon has pointed out, when the only victim was the Ministry of Health, and the next stage, where the member of the local authority is unable to satisfy the Court or the Minister that he should not be fairly excused from the particular act that he has committed. Then under all these circumstances the hon. Member wants to persist in the procedure by which the only remedy is to attach the goods of the person affected, or they go to prison for a short period. We have had some experience of that. We know what happened in Poplar when that remedy had to be applied. That was no effective relief. There were members of the board who had property and yet could not be attached. Why should not members of the board who had stocks and shares be attached? The present procedure is perfectly ridiculous. If, in such a case, a member of the local authority is not able to satisfy the Court that he has
    2048
    reason that he should be fairly excused, the whole of the remedy of the law ought to be available. People should realise that, if they are members of local authorities, they are there as trustees; and, if they fail to act reasonably, they must suffer the full penalty of the law. They are the last people who ought to complain. No other members of local authorities up and down the country are finding any difficulty in this matter. A few local authorities in London first adopted the particular policy, and now they come complaining to the House when the matter is put on a proper footing. The difficulty of it has been pointed out by their own leaders, and, under these circumstances, they ought to be the last people to complain. Other members of local authorities are able to carry out their duties properly, and there is no reason why the law should not be put right. The great majority of the House will realise that it is doing the fair and right thing, and will not inflict any unnecessary hardship or injustice on anybody who desires to carry out public duties properly and fairly.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the hon. Member suggest that only London boards of guardians have been surcharged to any extent?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, I say that they are the only boards of guardians and other authorities that are really affected by this Bill. A large number of people have been surcharged from time to time, but they have been able to satisfy the Minister in nearly every case that they have been acting fairly and reasonably.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yesterday afternoon, at the beginning of this Debate, I and my hon. Friends were accused of inconsistency in changing our ground. The speech that we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary is entirely different from the speech which supported this proposal in the early stages of the Bill. Clause 3 and the Amendment that we are discussing now happen to be of particular importance to hon. Members on this side of the House, and it is, I think, unfortunate that hon. Members, who have taken little part in this Debate, should make interruptions; of a discourteous kind when my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) was speaking on some-

    2049
    thing with which she is closely connected. We have had, not for the first time, from the Parliamentary Secretary extracts from speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald), almost always quoted irrelevantly. The speech that my right hon. Friend made in 1924 had nothing whatever to do with the bankruptcy of people in the situation that has arisen out of the Poor Law. If I remember the right hon. Gentleman's argument aright, it was that a situation had arisen of such a character—partly because of the action of previous Ministers of Health and partly because of the economic circumstances that had arisen—that, in the present state of tendencies there was bound to be a deadlock. That has nothing to do with whether you are to put people through the Bankruptcy Court, with all that that implies. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us now that that is the only fair way to deal with the situation. But that is not the argument that was used either on the Second Reading or in the Committee stage. The argument then was entirely different. It was an argument addressed to mankind in general, an argument which showed the humanitarian instincts of the Minister of Health. It was with a desire to prevent these people being hampered and humbugged and their furniture being sold up. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "What about the poor ratepayer?" The Minister, on Second Reading, did not argue about the poor ratepayer. The whole of his argument was that if you put these people in a position where you sold them up and put them in prison, the poor ratepayer was not a penny better off. The whole purpose of it was to show that the punitive method of dealing with these people did not help the ratepayer. Then how is bankruptcy going to help them? It is not going to help them at all. It is not the poor ratepayer that the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned about; it is the large ratepayer It is the small handful of large ratepayers that he is concerned about. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to cheap martryrdom. It is not cheap martyrdom for the individual to go into prison.
    I should not look forward with any pleasure to whatever little posses-
    2050
    sions I have being sold. If it comes to cheap martyrdom, if punishment is to be regarded as a halo, surely the device of bankruptcy means a larger halo than ever. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to destroy the halo. Surely he is increasing the size and make of the halo. He is making martyrdom something really worth having and the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary will not hold water for a moment. If you want to see cheap martyrdom which was accepted for years and years it was when the marble clock was taken from the mantlepiece of the Nonconformist who was a passive resister against the Education Act of 1902. But the type of martyrdom which results in people going to prison and having their furniture sold is not cheap martyrdom. We are told that the local authorities are in the position of trustees for the public. In what manner can local authorities be expected to be better trustees if they have held over them the threat of bankruptcy? It does not achieve that purpose. In the last resort, the only guarantee the mass of the public have against bad government is to choose the public representatives rightly. No measure of bankruptcy, no punitive provision of this kind can possibly get down to the roots of this problem.
    But even greater injustices enter into this question. People may be rich enough to escape, but their crime is no less than that of the poor man. Both the rich man and the poor man have been surcharged for the same offence, and yet because one of them is rich he may be able to escape bankruptcy, and the poor man cannot. If it were merely a question of bankruptcy, merely a question of selling up all that a man has, it would not be so bad, but the truth is that certain definite social consequences flow from bankruptcy. It means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North has said, not only disqualification from sitting on any local authority for five years but that they are deprived of the opportunity of sitting on any local authority so long as the bankruptcy hangs over them. Not only that. There are Members in this House to-day who, if this Bill be put on the Statute Book, may find themselves deprived of the right to remain Members of this House, because under this Bill it is almost certain that

    2051
    there will be members of local authorities who will be surcharged. They will be bankrupted because they are not wealthy men. They should have been able to enjoy their representation in the House so long as they retain the confidence of their electors.
    This provision, which means bankruptcy, is really a class distinction. That seems to me even more unfortunate than the other arguments against it. If people are proved guilty of an offence, the question of their wealth or their poverty ought not to determine the measure of their punishment. That, I think, is perfectly fair. I do not think any hon. Member of this House, if he looks at it fairly, would say, because a person is well-to-do, he ought not to suffer the same as a poor person for an identical offence. Yet that is the effect of this Clause, and we desire to move this Amendment to remove it and make the penalty more according to the ability to bear the brunt of it. My submission is that this institution of bankruptcy as a possible punishment is indefensible, unfair, and differentiates between the rich and the poor. We learn that this Bill is already in operation to-day, and it means that the poor people, reluctant as many of them are because of the sacrifices they are called upon to make, are beginning to consider twice and thrice before they join a public body because of the possible consequences. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they would try to look at this thing objectively, they would see that this punishment of bankruptcy is most unfair, vindictive, and almost inevitably bound to mete out far heavier punishment to poor people than to rich people. As we have more poor people on this side of the House, it means on the whole that bankruptcy is going to be a punitive move to be applied to members of my own political party, and will not act against members of the political party opposite. I wish hon. Members would really look at it from a serious point of view. I can conceive of nothing more unfair than to make money the final test whether a man is to remain in public life or not. I hope Members of the House will go into the Lobby on this occasion at least in support of the Amendment.
    2.0 a.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to
    2052
    several Debates during the course of the evening, and on two or three occasions he has quoted the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) in justification for various parts of the Bill and for the Bill as a whole. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been grossly unfair in so far as he merely quotes a portion of a speech which appears to suit hie particular purpose, when he must have known all the time that a different meaning altogether could be attributed to the words. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the next few sentences following the quotation that he has made so frequently during this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon continues, following the Parliamentary Secretary's oft-quoted passage:
    "I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) if he would not help us in trying to devise that collateral security. I should be very glad if it were possible to get collateral security that would work equitably and fairly, and would be in accordance with democratic Government—"
    May I ask the Minister if this Bill is in accordance with democratic Government? Can any part of a Bill be in accordance with democratic Government if, when people are elected to carry out the desires and aspirations of the voters, and, having done so, the right hon. Gentleman comes along and tells them "You shall be fined £20, you shall be disqualified for sitting for five years, and on top of that if you are a poor man you shall be put into the Bankruptcy Court"? Is that in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's ideas of democracy?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not at all surprised at the reply of the hon. Gentleman, for his conception of democracy is very curious. I will continue the quotation I was reading. The then Prime Minister was replying to the Poplar Debate, and was following Mr. Asquith, now the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and he went on to say:
    "And would be in accordance with democratic Government—collateral security which, in addition to the surcharge, would protect the ratepayer. I think my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the only collateral security that is going to be effective in the end is the security of an equitable Poor Law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol. 170.]

    2053
    If the hon. Gentleman in making his quotation would have been fair I do not think even his own supporters would have held that it justified him. The hon. Gentleman said, when replying to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, that since persons who in future might be surcharged had the inestimable privilege of appealing to the Minister or of going to the Courts, that ought to be a sufficient guarantee; that there would be few or no possibilities of either fine, disqualification, or bankruptcy taking place. On the assumption of the hon. Gentleman himself that the only people likely to be affected by this Bill are four or five London boroughs—it may be that there is something in that assumption—does he imagine that those of us who live in the provinces are feeling at all easy about the Bill? We are feeling that there is something beyond the London boroughs embodied in this Bill. We know, for instance, of many Labour town councils who have done much better work for the districts than was done hitherto, and who may, as a result of this Bill, find themselves surcharged to the sum of £500 and the several punishments inflicted in the Bill, and I want to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he attempts to apologise to the House by stating that the Bill only affects some four or five London boroughs that he is not stating the fact. The Bill will be applicable to the whole country. Authorities which have only half a dozen members will be susceptible to all the punishments embodied in this Bill. If through wages, through direct labour or indirect labour, through any one of the schemes they undertake they find, through some unfortunate circumstances that their estimates have gone astray, the auditor comes along and the Minister is not amenable to their overtures because of their political opinions—
    Sir K. WOOD: There are the Courts.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Even the Courts may be biased. Some very curious decisions have been witnessed in this country. I have one or two cases in my mind which it would not be in order to quote. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that the possibility of fining a person £20 owing to his serving his district to the best of his knowledge and according to his judgment, in the best interests of his district should not be held over his head, in addition to
    2054
    disqualification from serving his district for five years, and, on top of it all, to be sent to the Bankruptcy Court because he did well. Any person accused of a violent assault would not be confronted with such a punishment as would be meted out here. One could be prosecuted for the embezzlement of £10,000 or £50,000, and he would not suffer such a punishment as is embodied in this Bill. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman by a series of actions are trying not only to destroy the value of the franchise in certain directions, but by their Trade Disputes Bill limiting industrial power they are endeavouring to deprive the electors of the value of their votes. They have only one other thing to do to complete their reforming work—reform the House of Lords, and then they will have accomplished all they have to do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise under this Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: At all events, one is obliged to read into this Bill the third stage of a proceeding which is designed expressly to cripple the opponents of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to suggest that this Amendment at all events ought to be accepted as an earnest of their desire to do the right thing, instead of attempting, as we suggest he is attempting to do, to cripple his political opponents and to prevent dozen of districts from having the advantage of the work of men and women willing and anxious to serve the people on local governing bodies.
    Mr. PALING: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in some of the replies which he has made, has spoken with unction of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) some time back. I think he has done so nine times. That made me suspicious. He seemed to think it was a conclusive answer, and that it was such an excellent reply that it was only necessary to read it. I was suspicious that there was something else which the right hon. Gentleman had said that had not been quoted. We have been to the trouble since, of course, to find out what the right hon. Gentleman did say, and we find that the construction which the Parliamentary Secretary was putting on the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a construction

    2055
    that it certainly would not bear and was quite opposed to the construction which the right hon. Gentleman intended. But I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary thought that his case was so bad that, bad as it might be, it was good enough for the arguments put up on this side. Another thing he is very much concerned about is the poor ratepayer. I would like to ask him whether he thinks that the adding to the measures that can be taken against the man or woman who has already committed a crime, of civil debt and bankruptcy is likely to bring any financial or monetary relief to the rate-payers.
    Sir K. WOOD: This Bill already does so.
    Mr. PALING: It is infinitesimal and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it. What he is concerned about, and what the Minister is particularly concerned about, and the Debate discloses it more and more, is this Machiavellian policy. The Minister sits there and smiles to himself and thinks "We are doing all right," but behind this, of course, is an underlying motive. It has been pointed out before that it really is not a question of suing these people for a civil debt and bankrupting them to give some financial relief to the ratepayer. The Minister is using another method already indicated in the Bill for people surcharged with an amount over £500. They can be disfranchised for five years and stopped from sitting on an authority. Now, under £500, they can be bankrupted. I think that is Machiavellian, if ever anything was. What does it really matter to the person? Does it do anybody any good to bankrupt them over a question like this? The Minister gave us some figures of cases, and it was shown that an enormous majority of them had been let off after an explanation.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only gave the number that appealed to the Court.
    Mr. PALING: In most cases, he found out that the surcharges were the result of a mere mistake. Am I not right in saying so?

    Division No. 472.]

    AYES.

    [2.18 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Buchan. John

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Balniel. Lord

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Campbell, E. T.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That I do not know.
    Mr. PALING: Well, I think we can take it that the huge majority of the cases have been cases of pure mistake. I ask the Minister whether any case likely to be treated under this new Clause is not equally likely to be a pure mistake? Does he imagine that people go into this business determined deliberately to commit a criminal offence? He knows that this Clause will act very harshly, and for him to suggest that a man is not already sufficiently punished and that you must add to it a civil debt and bankrupt him, and that that will deter a man is to be on the wrong track. When a man is convinced that the course he has taken is right and he knows there are penalties already in existence, the added penalty of bankrupting him will not stop him from doing it. I suggest that that is not the real motive of the Minister at all. His real motive is that you should bankrupt these people and by that means stop them from serving on an authority. In the majority of these cases where they have been summoned, and in some cases sent to prison, the majority of the ratepayers have actually returned these people again. The Minister knows that they have. The ratepayers have thereby proved that the majority of them have been in sympathy with, and approved of what these people have done. Hon. Members opposite do not desire that these people should be sent back, and they are taking this course in order to prevent the ratepayers in the future from voting for these people or saying whether they believe in them. This Clause is mean and despicable. We believe it is deliberately designed to bankrupt these people in order that the party opposite shall have an advantage over their political opponents.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 49.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Rye, F. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington'

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Christie, J. A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Savery, S. S.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sawerby)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Loder, J. de V.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cope, Major William

    Long, Major Eric

    Skelton, A. N.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Dlxey, A. C.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Oakley, T.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wells, S. R.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Penny, Frederick George

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry,

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Harland, A.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Womersley, W. J.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Radford, E. A.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Wragg, Herbert

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Remnant. Sir James

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Captain Viscount Curzon

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Potts, John S.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Townend, A. E.

    Buchanan, G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, George

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawson, John James

    Westwood J.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Whiteley. W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Montague, Frederick

    Windsor. Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murnin, H.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes

    Hardie, George D.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    Division No. 473.]

    AYES.

    [2.25 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent. Dover)

    Christle, J. A

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Balniel, Lord

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fremantie, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cope, Major William

    Goff, Sir Park

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Buchan, John

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Harland, A.

    The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 50.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Oakley, T.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Penny, Frederick George

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Radford, E. A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Wayland. Sir William A.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wells, S. R.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Long, Major Eric

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Rye, F. G

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Womersley, W. J

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Savery, S. S.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wragg, Herbert

    Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    skelton, A. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Smithers, Waldron

    Captain Viscount Curzon.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hardie, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Potts, John S.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scurr, John

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Townend, A. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lansbury, George

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawrence, Susan

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lawson, John James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mackinder, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Murnin, H.

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "proceedings," in line 9, to the word "shall," in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "under the enactments repealed by this Act for the recovery of sums certified by a district auditor to be due."
    This is merely a clarifying Amendment designed to make the meaning of the Sub-section more clear. The words in the Sub-section are not really changed by the Amendment. It is merely the order of the words that is changed to make the position of the enactments repealed by the Act quite clear.
    Mr. PALING: Does this mean that it is intended to make it clearer that all the penalties intended to be inflicted shall be inflicted?
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Short title, application, repeal and extent.)
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out from the word "accounts," to the word "before," and to insert instead thereof the words "in respect of expenditure incurred."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment I move is in order that this Act shall not be retrospective, and that persons who have been engaged in the work of local government shall not be surcharged for expenditure incurred before the passing of the Act, Before the time given in the Act. I believe the Minister of Health intends to meet us on this Amendment, and I will content myself therefore with moving it.
    Mr. BECKETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member has correctly inferred, I do propose to meet him on this Amendment. I desire that to-morrow, if possible, we shall have a clean slate, and I do not want any ragged ends in respect of any action that we have taken. Though I think the hon. Member's Amendment goes a little too far, I am willing to make this Sub-section apply only to expenditure or losses incurred before the 31st day of October, 1927. That covers the expenditure incurred between March and October, 1927, and we will put in this Clause the same date as we have in Clause 1.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would you mind repeating that? I did not get the reference.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I had better read out the Amendment. It will come in line 16 and leave out from the word "accounts" to the end of that Subsection, and insert the words "if and so far as they relate to expenditure or loss incurred before the 31st day of October, 1927."
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) withdraw his Amendment?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made:
    In page 4, line 16, leave out from the word "accounts" to the end of line 17, and insert instead thereof the words "if and so far as they relate to expenditure or loss incurred before thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."—[Mr. Lansbury.]
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "schedule," in line 25, to the word "are" in line 31.
    These are purely drafting Amendments rendered necessary by the passing of the Poor Law Act, 1927.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 5, leave out lines 7 and 8, and insert instead thereof the words:

    17 and 18 Geo. V., c. 14.

    The Poor Law Act, 1927.

    Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section one hundred and fifty-four and section one hundred and fifty-five except so far as they relate to the payment of costs.

    Sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of section one hundred and fifty-seven.

    Sub-section (3) of section one hundred and sixty.

    [Mr. Chamberlain.]?

    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of defectives.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "with," insert the word "strongly."
    In page 2, line 14, leave out the words "for their own protection or."—[Mr. Crompton Wood.]
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.
    Adjourned at a Quarter before Three o'Clock.

INDIA.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  RAILWAYS.
  RAILWAYS.
  BRITISH FILMS.
  BRITISH FILMS.
  PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
  PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
  LAND ASSESSMENT.
  LAND ASSESSMENT.
  BENGAL PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.
  BENGAL PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.
  DELHI UNIVERSITY.
  DELHI UNIVERSITY.
  MANDATED TERRITORIES (PETITIONS).
  MANDATED TERRITORIES (PETITIONS).
  OCEAN ISLAND (PHOSPHATES).
  OCEAN ISLAND (PHOSPHATES).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (GRANTS).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (GRANTS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  STEEL FORGINGS.
  STEEL FORGINGS.
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRIC LIGHT CURRENT WANDSWORTH (PRICE).
  ELECTRIC LIGHT CURRENT WANDSWORTH (PRICE).
AGRICULTURE.
  BANKRUPTCIES.
  BANKRUPTCIES.
  EGGS (MARKING).
  EGGS (MARKING).
  PRODUCTION COSTS.
  PRODUCTION COSTS.
  TENANCIES, EAST ANGLIA.
  TENANCIES, EAST ANGLIA.
  MARINE ALGAE (DR. M. KNIGHT'S INVESTIGATIONS).
  MARINE ALGAE (DR. M. KNIGHT'S INVESTIGATIONS).
POST OFFICE.
  ACCOMMODATION, WITHINGTON.
  ACCOMMODATION, WITHINGTON.
  ECONOMY.
  ECONOMY.
  DIVORCE PETITIONS.
  DIVORCE PETITIONS.
  COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
  COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
  CHINA (PIRATES).
  CHINA (PIRATES).
  VALUATION DEPARTMENT (ADVICE, LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  VALUATION DEPARTMENT (ADVICE, LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  WOMEN FRANCHISE (REGISTER).
  WOMEN FRANCHISE (REGISTER).
  LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).
  LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).
  TAXI AND OMNIBUS DRIVERS, LONDON (PROSECUTIONS).
  TAXI AND OMNIBUS DRIVERS, LONDON (PROSECUTIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS).
  ROYAL NAVY (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRANTS).
  AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRANTS).
  BRANCH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES (CLERKS).
  BRANCH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES (CLERKS).
  NATIONAL FINANCE (GIFTS).
  NATIONAL FINANCE (GIFTS).
  INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCES).
  INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

PRAYER BOOK MEASURE, 192—.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise in accordance with Notice to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Prayer Book Measure, 192—, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. I have no hesitation at all in asking your Lordships to pass this Resolution, because I believe that by doing so you will at this juncture promote the strength and good order of the Church of England, and that that in itself will be for the good of the English people. But I find some difficulty as to how to put before you a matter which has been so long bandied about in discussion as this has.
It is not easy to tread usefully on trampled ground, where every critic has felt that he knew all about it, could say his say with ease and could constitute himself a judge as well. A more important difficulty is this. I shrink altogether from trying to handle here thoughts and doctrines which belong to the deepest and most sacred mysteries of our faith. I do not propose to do so; but I realise, of course, as your Lordships will realise, that in the hearts of many of us these are underlying the whole of the questions which are under consideration even while we skate on the surface of the subject. I find it yet further most distasteful to be at variance
772
with brothers in the Christian faith, with many of whose opinions I am in the profoundest sympathy although, I think, they are taking a mistaken attitude in this particular matter. I will say something more about that directly, but I was anxious to emphasise it at the outset. We shall hear statements on doctrinal and practical points in these debates and I do not propose to deal with them now. I want your Lordships to look largely at a large matter and, to use a common phrase, to regard the wood rather than the trees. I shall raise certain large questions myself in a few minutes, but first I want to say a word about the position of this matter in Parliament.
We hear words which I think windy and even foolish, to the effect that this is not really a matter for Parliament, that the Church has spoken its own voice decidedly and that the duty of Parliament is to endorse what the Church has said. I dissent altogether from that view and dissociate myself from those statements. We are acting under what is known as the Enabling Act. That Act, as a Bill, was introduced by me at this Table some eight years ago and I took care in introducing it (and others who followed me took the same line) to point out that, though Parliament was, and I think most rightly, substituting a workable for an unworkable system of Church legislation, Parliament was not depriving itself in the end of any fundamental right. I adhere to that to-day. Every member of this House has, in my view, his absolute right to vote freely upon a matter of this kind and it would be impertinence on my part to suggest anything else.
I do consider, however, looking at the matter if one may from what we call the moral aspect of it, that a man is bound before voting on this subject to have exercised very extreme care to know what it is that is asked for, who they are who are asking for it, how far they have really declared themselves on behalf of the Church of which they are members, and what would be the consequence in the country of the rejection of a united wish officially given by a united Church. Your Lordships have got or have had abundant literature from those who oppose us in these matters. It is urged on you that I and those who are associated with me in bringing forward this Measure are

773
doing by the Book all sorts ox dreadful things: that we (or I as Archbishop) are—I can quote some words for I have the papers with me—false to our ordination vows, that we flout the teaching both of the Bible and the reformed Church, that I and those who are with me are to be regarded as renegades contravening the whole principles of the Reformation, and that I am subtly trying to bring back into English homes the obscurantism and the error from which the Reformation set England free, and so on. I could multiply quotations almost unlimitedly. Your Lordships have probably read some of that literature, though not all. It is a little startling, and it is interesting and important and significant—I say it with great respect—to learn of the funds which are flowing into the coffers of those who, in order to expend these funds, circulate such a mass of literature. I have heard of a sum of £10,000 in the last few days added to the other funds for the circulation of that kind of literature. Well, so be it.
The attack has been largely against myself. I am an old man. I have been a Bishop nearly 35 years and an Archbishop for nearly 25 years and my life has not been lived in private or silently or unrecorded. Standing here I assure your Lordships to-day that I am absolutely unconscious of any departure from the principles of the reformed Church of England to which I declared allegiance at my ordination 52 years ago and I have striven to maintain them ever since. If I thought our proposal was calculated to controvert or to impair those principles I should not be standing here. But I believe nothing of the kind. When I read that flood of literature and note, the points that are brought forward, I rub my eyes and look afresh at our Book or at the Measure to find where are the points to which these vituperative epithets can properly be applied. In all seriousness I ask whether the arguments thus circulated are not preposterously overstrained, are not distorting altogether the true proportion of things; and whether those writers are not using deliberately inflammatory language of a quite inapplicable kind. I remember the phrase of a Scottish controversialist a generation ago in the height of a great conflict north of the Tweed—"Gentlemen, your tones are more tragic than the case will bear." I think that is true of
774
a good deal of the literature which I have read with respect and care but which I find strangely unconvincing.
After that diversion I come to three questions which I intend to answer if I can and which seem to me to be those to which your Lordships have a right to expect an answer. First, what adequate reasons have you for desiring a new or revised Prayer Be ok at all? Next, what do you regard as the outstanding difference between the rules of worship as surviving now and the rules of worship which will be ours if the Measure receives the Royal Assent? Thirdly, what good result or consequence do you expect to attain by passing this Measure into law? I think that fairly covers the ground of the criticism which we have to meet. The first question, then, is: What adequate reasons have you for desiring a new or revised Book at all? Well, I ought to know about that and, for what has happened in the last thirty years, I must bear my full share of responsibility. In the closing years of the last century, thirty years ago, it was said that indiscipline and confusion were rife in the Church's life. It was said then that it was due to a lack of due administrative power on the part of the Bishops who had then been holding office. I think it is very unfair to throw all the blame on them and, after all, the names of Tait, Benson, Magee, Fraser, Lightfoot are not the names of men who were either weak or careless, and they were the foremost administrators during those years. The cause of our difficulties lay deeper and it very soon came to light.
In 1899 it fell to me here at this Table on behalf of the Bishops, though I was not then Archbishop, to introduce a discussion on what was called indiscipline in the Church. Sir William Harcourt was at the time fulminating in the country and the echoes of denunciation against the Church were rife. If any of your Lordships would care to refer to the discussions which then took place—they were somewhat lergthy—you will find how we urged that what hampered the Bishops in doing their work was that they had only got the rules of 1662 to work upon and that in the then condition of the Parliamentary system of legislation it was impossible to alter them. There was no possibility of getting the subject properly

775
discussed in the House of Commons. Time for that was entirely lacking, but we were bound to go on and do our best as we were. We did go on and we did do our best. The difficulties went on, a few years passed, and in 1904 the noble Earl (who is not at the moment in his place) who was then Prime Minister, the Earl of Balfour, appointed a Royal Commission.
I may remind your Lordships of the terms of reference to it, the point being to show you that all that the Commission was asked to do was to deal with the question of discipline pure and simple. The words were:—
"To inquire into the alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the law relating to the conduct of divine service in the Church of England and to the ornaments and fittings of churches; and to consider the existing powers and procedure applicable to such irregularities and to make such recommendations as may be deemed requisite for dealing with the aforesaid matters."
As your Lordships will see, the question was simply how better to bring about the due working of discipline, as we call it, in regulating and controlling the vagaries. The names of the men appointed on that Commission are somewhat important, because great care was taken that they should not be men who would be other than completely loyal to the principles of the Reformation. Lord St. Aldwyn was Chairman. He was an admirable Chairman who throughout showed the keenest interest in the whole matter and certainly no inclination to depart from principles such as I have referred to. Lord Alverstone was a member and took an active part, Lord Northampton, Chairman of the Bible Society, Sir John Kennaway, Chairman of the Church Missionary Society, Sir Edward Clarke, a Protestant champion and known as such for many years past—those with myself and two other Bishops and of course Sir Lewis Dibdin, a great authority on the law of the matter, formed largely the Commission. Only three of them now survive, Sir Edward Clarke, Sir Lewis Dibdin and myself.
We had two years of sittings. We sat one hundred and eighteen days and we issued in the end a unanimous Report, but it was not a Report which exactly corresponded with the limited terms of reference given to us. And why? No sooner had our examination of witnesses begun and our investigations into these
776
matters been carried steadily forward than we found that, however difficult it was to enforce discipline as things then were, the real mischief lay behind. It was that the rules which had to be followed and obeyed—or disobeyed, as many of them had to be—by the ordinary parish priest or the ordinary Bishop, were wholly out of date, and that it was quite necessary to get new rules laid down, new orders—marching orders I suppose they would be called—put into shape if we were to expect to be able to have an orderly mode of working within the Church and its life. I can remember how again and again Lord St. Aldwyn used to say: "What is the use of our discussing irregularities of this kind and their naughtiness"—as he used to call it—"where the rules themselves want amending?" We could not do it. There was no mode of getting the rules amended and there we were. When we put out bur Report we took care to call attention to that fact.
May I read a few sentences which are really important as showing the history of the matter?—
"… the law of public worship in the Church of England is too narrow for the religions life of the present generation. It needlessly condemns much which a great section of Church people, including many of her most devoted members, value; and modern thought and feeling are characterised by a care for ceremonial, a sense of dignity in worship, and an appreciation of the continuity of the Church, which were not similarly felt at the time when the law took its present shape. In an age which has witnessed an extraordinary revival of spiritual life and activity the Church has had to work under regulations fitted for a different condition of things, without that power of self-adjustment which is inherent in the conception of a living Church."
I will read another sentence and that is all:—
"The inclination characteristic of the temper of the sixteenth century, to ignore all varieties of feelings and opinion existing among men of the same generation, and to make no provision for a change of feeling and opinion as one age succeeded another is one far-reaching cause of irregularity. It is … incongruous that the precise and uniform requirements which were in harmony with the Elizabethan ideas of administration should still stand as the rule for the public worship of the Church, under altered conditions and amidst altered ways of thought."
And there are many other sentences of a similar kind which I could quote. We were unanimous in presenting these

777
points as the things that really needed to be considered if the matter was to be properly dealt with.
Throughout the whole discussion it was recognised, as you will see at almost every page, that the real difficulties centred round and in something connected with the celebration of Holy Communion. Among the recommendations issued by the Commission was that Letters of Business—your Lordships know the mode by which the Crown puts the Church in Convocation into action—should be issued. They were issued, and they were issued with due recognition of the lines suggested by the Commission as to what had to be considered. They were somewhat different from the reference that had first been made to the Royal Commission which dealt solely with the question of discipline. The Letters of Business issued to the Convocation contained instructions—

"(a) To consider the preparation of a new rubric regulating the ornaments (that is to say, the vesture) of the ministers of the Church at the times of their ministrations, with a view to its enactment by Parliament; and

"(b) to frame, with a view to their enactment by Parliament, such modifications in the existing law relating to the conduct of divine service and to the ornaments and fittings of churches as may tend to secure the greater elasticity which a reasonable recognition of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England and of its present needs seems to demand."

The Convocations received the Letters of Business and they got to work. It is and must be always a slow matter getting things through Convocation, because busy men have to meet only two or three days at a time twice or three times in the year. It is practically impossible to get forward with business in the case of men who are not like Members of Parliament with a primary duty to attend to Parliament and its work, but are men who have other things to do. The result is that the matter always hangs fire and drags. In this case, although ere long careful Reports were prepared and presented, the matter took a considerable time.
Your Lordships will find in the very well drawn Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament that one of the appendices sets out what those Reports were. It is worth your while looking through them if any doubt exists as to the thoroughness with which the matter
778
was threshed out and considered in all its details by the Church. After some years of that the War came, and the whole thing was interrupted, so that we had practically to begin over again. But suggestions did take shape by degrees and meantime the National Church Assembly, with powers which we are remembering to-day when we pass this Resolution which comes from the National Assembly, was formed in 1919 with full Parliamentary consent, at the Church's instigation and request. That made what we call the Enabling Act. Instantly the matter was further considered. Committees, lay as well as clerical, were appointed to consider what the Convocations had done and to argue the thing out afresh. There were lay committees, clerical committees and committees of Bishops—I will not weary your Lordships with the details. In the end, when the matter had gone through the various committees backwards and forwards and at last received final approval from the Assembly as a whole, it was put to the vote; and your Lordships have often been reminded what that vote was.
It was really a significant vote. There are 711 members in the Assembly, and 650, though they come from every corner of England, were there to record their votes. Of the Bishops, 34 voted for the Measure and 4 against. There are now more Bishops than there were then, and the Bishops created since, if they had been in the Assembly, would have swelled the majority, not the minority. There were 253 clergy in favour of the Measure and 37 against, and of the laity there were 230 in favour and 92 against. The total membership of the three Houses is: Bishops, 40; clergy, 319; and laity, 352; and, as I have said, out of 711 members 650 recorded their votes. Those figures are, I maintain, of supreme importance. What do they represent? It may be said that they do not represent the public opinion of England. We have heard it asked a dozen times: "How can you say that the laity who sit in the Church Assembly really represent the opinion of England?" They do not profess to represent the people of England, but they do profess to represent the Church of England, the people who care about these matters and go to church, who want to use their Prayer Book, who care

779
about the form that Book should take, who understand the question and who are the people really qualified to speak. To say that they represent only a small minority of the thousands who could be gathered in Trafalgar Square or the first thousand who cross London Bridge in the morning does not meet the case. We summoned the Church, in the most official way that it could be summoned, and it spoke, not only with no uncertain voice, but with an overwhelming majority in favour of going forward with this Measure.
Then outside diocesan conferences were held, both before and since, and these have recorded their votes, almost, all of them by very large majorities, in favour of the Measure. I cannot give precise statistics, for complicated reasons with which I will not trouble you. Some of the dioceses hold synods and not diocesan conferences for this purpose, and the statistical details would not correspond. But, roughly speaking, I do not think I am wrong when I say that 80 per cent, of the members of the diocesan conferences were in favour of the Measure and 20 per cent, against it. In addition there were, of course, innumerable petitions and memorials of all sorts, for and against the Measure, from meetings of all kinds which wished to take exception to it and from official bodies, mainly from parochial church councils and the rest, which wished to support it. I have all these petitions. They have all been carefully considered, not one has been neglected, and they formed the material before us for final consideration. It is sometimes said that a diocesan conference does not count because it is certain to support the Bishop. I do not want to dwell upon that point, but it is not exactly my experience in all the affairs of Church life. I would ask your Lordships to turn to the dioceses of Norwich and Worcester if you want to find whether that rule holds in every case.
I hope I have shown conclusively that this is no plan or fad or phantasy of the Bishops. It is commonly called the Bishops' Measure or the Bishops' Prayer Book. The Bishops were the people who, after the end of the discussion, had to hand the matter over for public discussion here and elsewhere. It came in the order of proceedings that the last word
780
should come from the Bishops, as it is practically necessary that it should, in this matter. But the Book is not the Book of the Bishops; it is the Book of the Church, drawn up by laity and clergy and finally approved and amended and put into its ultimate shape, with such additions or omissions as were thought desirable, by the Bishops. But the Book is substantially a Book with which the Bishops have no more to do than the clergy and laity in I he Assemblies. It is produced by those men who had to meet conditions that had been proved, that were everywhere found to exist and that gave rise to the votes of which I have spoken in Assemblies and elsewhere.
I maintain that every available means of securing corporate votes on the part of representative churchmen, those who were themselves going to use the Book and who understand it, has been adopted. No stone has been left unturned. Once you grant, as I suppose most people will giant, that some inquiry was necessary and some changes were desirable, we literally could not have done more than we did to secure the opinion of the Church upon the subject. It has sometimes been said, even within the last few days, that the Measure is being hurried through. Twenty-one years is a longish time, and for twenty-one years we have been debating this matter up and down, and, whether the Measure is good or bad, it is not a hurried one. It is not put before your Lordships in a hurry. That, I think, we may certainly say.
Having taken those pains—I come to my second question—what did we, or they, produce? We produced the actual Measure and the Book which lies on the Table and is in your Lordships' hands. It was especially in deference to the wish of the laity that we did not put out two books but one Book, containing the old Prayer Book as well as the revised one. It was by their wish that it was put out in that shape. That brings me to the second point. What do we regard as the outstanding differences between the rules of worship, as we have had them, and the rules of worship that will be ours if this Measure passes into law? What are they? I can deal with them only briefly, for it would be a long story and not very appropriate here to go into great detail. But I think I can show shortly what they are.

781
As regards rubrics generally, an enlarged liberty is given to the clergy under strict limitations, to vary usages and the order of services at different times and to secure—returning to the Commission's Report—
"the greater elasticity which a reasonable recognition of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England and of its present needs seems to demand."
There is plenty of elasticity to-day. I do not know how many of your Lordships, when you go to church, especially in the evening, find that the Book of Common Prayer is strictly followed. I think your Lordships will sometimes find very little of the actual Book of Common Prayer as it: stands. The words may all be within the corners of it, but it is re-arranged and added to—in most cases, perhaps with admirable care and excellence, but under no control except that of the parish priest. Examples of that elasticity would be the liberty as to the use of the Athanasian Creed, the power to shorten certain services, such as the Litany and others, which are thought to be too long, and even the leave to the clergy to use extempore prayer, subject always to the permission of the Bishop, so as to check certain vagaries that might be found to follow that usage.
Then—I will dwell upon this only for a moment, for I think it will be discussed later in our debates—there are additional prayers for the King, more than there were in the Book as it was, and there is the right to use them in other places where they could not be used legally under the present Book, but could be introduced under the other Book. There have been imaginings that the Bishops tried to fashion a roadway, if I may put it so, for some supposed Republican priest, who might if he was a very ingenious man (and he would have to be an ingenious man), find a way of evading the prayers for the King in divine service altogether. The actual point was never suggested to us until it was too late for us to make an alteration, or we might have made it compulsory. The notion that the Bishops had a plan in their minds to facilitate a roadway for this Republican parson, who may or may not be existing, or someone who has a desire to impeach or interfere with the Royal supremacy, is a notion which is fantastic. Fantastic or not, it is not true. The idea was never
782
even suggested until it was too late for us to alter it, otherwise there would not have been the slightest difficulty in getting it altered. That is obviously the answer which the Bishops, when called upon to issue guidance and give instructions to their clergy as to the use of the Book, will give. They will take very great care that the prayers for the Sovereign are regularly used. That I can answer for without any doubt at all.
Another change is the introduction of prayers for present day needs which did not exist in 1662—prayers for the Empire, the Colonies and their Parliaments, for industrial problems, for foreign missions, for the League of Nations, and so on; and these are introduced in enlargement or enrichment of the present Book. Then comes a question which is a little more controversial in some people's minds—namely, prayers for the dead. The Royal Commission called attention to the fact that although the rubrics contain no provision for allowing actual specific prayers for the departed, there has never been in the Church of England any suggestion, that it was a false doctrine, or forbidden in the Church, although it was not prescribed. We have made it explicit now, and if your Lordships ask why, I answer simply: The War. Anybody who had to do with the War, and saw the way in which the homes of England were shattered by what happened in the War, and the need there was everywhere, the craving desire which existed, for some prayers in commemoration of the departed, in that specific form which does not depart from what is legitimate doctrine, will understand what I mean. That is to my mind the specific answer, and I am absolutely prepared to defend it.
Then a word should be said about the way in which quotations from the Bible are used with more carefulness of choice in the new Book, and with certain variations in the occasional offices. It did not seem to us exactly suitable that the patriarchal story should be taken as an example for Christian matrimony. That is modified in the new Book, and you will find slight changes where the New Testament rather than the Old Testament receives the emphasis that is wanted. Then there comes recognition of a more devotional spirit. That is a large question, and one which is not very easy to put into a few

783
words, but the Royal Commission called attention to it, and again and again other people have called attention to it, as something which is happening not only in the Church of England but in the whole country at large. There is a different thought about reverence and emotion, seen in the æsthetic side of modes of conducting services or arranging for services. Do not let anyone, however, think that it is a change that the Church of England has devised for itself. You will see it just as markedly in any Nonconformist chapel, and more markedly indeed, as it seems to me, among those—who certainly have no desire to depart from Protestant principles—of our brothers north of the Tweed.
I have been at pains to obtain a few copies of the monthly notices and orders of services in Edinburgh. There are no better known places in the Scottish metropolis than St. Giles Cathedral and St. Cuthbert's Church. People who had to do with those churches even fifty years ago, to go no further back, cannot but contrast the services in those places, and in those days, with what they are to-day. The contrast is even greater than that which is to be seen in most of our churches in this country. That is not a very strong point, perhaps, as an argument, but it explains why it has been found necessary to have it in mind in the changes we are making. I ought to add, of course, that no human being will allege that the change which I have alluded to betokens any change of doctrine or any departure from Protestantism—I mean, you can have these changes without departing from the sternest doctrines of Presbyterianism which you may desire to maintain.
Far the most important difference really relates to Holy Communion. That is extremely difficult to discuss here adequately, because deep doctrines are being dealt with. Of course I am most ready to meet any challenge which anyone may desire to bring forward with regard to the doctrinal significance of anything in the new Book, as contrasted with anything in the old, but I cannot go into such profound doctrines as the presence of our Lord, in argument on the floor of this House. I am ready to do it in the right time and place, but I do not think it would be right to do it here and now. Very great care indeed is needed in the
784
discussion of this matter, because of the fact that the abuse of what is right in regard to services of Holy Communion may lead possibly to superstitions of a grave kind. When you ask why was any change wanted in regard to that, I think it is constantly forgotten how great is the change in regard to the usage of, and frequency of participation in, Holy Communion. I am not discussing now whether it is right or wrong to multiply celebrations, but it is a fact, and there are many hundreds of parishes with thousands of parishioners who are now in the habit of having celebrations perhaps every day of the week, certainly on many days of the week, and often communicating many days of the week. The result is a gigantic increase in the number of people for whom provision has to be made, and who therefore want two things—first, a possible abbreviation of the services; and next, a greater variety in the services by the introduction of additional collects, epistles and gospels and the bringing in of anniversaries and so on, which will give the wholesomeness of a measure of variety to what is a stable, recognised and continuous service.
I think the reason of that and the need of that is very often forgotten when the matter is being discussed. But it would be erroneous altogether not to recognise that the temperament of very many Church people leads now to a wish for a different arrangement of the office from that which there was before. Do not let us exaggerate what the difference is. Our office is rearranged much more than rewritten; the words of the old office are mainly in the new office. In some cases the order of the prayers is different, and there is a difference in the introduction of a different prayer of consecration or canon as an alternative which may be adopted where it is desired. It is really a question of temperament. Many people like that better, many people do not. My own belief is that those differences are easily exaggerated, and that it would not be true to say that the one office presents a really different shape of doctrine from that which the other presents. Were I a parish priest I should certainly use both. I know that there would be in any large parish a great many people to whom the one would be preferable and a great many to whom the other would be preferable. It is mainly temperamental,

785
and I should find no difference whatever brought about by use of the one usage or the other. I venture to say that such differences of order and words as are suggested in the new office express quite as truly and even—because more broadly—someone might say more truly, the wide doctrine which the Church of England has always held upon that subject.
Those of us again who can speak from experience north of the Tweed know that no kind of harm occurs in Scotland from the fact that you have that alternative use; some of the churches there use one, and some use both. In St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, you have at one hour the English office, at another hour the Scottish office, and I would defy you to make any distinction between the two groups of people that use them. Both these forms of the office are perfectly sound in the faith and are English and reformed in their character, and there is no real reason why we should not have both. I have never been able to share the feelings of some of my friends, even of some of my episcopal brethren, who think that there is something odd or strange or wrong in having two forms or canons of the consecration prayer. I do not understand why you should not have both if both are true.
What many people at all events regard as our most formidable crux is the permission for a carefully restricted use of reservation of the consecrated elements for the sick. I will make a confession which I have never made in public before. When I began to sit on the Committees which were dealing with this matter I was myself in hopes that we should not find it necessary to sanction reservation at all. It seemed to me that the dangers of superstition loomed rather large. I thought the need for it had not been adequately proved, and that I should feel doubtful whether I should ever whole-heartedly join in recommending it. I was convinced otherwise simply by the sheer strength of the evidence. I do think that the alleged need has been often exaggerated, and that the statements about it are mixed up with other things connected with fasting and the like, which are liable to distort people's view a little about it, perhaps unconsciously. But I am perfectly convinced now, on abundant evidence which I could adduce if necessary, of a real and honest need in certain places under our somewhat novel but
786
quite legitimate wish for more frequent communion. If these communions are to be maintained for those who are sick, and accustomed when well to communicate perhaps two or three times a week in their churches. I am convinced that something of the kind is necessary, though you should regulate it so as to prevent abuse. I would ask your Lordships not to make that question too big, and it can only become so by abuse, but we are doing the utmost we can to guard against that abuse.
Again, I would say it has been in Scotland for centuries the custom to have reservation where it was wanted in the churches. I have never heard of any harm arising from it whatever, and I have taken pains in the last few weeks to get into correspondence with the authorities of the Church in Scotland to find out whether those of them who are most afraid of Romish error are finding difficulty owing to its being legitimate under the Scottish custom to have such reservation. I find none. It is very rare; I believe it will be rare in England, too. The abuses which we are urged to anticipate would be certain to grow are, I will not say absolutely unknown, but are insignificant in amount. We have taken pains by the use of every bit of language that we can get to guard the Church against abuse arising in regard to the reserved elements. It is not reservation itself, it is what may follow from it that causes the difficulty. We have done all that we could to render, that as unlikely as possible by the careful words that we have used. We prescribe that it shall not take place in any church except with the licence of the Bishop, who is only to give that licence if he finds the need of it when shown to him, and when he has done it all, the cases in which he exercises it are to be safeguarded in every way we can suggest against the abuses of which we were afraid. Services of devotion, as they are called, before the consecrated elements are forbidden, and altogether the utmost care has been taken to guard against the superstition which might quite possibly arise.
We have a balance of difficulties—on the one side the risk which is there certainly, whether you think it large or not, of some superstitious use; on the other side the risk of withholding communion from those who really desire to

787
have it, and who ought to have it, and for whom it is difficult to provide in any other way. To refuse it in the face of that large wish would be a great responsibility. I believe that we are right in allowing the restricted use, and I am prepared at least to accept responsibility for the administration of it and for seeing how we regulate and control it. At the House of Laity, at the end of the last, group of their sessions, when this matter was passing out of their hands, a resolution was passed as follows:—
"That while this House believes that the great majority of the laity are satisfied with the present service of Holy Communion, the House will nevertheless agree to the insertion by the Bishops in the Prayer Book of one alternative form containing provision for vestments and reservation for the sick only, if in their opinion this will promote peace and order in the Church."
Therefore they have not felt a fundamental objection. I have thus tried to deal with two of my three questions.
Summing up what I have had to say, you may ask again: "Do you really maintain that in the new Book as contrasted with the old there is no change of doctrine?" I am constantly quoted in that blunt form, as having said that there is no change of doctrine in it. I maintain that is substantially true; but I should like my exact words to be quoted lest I should be said to be departing from anything I have stated. This is what I said when I made a speech about it, and it is constantly quoted unfairly. My words are these:—
"I have thus briefly summarised what seem to me to be the more important proposals in our Draft Book. Important as they are, I wish to say emphatically that in my deliberate judgment nothing that we have suggested makes any change in the doctrinal position of the Church of England. The balance of emphasis may here and there be somewhat altered, but that mere fact will disquiet no one who remembers what different aspects of the truth have been emphasised by recognised Church leaders during the last four hundred years. The distinctive basis remains sure, and is enriched by the development of thought, the acquisition of fresh knowledge, and the upgrowth of new theories for the exposition of truth manifold yet one and indestructible."
To those words I unhesitatingly adhere. But they are perfectly fairly summarised by saying that I do not consider that the new Book introduces any change of doctrine in comparison with the old.
788
I have tried to show, firstly, why we needed a Book and produced it, and, secondly, what it contains which differs from the old. Some of our friends who criticised our action originally thought that the proper course would be to produce a Book with all the minor changes and enrichments that were introduced and to leave out all that concerns the Holy Communion. I must have wasted my time this afternoon if I have not shown that our difficulties really centre on, and are concerned with, the Holy Communion. In the Royal Commission's Report there are three pages dealing with that one subject to one page dealing with any other. I urged this thirty years ago. I urge it still. It really surprises me that men whom I honour and respect, as I do some of those who advocate that plan, should think the suggestion that they make to be either practical in itself or conducive to peace. Candidly, it does not seem to me to be either. We have to face our real difficulties if we are to do any good at all. To attempt to leave the Communion office out would, in my view, be to shirk the task which has occupied us these many years, absolutely to invite disaster and strife or even chaos, and to leave an impossible task for those who come after us, or to ourselves if we are still here to administer the condition of things which would have come about had we taken that course.
Many of your Lordships have had in another capacity than membership of this House to deal with big problems on the land such, for instance, as where a long road over a moor or fields has had to be repaired. The road has got out of repair everywhere, but in one part of it the road has got so completely out of repair that it is almost impassable and you can hardly get along there without difficulty. It would never be said by those responsible for the care of it: "Repair the rest of the road, but leave that part entirely alone for somebody else to deal with some day in the future." That seems to me to be a perfectly good parallel with the suggestion that has been made, and I for one should not feel that I could give any support to a plan of that sort or believe it to be of the slightest use.
I think I need say very few words on the third question: What good results do you expect to attain from this? The

789
new Book is largely the outcome of a now spirit of loyalty among the clergy, a spirit which, as some of you, in the midst of so much controversy, may find it hard to believe, has steadily grown while the Book has been discussed and re-discussed. If you accept the Book that spirit will be encouraged and will grow. I have abundant evidence of how many there are who have been thought to be likely to be difficult to handle, if I may use that expression, in the future in this matter, who are entirely with us in regard to it. A few weeks ago I received a deputation from leaders among the Anglo-Catholic clergy, who wished to put before me a paper which had been drawn up by a large number of them in the time at their disposal. They said they could have got many more signatures. In conversation and in speeches on that occasion they said, in effect: "We at present are not acting in accordance with what this Book suggests. We are acting in that way because we are dissatisfied with what was possible under the rules of 1662, and we have made our own deviations from them. Give us the Church's voice as to what it wants to do and then you will find we will obey that voice and we will go with it and follow it." Here are their words:—
"We pledge ourselves us Catholic priests to give loyal acceptance to the Deposited Book, as put forward by the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation and passed by the three Houses of the Church Assembly when it becomes the law of the Church."
That is an important development.
It is not as if those men stood alone. Quite independent of them I have testimony from many parts of the country regarding those who are saying quite definitely: "Give us a Book which belongs not to 1662 but to 1927, which emanates not from the authority which gave us the Book of 1662 but from the Church in its Assembly, and after all these discussions you will find that we feel ourselves bound, whether we like it or not, to accept that as the voice of the Church and to follow it." It is not an easy or always a very desirable thing to make inquiries about what men may do in a supposed case, but there is one diocese in England where such inquiries have been made from individuals. Individual clergy have been asked what they feel about the new Book. Among them, of course, are men of a different view from
790
men of the kind I have spoken of. The result of the inquiry shows that out of 300 clergy 285 readily volunteered the pledge of loyalty to the new Book. That contrasts altogether with the kind of picture drawn with the lurid details that I have discussed. I speak with a full sense of responsibility when I tell you that that kind of picture is unreliable. There are, of course, men who are spendid men, loyal men in many ways, who are keenly opposed to the kind of changes I speak of and who are perfectly within their rights in saying so, vociferously if necessary. But it would be a mistake to regard them as more than the capable and voiceful witnesses of the other side, many of whom, remember, are saying what they say now before the Book has become law, in the hope that the Book they do not desire may not become law. Once it becomes law the review of it, as I am perfectly convinced, will be an entirely different one.
I mentioned Anglo-Catholics as speaking thus. There are plenty of Evangelical clergy who do not like some of the things in this new Book—as, perhaps, many of us feel that there are things in the Book which we do not entirely like—but they say: "Once the voice of the Church has spoken we shall fall into line with the rest." That, I think, will grow and increase and I venture to urge the importance of those considerations. I know that many do not share my optimism, but it is there and I cannot deviate from it. I pray you not to attend overmuch to, I think we may say, the comparatively few on either end wh are vociferous for the reason I have given, but who will, I believe, fall into line once our Book has become law, as I hope it may.
You ask what I think will be the consequences of adopting this Book. It will, I believe, enormously facilitate the work of the Bishops. The pathway for legitimate use will be broader and firmer and it will be found that we can reasonably prevent, as we never rightly could before, the transgression of its boundaries. We have helped the clergy and laity to fashion these rules and we have done it in the faith and fear of God. We mean ourselves, as Bishops, to observe the rules, a thing we cannot do exactly and literally with the Book as it now is, and we ask you to help us to go forward. I have formally promised publicly that

791
the Bishops mean to act together in this matter, and that they intend this Book to be obeyed and intend to use all their efforts to secure that it shall be obeyed. I cannot go further than again to assure you that, acting so together, we have said we would do it; and we will do it. Anyhow, those who oppose us bid us, I imagine, to go on administering the Church whether the Book passes or not. How are we going to do it if you deny us the armament and the strength for which the Church has asked with this tremendous united voice? The Church has asked that we should have a body of rules enacted by the Church itself, enacted not in 1662 but in 1927.
As my last word I would take still larger ground by saying that the giving to us of this Book would mean the liberation of the Church from the great mass of those petty strifes which have troubled us up and down the country in the past, and would conduce to the Church's firm progress towards doing better the work to which we long to give ourselves wholeheartedly and together both at home and overseas. Therefore I beg your Lordships to put aside technicalities, important as many of them are, and to realise the vast issue which may turn upon the vote you give forty-eight hours hence. We have talked about rubrics and special prayers and differences of view on important questions, but in my personal opinion there is a larger issue at stake than any of these. The Church of England, for which to-night I am spokesman, has a trust immeasurably great and sacred. From the depths of our hearts we want to use it aright. We want to use for the bettering of English life every ounce of the strength which by God's benediction is ours. We want that strength so consecrated and so united that it shall be irresistible for what we desire to effect in our country's life. For years we have been weakened and distracted by the strife and the arguments on sacred things which, within our own borders, have been keeping men apart. Thank God there has been of late—and I say this with absolute certainty—a growing resolve to attain a firmer unity. The hour has come when those hopes and endeavours may reach some measure of realisation. The Church of England has, to use a rough phrase, pulled itself together and the central cohorts of men and women who
792
really care, the men and women who, when they say their prayers and think about these things, use the Church's service for their aid, have united in asking for the enrichment of our common worship with a view to a new strength for our common work.
I quoted a few minutes ago the enormous majority by which our representative Church Assembly voted in favour of the Book. The fact that Bishops, clergy and laity have given so overwhelming a vote is itself an important thing, but far more important than the actual vote is the significance of the united voice, not of the clergy only but of the laity. Those, after all, are the people with whom the responsibility rests, the people on whom the trust is laid. They are the people who know what are the ideals, what are the aspirations which sway the people, and especially the younger people, of our land, and they have told us that they are practically at one—I will go so far as that—in wanting an enriched mode of worship with a view to a newly strengthened life for the facing of the problems of ignorance and wrong. That huge majority on the part of those who really know and care is a symbol; it may even become a sacrament. It means the starting afresh on the high emprise which is ours in England and overseas. It is ours at a time when new knowledge of every kind is at our call and new opportunities are within our reach. It is yours, my Lords, to say by your vote that you bid us go forward equipped for what we have told you that we need—better and ampler offices of prayer.
You can turn down our request if you will. I do not believe that you will do so. I am sure that you will abstain from an act which would be confusing and disheartening to us all. Disregard the clamour, the inevitable clamour, of a section on either side. Good and earnest men and women as they are, they fail to see the great significance of our united purpose and resolve. Regard rather the meaning of our eager and reiterated wish, alike in central Assemblies and in every diocese in the land; give us the new implement of power; we shall use it, God helping us, to His glory and the people's good. For twenty-five years it has been mine to bear the central burden of responsibility. An hour has come which I have never known before when, up and

793
down the land, we await the decision as to whether or no we are to be thus armed for united effort, united advance, inspired and uplifted by united prayer. From my heart I bid you give effect to our intense wish by passing the Resolution which is before you. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Prayer Book Measure, 192—, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, after the lofty speech and the persuasive arguments of the most rev. Primate who has just moved this Resolution, I confess that it is with great diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships, but I feel that I should be wanting in courage if I did not at once rise and on behalf of those who act and think with me, express an unequivocal "No" to the Motion that is before the House. The most rev. Primate spent three-fourths of his time in forcing an open door. Before I come to the Motion, however, I must justify myself in taking so early a part in the debate. It is perhaps an act of foolhardiness that a junior Baron, a newcomer to your Lordships' House, should venture to tread on what is such difficult ground as that which lies before me, but I may be able perhaps, if not to justify, at any rate to palliate my interference, by saying that over a long period of years I have taken a deep interest in Church matters. I was one of those in the House of Commons who helped to pass the Enabling Act to which the Archbishop referred. I have stood by his side when he took the chair and I have made speeches on behalf of the Welsh Church to try to avoid its disestablishment. I was entrusted by Mr. Bonar Law with perhaps the very last negotiations which took place on behalf of that Church with Sir Basil Blackett for the Treasury, when £1,000,000 was handed over to the Church. I may also say that at the request of both Archbishops I sat on the Commission on the finances of the Church, and although I was not able to sign the Report—I was moved to my present post ere the Report was produced—I read all the evidence and I heard some of it. Therefore I am not unacquainted
794
with some of the problems which beset the Church at the present time.
I am going to ask your Lordships to take a wide view, a large view of a large matter. It is not for us to discuss personal prejudices, to recall the early thoughts of our early upbringing. We have got to direct ourselves to the question of whether this Measure will do good to the body politic at large. May I make one or two observations before I begin my argument? Let me say at once that I believe that the discussions that have taken place since the most rev. Primate placed this Book before the Assembly on February 7 last have done good and not harm. We are a religious nation, and it is, a good thing that at times we should consider where we are and whither we are moving. I have a great belief that the discussions which have taken place have been on a high level, a high level never reached before. The most rev. Primate has been in touch with every controversy in the Church since the days of Bishop Colenso, and I believe I should get his testimony to the fact that throughout the months from February there has been an endeavour to discuss this matter with a respect for the feelings of others which has never been known before. Except for one passage by one Bishop to which I will refer later, I do not think there has been any sentence which has done serious harm.
Let me add this: you must expect a certain number of persons, when they believe strongly, to write strongly. For my part I should not take exception to any passages which have been written or spoken about the views which I and others hold. I think myself that if you hold opinions sincerely and strongly it is almost impossible not to express them with an emphasis, which may cause some disquiet on the other side. At the same time, I do hope that in what I have to say I shall be able to express myself in a manner which will not do harm and will not cause pain to anyone else. Deep down in my heart for many years, throughout my whole political life, I have held this dear, that we should in no circumstances cause pain to those who differ on matters of religion. We are all entitled to our opinions, and, more than that, we are entitled to the respect of each other in holding those opinions. Let me reassure the most rev. Primate.

795
He seems to be a little disturbed by the sort of literature that has been flying about in the last week or ten days. With some knowledge of the House of Commons, and having passed through a good many contested elections, I am bound to say that, although I have found these things on my table, I have not looked at them very seriously because I have had deeper things to think about. The writers have expressed themselves rather crudely, perhaps, but I should like to say that I have not seen anything like abuse of the most rev. Primate. On behalf of all those with whom I act, let me assure him that these things will make no difference to their opinion of him, that they will in no way be deflected by any hard words that have been used to him.
Indeed, I would go further and say that, if every Bishop and if every parson was like the Archbishop of Canterbury, I should be content to have any number of Prayer Books of every kind and sort, and I should be content to trust his experience and judgment in using them to the satisfaction of the congregation. But, unfortunately, Bishops do not last for ever and Archbishops do not last for ever. One of the difficulties at the present time is that, although we have assurances from the Bishops of to-day, we have to think about the Bishops of to-morrow. We are discussing a Measure which is not for to-day, or for to-morrow, or for ten years. We are discussing something which is for generations which are to come. That is why less importance attaches to a resolution of the present Bishops as to how they will administer the Book. I want to know how the Bishops will administer it twenty-five years hence, and I think the greatest safety will be found in putting a rubric in the Book itself which will give something like a permanent safeguard, which may be binding not merely on an ephemeral body of to-day but on future generations.
Now I come to the Motion. We are told that this is the result of twenty-one years' work. I think I shall carry your Lordships with me if I refer to a sentence in the speech just delivered by the most rev. Primate—that the strongest case must be made out to justify a new Prayer Book, or an alter-
796
native Prayer Book. We are told that the new Prayer Book is an alternative Prayer Book, and that therefore it need not be used. I agree, but it is an alternative to one of the most sacred portions of the Prayer Book, and it is upon that that our chief opposition dwells. I should like to say that I am not going to ask your Lordships to consider small details or small points. Indeed, I would say that upon all matters which were touched upon between a quarter past four and five o'clock by the most rev. Primate, I think there is really no controversy. Enrichment of services, some new collects, some new services for particular occasions—everybody is prepared to allow them. I would go further and, speaking for myself, I would say that I am not going to ask your Lordships to consider vestures and ornaments. I agree with the most rev. Primate that in the course of the last generation new colour, new æsthetics, have been asked for. Let it be so. On such a matter I would not dwell or ask your Lordships to dwell.
But when we come to the question of whether it is wise to have an alternative service in the sense of an alternative Holy Communion, I turn to see what has been the opinion of those who are not unqualified to judge. Let me take the view of the Bishop of London. I will refer to a speech which he made in 1915, when a very considerable alteration was suggested in the office for Holy Communion. The right rev. Prelate, who has had great experience, said, speaking on April 28, 1915, that he objected to the immediate proposal, which was not for a complete service but for an alternative. I am not going through all his reasons, but the second upon which he founded his hostility to the amendment was that he would himself be considerably obstructed in his task of working his diocese if this change were made:
"he had been going round to all the deaneries, celebrating in the Churches, and sometimes the Rural Dean was Evangelical and sometimes a High Churchman, but at least they had one Communion Service—he might have had to stand at the north end sometimes, when the Rural Dean was an Evangelical, and take the east end position when he was not, but anyhow they all had the same service."
Let me also remind your Lordships of a still later expression of opinion in

797
this matter. The Bishop of Gloucester, who is not yet, I think, a member of your Lordships' House, said in 1923:—
"I sincerely hope that nothing will be done to create two Prayer Books.… With regard to Holy Communion, it is difficult to conceive a more complete failure of statesmanship … (than) by allowing a discussion in exactly the service in which most of all we should be united.… May I express the hope that, whatever is done with the rest of the Prayer Book, we definitely refuse to acquiesce in any proposal to allow alternative forms of service?"
That is a weighty opinion. Who is the Bishop of Gloucester? Doctor Headlam is well-known. Perhaps he is one of the most learned of our Bishops. Many of us have read his book on the Church of England, and I suppose no better and greater exposition of the Church of England than that book has been published of late years. We may be pardoned if we ask what is the ground on which we are asked to set aside, in 1927, his opinion expressed in 1923, and how it is that we find him to have changed his opinion so completely. If these views were held by the Bishop of London in 1915 and by the Bishop of Gloucester in 1923, some of us may be pardoned if we have our doubts in 1927 as to whether this change is wise.
When we come to the effect of a dual service, the most rev. Primate said that he knew that it was used without misfortune north of the Tweed. But let us consider if from the point of view of those who are south of the Tweed. We have some evidence on this point. I quote one passage from the late Bishop of Salisbury, who spoke as having had experience in Scotland. His view, also expressed in 1915, was as follows:—
"I am the only Bishop in the room who has served a dozen years where there was dual use. I am afraid I must take exception to the statement that it has not been a cause of cleavage. On the contrary, it was a cause of cleavage."
I venture to make these extracts not because I want in any way to weary your Lordships, not because I wish to be at all hard upon right rev. Prelates who may see ground for changing their minds, but because I do want them and the House to understand that, when we are questioning the wisdom of an alternative service, we are not extremists or partisans or persons who are putting forward some petty view of our own. We
798
are trying to take the same large view that was taken by the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Gloucester and the Bishop of Salisbury in the past, and we may be pardoned if, with, something of the conservatism that belongs to the English people, we find ourselves unable to change our view. I do say that on this matter it is vital that we should have unity in that one service.
Let me say a few words as to what is proposed in the Deposited Book. My remarks shall not be long, and I hope that they will in no sense be controversial. I will endeavour to put my points as clearly as I can. There are changes. I do not mind whether you call them a change of doctrine or a change of emphasis, and I am certainly not going to hold the most rev. Primate to any short summary of what, must, no doubt, need a much larger number of words to express fairly what he said. But whether it be a change of emphasis, whether the doctrinal position be quite the same or whether it be a change of doctrine, as Lord Parmoor has said—and, after all, Lord Parmoor held for many years a very high position as one of the officers in the Province of Canterbury—whichever view you take, there it is. We know, for the most rev. Primate, has said so, that the difference really concerns the question of the reservation. I am not going into detail, but there are many who look upon the significance of the reservation proposal with a doubtful eye. Indeed, we have the sympathy of the most rev. Primate, because he has told us that when he went into the debates on this very matter he was himself opposed to it, and it is only because he has heard this evidence, which we have not, that he has changed his mind. We have other opportunities, which are denied to the most rev. Primate. We go to our own parish churches, to the services that are available to us, we know what those services are and perhaps we see more largely than he does what is the danger of this reservation.
I am not going to touch upon what I know I shall at once be told is no part of the Prayer Book—I mean the Articles. Your Lordships are all familiar with the words in Article 28—"was not … reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped," and with the reference in Article 31 to the "sacrifices of the Masses," and so on. But your Lordships

799
are also aware that, for the purpose of preventing the very dangers which were found to exist in old days, there was the Black Rubric, and your Lordships are all familiar with that Rubric. We are told that there are to be strict rules under which reservation will be allowed and subject to which only it can be permitted. Your Lordships have the Deposited Book and you have the Pink Paper which contains the printed rules. You see what is to be done and how the Sacrament can be reserved in an aumbry in the north wall or in some other place approved of by the Bishop. In the now Prayer Book you have some general rubrics which are applicable to both services. Those general rubrics do not contain the Black Rubric. It is contained in the old service and in the old service alone.
That Black Rubric was included in the Revised Book which belonged to the Permissive Use Measure of 1923, and we ask, and we ask not unfairly, why was not the Black Rubric placed among the general rubrics applicable to both services? What is the meaning of it? I do not hesitate to say, as a lawyer, that, where you include one thing and leave out the other, some difference is intended. Where you have general rubrics applying to both services, and where, in particular, you have one service which does contain the Black Rubric, I ask why is it not included again in the alternative service? And if there are to be the regulations, which are to safeguard this use, why should not the Bishops have inserted the Black Rubric in the alternative service, and saved themselves a deal of trouble in making fresh regulations? It would then have been laid down, in plain terms, what in certain circumstances may be deemed to be idolatry, and the like. I do not refer to other words, because I do not wish to give pain to anybody. We are told that this service took shape by degrees. So far, then, we may say that we hold the same view as that with which the Archbishop went into the conference, and—I say this after what we have heard from the most rev. Primate—I believe that if you could alter this Measure you would immediately put in a clause, or alter the Book in some way, to safeguard the point and make it quite clear that the doubts and hesitations of the Archbishop himself were set aside, and that there should
800
be no possible ground for allowing what is distasteful to so many, and what in the past has undoubtedly led to unfortunate practices.
A word about the prayers for the King. I am not going to dwell at length upon that subject. What I am going to say is that it is doubtful how far they are enforced. It is doubtful, and in any new alternative service there ought to have been no doubt left whatever. It is not a question of thinking that the Bishops are Republicans, and setting out to allow Republican practices. Let me state it from another end. We go to church in our parishes, and know that the prayers for the King are omitted. I had information sent to me, which I believe to be not inaccurate information, that in the diocese of Exeter quite recently, complaint was made to the Bishop that a particular parson had omitted the prayers for the King. I was talking to a man who lives in Kent, and I was told that a parson there consistently left out the prayers for the King. Am I not speaking on a matter in which your Lordships will confirm me? Do we not know that these prayers are left out at the present time? If they are left out, it is not a question of having the Archbishop to read the service and therefore ensuring that they are read, but it is a question of having safeguarded, in any new Book, that the prayers for the King shall be said, and that the practice of leaving them out, which is all too common at the present time, shall no longer be possible. Let me say one more word. To leave the prayers for the King in any possible doubt is to my mind wrong. If you believe in prayer, is there one which has been so abundantly answered? And yet we are to leave in doubt a matter which every single loyal person in the congregation desires should be sufficiently and over-abundantly said. It is left in doubt. I am not going to put it higher than that.
Having criticised as I have done the alternative service, the alternative Holy Communion, and the actual position of the prayers for the King and the like, I come now to the Measure itself. Your Lordships cannot alter this, and this is what we have to affirm. Under Clause I an option is given to the minister to use the Book in accordance with the rubrics, tables and directions. There is no option

801
primarily to the congregation at all. It is not that the congregation may approach the minister, but it is the minister whose discretion is to operate. If a question arises between a minister, who determines to use the new Book, or, I will say, the alternative Holy Communion—if a question arises between such a minister and his church council, then the matter stands referred to the Bishop. But supposing there is no council (and in some cases there are no councils), what is to happen? In any case it stands referred to the Bishop, whose orders shall be final. Here it is that I do refer to one right rev. Prelate. The Bishop of Durham spoke of the "Protestant underworld." It is true that he qualified it by saving that he spoke generally, not particularly, or particularly and not generally. I do not care if he said I belonged to the Protestant underworld—
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I explained that the Protestant underworld referred to those persons some of whose productions were quoted by the most rev. Primate.
LORD HANWORTH: I do not know what the right rev. Prelate meant, but his words do cause pain to a number of persons. Supposing a question arises as to whether a minister shall use the new alternative Holy Communion, and supposing there is a difference of opinion between the minister and his congregation, will those people, when the matter stands referred to the Lord Bishop of Durham, have confidence? When they know that they belong to the Protestant underworld, will they have confidence in that decision? I myself am accustomed to arbitration, and to the conduct of arbitrators, and when a person has expressed an opinion definitely in favour of one side or another, it is possible for the Court to remove him from the position of arbitrator. I say that if words of that sort had been used by a person who was going to be the arbitrator, and who had to decide questions of that sort as between party and party, there would be grave danger of the Court removing him from this position, as a man who had so expressed himself that he could not bring to bear that fair and independent judgment for which we ask. Those are two words which I think have
802
caused, and will cause, pain, and they do arouse a sentiment of want of security, which is unfortunate.
There are two more points which arise on the Measure itself. Clause 4 says that the Archbishops and Bishops of each province may from time to time make and at their discretion rescind such rules as are required or authorised, and so on. This is one of the worst forms of legislation at the present time. Why have these rules been made by a body which changes or whose emphasis changes? I do not say that their doctrinal position changes, but their emphasis changes, and you sometimes find, as one Bishop follows another, there is a distinct change of emphasis. These rules are to be made by the Bishops—I dare say corporately, but even corporately there is a change of emphasis—and we have no security in these rules that there shall be anything like real continuity. I should ask, and your Lordships would do so if you could alter a comma of this Measure, that instead of being left to rules it should be put into the rubrics.
Lastly I would allude to Clause 9, which gives me more disquiet than any other. Your Lordships know that when a man is made an incumbent he has what is popularly known as to "read himself in." In other words, he has to make a declaration in accordance with the Act of 1865, under which he has to say that he believes the doctrine of the Church as set forth in the Prayer Book, and that he will use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority. And although he took his vows at a time when the alternative service was not before him, Clause 9 now says that all the forms authorised by this Measure are to be "deemed to be ordered by lawful authority within the meaning of the Declaration of Assent contained in the Clerical Subscription Act, 1865." It is not easy to be sure that those words, "shall be deemed to be ordered by lawful authority" are only in reference to Clause 1. I have the uneasy and unsatisfactory feeling that we are imposing a new emphasis, a new perspective, upon a number of ordained ministers, by Clause 9. Your Lordships have always been tender to the consciences of ministers and to their attitude towards what they have undertaken. I need only recall the safeguards that were put into

803
the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, under which no possible censure could be imposed upon a minister if he disagreed with that Act. I have an uneasy feeling that we are imposing upon a number of ministers who hold different views a statutory loyalty to a new and alternative service; what the result will be I do not know, but I think it is extremely hard upon ministers. I cannot help feeling that if it were not that we cannot alter a comma of the Measure we should put in a proviso at once to safeguard the consciences of those whose consciences ought to be protected by the Episcopal Bench.
Now I come to the question of the large body of opinion that has acquiesced in this new Prayer Book. The new Prayer Book has been passed by the Church Assembly, and that is said to be, and no doubt is, a very important fact. But how representative is the Assembly? I have figures for only one diocese, but they are striking. One Bishop finds that out of a total population of 1,494,000 at the last census, 156,000 persons above the age of eighteen are registered on the parochial rolls. Of these only 8,832 attended the annual meetings, and if that diocese be taken as fairly typical of England, it follows that hardly more than 250,000 persons have even a direct concern in electing members of the House of Laity. The population of England exceeds 35,000,000, and about 14,000,000 record their votes at Parliamentary elections. If you compare those figures with the figures I have previously quoted you will see what a fiction is the representative character of the House of Laity. Those are the words of a Bishop. I am not going to quote him, because I do not want to be in any way personal or unfriendly to Bishops. I would ask your Lordships, who is your representative in the House of Assembly? Can anyone tell me who represents him in the House of Assembly? Having been a Member of Parliament, I know that as a rule one's constituents know to whom to write, but I confess that if I want to write to my representative in the House of Assembly I do not know who on earth it is to whom I should write.
Then we have the question of what the most rev. Primate described as the synod, or diocesan conference. Let it
804
not be forgotten, though perhaps the most reverend Primate is unconscious of it, that Bishops have a strange and subtle influence, which has perhaps a far greater effect than they think, but which leads the incumbents in their dioceses, perhaps quite subconsciously, to find their independence sapped and their judgment warped in favour of the views held by the man to whom they have sworn loyally, and to whom, with the splended attributes of English people, they desire to be loyal. Then there is another factor in those wonderful figures that we have heard quoted. Many people in the dioceses had the advantage of hearing Lord Hugh Cecil, who spoke to a great number of them; and, charmed as I always am by his eloquence, I cannot help feeling that if I had attended some of these diocesan meetings, perhaps not the first but the second or the third time, he might have charmed me into submission. Those figures are by no means to be taken at their face value. You may take no part in Church meetings, and you may not go to choose your representative in the Assembly, but when you go to church it often happens that you find practices going on in your own parish church, the house to which you have been accustomed to go, which you dislike, and, rather than cause pain, you silently and patiently, but regretfully, turn aside and take no part or lot in future matters.
I turn to the next point, discipline. How is discipline going to be enforced? We are told that the rules are being made more plain, and that then it will be more possible to establish discipline. The question of discipline is one on which really our views as to the Measure turn, for surely it is a poor thing to introduce alternative services, with the risk of possible cleavage, if we are not to have discipline enforced. But your Lordships observed the absolute silence of the most rev. Primate on the subject of any new or greater powers to enforce discipline than the Bishops held before. I am not going to quote—indeed I had not intended to think about it again, if the most rev. Primate had not mentioned it himself—his own words before the Commission, as to how the sands had run out, and drastic action must be taken. That was in 1903. I allude to it only as showing that the most rev.

805
Primate has been conscious of the need for drastic action and of the need for greater powers for enforcing discipline; but now we are asked to pass a Prayer Book and allow alternative services, although there are no increased powers of enforcing discipline.
What hope is there of better discipline? I suppose there are something like 19,000 clergy in this country belonging to the Church of England, of whom about 13,000 are beneficed, and we have the declaration of the 1,400 Catholic priests who say they will not obey these new orders of the Bishops. An honoured and respected member of your Lordships' House, Lord Halifax, and a great friend of mine a member of the other House, Sir Robert Newman, Canon McKay, and Canon Ross, have all written in the greatest honesty to say that they are not going to obey. More than that, the Catholic priests will uphold those who disobey any sort of orders that are made upon them regarding this question of reservation. It that be so, what hope is there of success? Let mo not be unfair. I am sure, not only from what the most rev. Primate said, but also from what the Bishop of London has said from time to time, that they desire to bring into line those who have crossed over the line. We know the Bishop of London. He is the friend of a great many of us. He says his powers must be of persuasion, advice, expostulation, and exhortation. But let me also pay this tribute to him. Would not that advice and that expostulation be given with the most tender and affectionate sympathy? I can imagine many people saying: "Yes, I agreed because the Bishop of London came to me. He has a way with him which made me yield." I say this quite honestly to him for we are old friends: If during this time he has failed—and in no diocese are there greater or more flagrant breaches of the law at the present time—what hope is there that without any new powers the Bishops will be able to enforce discipline? Not all Bishops have that sympathetic touch which the Bishop of London has; yet where he has failed, what hope is there that others will succeed? I say that on this point there is no hope, no reasonable hope that any greater discipline will be enforced.
Then, lastly, I come to the question of the chaos. How often has one been threatened in another place: "If you do
806
not pass this Bill, I tell this House here and now"—and so on. Have we ever been frightened? No. You can have a Measure establishing all that the Archbishop spoke of in three quarters of his speech which would be passed without any sort of difficulty. As to the rest, there may be wisdom in the words of the Bishop of Gloucester, that we should pause long and reconsider a second time as to whether we should have an alternative Book. I do not believe that your Lordships will attach any importance to the bogey of "chaos" in these matters. For the so-called restoration, or hope of the restoration, of discipline you are going to mark a definite cleavage. That cleavage will become more apparent because one body will support those who are in sympathy with them and others will support their own. With all respect to the Bishops, are they the only judges on this question? Very few lay Englishmen will take their religion from their officers. Experts are all very well. I have had some experience of them myself. Expert opinion often needs the correction of less concentrated opinion. As I have said before, I believe that the nation is sincerely religious, but they hesitate, to allow things to take place for which they have no taste and have good grounds for distrusting.
I summarise my objections to this Measure in this way. The dual service will cause and connotes a cleavage, and discipline will not be enforced. Certainly unity with the Free Churches is made, far more difficult than it would otherwise have been. Peace will not be obtained. Still one more reason—will you get candidates for ordination? This point came before me somewhat strikingly. When the uncertainty is brought home to the younger men, I believe they will hesitate long before they will undertake the ministry. Incidentally, as well as cleavage, I think you will have a shortage of candidates for orders.
Much has been said in recent times of the new views that are being accepted and the desire that our religion should be cleared of what may be called the accretions of past times. Many desire to be able to say "Credo" to a wider and more modern view. They desire to worship not in a spirit of any superstition or fear but, to quote the splendid

807
words of the great Apostle, "in a spirit of power, of love and of sound mind." Thackeray, in a splendid passage, says:—
"Does a week pass without the announcement of the discovery of a new star in the heaven, twinkling dimly out of a yet farther distance, and only now becoming visible to human ken though existent for ever and ever? So let us hope divine truths may be shining, and regions of light and love extant, which Geneva glasses cannot yet perceive, and are beyond the focus of Roman telescopes."
I believe that gradually religion is being purged of old accretions. I believe that men desire, faithfully desire, to use their opportunity of adhesion. You may alter the centre of the circle and that may lead your circumference to change its place, but you will not cover more ground; and while you are altering the centre in one direction you may be leaving out something else in the other. I say: Do not let us put our eyes to the wrong end of the telescope, or bring back what has been discarded in the past and make it more difficult for your Lordships and for all sincere and devout adherents of the Church of England to attend the churches, where they have been accustomed to go in sorrow not less than on other occasions and render thanks for the great benefits they have received.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I always feel that a layman addressing your Lordships' House after a lawyer is at a disadvantage. He is particularly at a disadvantage on an occasion like this when he attempts to answer a lawyer so well known, so distinguished and with so much experience as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The more so when I reflect that though the voice was the voice of the Master of the Rolls the sentiments were probably those of the Bishop of Norwich. We therefore find combined in one both the legal and episcopal objections to the Measure. I confess that I hope that an answer may be given, if not by me at any rate by plain laymen, members of the Church of England, to the various doubts raised by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down.
In the very powerful and authoritative statement with which the most rev. Primate introduced the Measure, he told us, and I was glad he did, of the great services rendered in this matter by the late Lord St. Aldwyn. Lord
808
St. Aldwyn performed a great service to the Church when he acted as Chairman of the Royal Commission. He was convinced of the mischief that was done to the Church of England by lawlessness, and went on to say it existed on all sides, not on one side only. He saw it was necessary that there should be a new standard of law, that all parties who broke the law should realise that they did break it, and that we should, instead of the law which had broken down, have a law which could be obeyed by all parties in the Church. Until you have that new law it is really impossible to expect discipline from the clergy of the Church of England. That really is the answer to what was said by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down.
It seems to me an inconceivable position that the Bishops should go to lawless clergy with the new Prayer Book in one hand and the new disciplinary measures in the other and threaten them with the one if they do not obey the other. Surely persuasion should always precede any attempt to put the law into action. There is far better hope that all parties in the Church will obey the law when they are approached by the Bishops rather in their attitude and position as their fathers in God than as possible prosecutors who are likely to put the law into motion against them. There is no single case in any human relationship in which I conceive that anybody would think it was a right thing to accompany persuasion with threats. Surely in the next year or two, while the long process goes on of the printing of the Prayer Book and while right rev. Prelates have the opportunity of seeing how far the new Prayer Book is being obeyed, the discussion on the new disciplinary rules will take place. I am quite sure the rules will be produced in your Lordships' House and become effective in plenty of time for them to have their particular effect in bringing the clergy and the laity of the Church into conformity with the law. Meanwhile we need the interval during which persuasion and the new sense of unity and concord in the Church of England should be allowed to have full play.
I confess that I am immensely impressed by the figures relating to the vote in Convocation. There the Bishops by 34 to 4, and the clergy by 235 to 32 voted in favour of the Deposited Book. In the

809
Church Assembly the Bishops voted in the same numbers of 34 to 4, the clergy 253 to 37 and the laity 230 to 92. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down complained that very few people knew who were their representatives in the Church Assembly. That is not unnatural, because you do not have any immediate representative in the Church Assembly. The representatives to the Church Assembly are elected at the-diocesan conference and you cannot, therefore, point out one single man as being your own representative in the Church Assembly, because he is one of the delegates from the diocesan conference. In those circumstances I do not think it is surprising that one is unable to do it. The allegation hinted at by the most rev. Primate, that Bishops after all have no great influence upon the laity, is shown by the voting in those two particular dioceses that he mentioned. Both in Norwich and in Worcester—where I have the pleasure of living sometimes, without, I hope, giving too much trouble to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Worcester—though the Bishops were against the Book, there was as great a proportion of laity as there was in other places in favour of the new Prayer Book. That shows that the Bishops have not that influence over the laity which some people are inclined to think they have.
The curious fact is that there was a large majority against the Prayer Book in just those two dioceses where you have the extremists most gathered together. I think we ought to remember particularly and above all that it is the extremists on both sides who are against the Measure, and we who are accustomed to the old fashioned English way of believing in the via media may surely gain some encouragement from that consideration. After all the body which is most formidably against the new Prayer Book is composed of those whom the noble and learned Lord would call the most extreme Romanising section of the clergy. It is they who are more bitterly opposed to the new Prayer Book than any other section in the Church of England, and it seems to me a curious combination when I find my noble friend beside me (the Marquess of Lincolnshire) and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Hanworth) united with that section in the Church to try
810
to procure the rejection of the Measure. That they should do the work of that particular section in the Church, I confess, surprises me a good deal.
It does not seem to me to be very difficult to give something at any rate of an answer to one or two of the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord. He asked what was the worth or the value of the assurances given by the Bishops. I think the answer is to be found in the fact that each successive Bishop is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and the Prime Minister of the day has the responsibility of finding Bishops who will administer the law. I have no doubt at all that Prime Ministers, as in the past, will in the future take care to choose from amongst the clergy of the Church of England those who will act in harmony with the other Bishops whose obedience to the law is secured. I am not concerned to defend those rev. Prelates who have pronounced against alternative services—they are quite able to defend themselves—but I do think it is some testimony to the sense of unity and concord that some of them (two or three of them only were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord) should have been ready to give up their private opinion in order to secure general assent amongst the whole body of the Bishops. It seems to me a happy augury for the future that what has happened amongst the Bishops will, as I believe, win assent amongst the clergy and laity of the Church of England. We shall give up our own particular fads or fancies which are not in accord with the new Prayer Book and not in general concord with the principles of the Church of England.
I cannot imagine how it would be possible at any moment to separate the Book into non-controversial and controversial portions. The moment you begin to do that the non-controversial portion becomes controversial and it would be quite impossible, I am sure, to do anything of the kind. You only have to look at the Book for a moment to see how the new services for the Holy Communion and the alteration for the Morning Prayer are interwoven one with another. They are all interdependent and, when once you consider those alterations which are suggested it would be impossible in any way at all I think to

811
separate one part of the Book from another. With regard to the Black Rubric, though no expert in this matter I am prepared to offer a tentative explanation to the noble and learned Lord. He no doubt has observed that what is called the Black Rubric is, technically speaking, no rubric at all. Rubrics contain a direction as to what you are to do; they contain some direction as to how you are to act; but what is called the Black Rubric is nothing of the kind; it has much more a doctrinal significance.
LORD HANWORTH: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I am quite aware of that, but it passes by the name of the Black Rubric and I do not know how better to refer to it. It is a part of the Book of Common Prayer.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not think the matter of names matters. It is what is contained in it. If I am right a rubric technically contains a direction to act and to do something. Every one of the rubrics which contains a direction to do something is repeated, but because this so-called Black Rubric does not contain any direction to do anything, but is more in the nature of something of a doctrinal character, there is no repetition of it as it is not a rubric. I think the noble and learned Lord has been a little misled by the fact that it is called a rubric. It was unnecessary, therefore, to reprint it, because, not being a rubric but being instead part of a declaration in the nature of doctrine, it has in the Deposited Book exactly the same value as it has had before. It is there for everybody to read, for everybody to see and for everybody to obey.
I turn to the question of the prayers for the King. There is, as your Lordships know, considerably greater variety allowed in the new Prayer Book than in the present one in the matter of prayers for the King. I would remind noble Lords that we are not allowed to use at Morning Prayer that long prayer for the King which is generally thought of when we speak of prayers for the King. The noble and learned Lord no doubt remembers that the Litany is appointed to be read then, and so instead of the long prayer there is only the short versicle or so found in the Litany. It is not to be used at Morning Prayer on Sundays, but instead of that there is very much more
812
variety in the way of prayers for the King. For my own part I believe that we do not want vain repetition in prayers. There is nothing more likely to assist real prayer than greater variety. It is just that greater variety which is given us by the new Book and which I think myself all would value.
I venture to say that the authority which is given for extempore prayer and time for silent prayer will in the end perhaps mean more effectual and more fervent prayer than the constant repetition of a single prayer in the present Book. The noble and learned Lord, I am afraid, is not likely to be persuaded in this matter, but I hope that those of your Lordships who have referred themselves to the Deposited Book and have seen how many prayers are there allowed for the King and for the Empire—there is a prayer for the Empire in which the King is mentioned first—will realise that there is more opportunity for prayer for the King in the new Book than there was before. For myself I confess that I do not share that distrust of the option which the noble and learned Lord possesses. The matter will be referred to the Bishops, and if there is no church council and if the laity do not object, then it is quite time they did bestir themselves and take more interest in the church which they ought to attend. I say quite frankly to the noble and learned Lord that I should rejoice to see opposition to the Prayer Book in places where hitherto there have been empty churches, because it will show that people are taking more and more interest in the Church. I believe that sentiment would be re-echoed by the Episcopal Bench. They would rejoice to see more interest taken by the laity than in the past, and if it showed itself in that way they would not altogether regret the fact.
There has been no real doctrinal change in the new Prayer Book. I am content for myself with what was said by the most rev. Primate and also by the members of the Episcopal Bench. I am content to be guided by them. But there is still another authority, the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council, which has said that in their opinion there has been no change of doctrine in that matter. I do not rejoice in that long vacation which would enable me to vary my legal studies by theological disquisitions; therefore I cannot pretend to

813
know so much about it as the noble and learned Lord. For my own part I am content with the assurances given me by those who in my opinion are best qualified to judge. Liturgical changes, quite certainly. Liturgical changes, meaning alterations in the order in which prayers are said, seem to me, so far as a layman may judge, to be altogether admirable. I am quite prepared to trust the authorities in a matter of this kind.
We want to get away from the ancient controversies of the last century in order that the Church of England may set to work with renewed energy to do her proper work, whether it be in the villages or in the big towns of this country. Too much time has been wasted on these controversies in the past, and it is high time we set ourselves to do our real work in the future. I am encouraged to think of the youth and vigour which since the War is concentrating far more on doing fresh work of this kind than on the old, very stale controversies of the past. I am encouraged by the knowledge that we have so much sympathy from amongst the Nonconformist Churches of this country. The Methodist Times, on October 13, said:—
"Free Churchmen as a whole, desire for the Anglican Church like liberty as they themselves possess. They believe that the Deposited Book, fairly used and interpreted, will be an instrument for peace."
Then there is a letter from Dr. Garvie in The Times to-day, an admirable and most sympathetic letter. Dr. Scott Lidgett, in the Review of the Churches, of April 27, said:
"Nor can the Free Churches in the light either of their principles or their history treat the Prayer Book of 1662 as so sacrosanct that no revising hand may be laid upon it.… The difficulties of the situation are obvious. The care and the caution with which the Archbishops and Bishops have endeavoured to meet them are equally obvious. They are entitled to confidence in their goodwill, to admiration of their skill and to hope they may be successful.…"
One of the most hopeful features has been the co-operation of the Church of England and those great Nonconformist bodies in great matters of moral import to the nation. That co-operation will be reinforced. I have no doubt that it will grow in future and that it will be increased by the sympathy which has been given us on this occasion by the members of the Nonconformist bodies.
814
I will venture to read a short quotation from a leading article which appeared in The Times on Friday last. It seems to me to put the question before your Lordships in a very short and simple manner. The article says:—
"The real questions for those who have to vote in Parliament are not: Do I entirely endorse the Book? or, Do I strongly dislike it or any of its provisions? or, Do I not prefer the present Book? But, Do I see in this new Prayer-book a well-designed means to secure order in the Church of England? Will it help to maintain that ordered liberty which is the tradition of the Church? Will it assist those who attend public services to worship more worthily? Does it give to the Church a readier means of ministering to the needs of the nation?"
We are all agreed that some change is necessary, and we believe that this Book does meet the needs of the people of this country and of the Church to-day. We must all make some sacrifice for the common good. We may not like everything in the Book. We are obliged to give way on personal points for the good of the whole. The Enabling Act has been passed, and it now remains to your Lordships to give either an affirmative or a negative answer to the question before you.
I rejoiced in the passing of the Enabling Act, but never so much as now when I think it is unnecessary and even improper that your Lordships' House or another place of Parliament should be expected to discuss deep questions of doctrinal value. I am rejoiced to think that we need not go into questions of that kind. We have questions of a larger import before us to-day. I believe that I am saying what would have been said far better by my noble friend the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, who has asked me if I can to find a pair for him in favour of the Deposited Book. The question I would ask—and I would especially ask it of my noble friends who generally do me the honour of asking my advice—is this: How is it that they wish to deny to others the liberty they themselves have got under the new Prayer Book? Under the new Prayer Book they can use the old forms exactly as they exist at the present time. It abolishes nothing, but it enriches everything. Why is it that they will not give us the power and liberty which they have themselves?
I cannot, if they will allow me to say so, find it easy to reconcile their position with those principles of democracy expressed—to

815
compare smaller things with greater—in their attitude in such a matter as local option. They are anxious that people should be allowed to do what they like. Under the new Prayer Book they are allowed to do what they like. Why should they deny to us the power to do what we like in the matter of the Prayer Book? No congregation will be forced against its will to use the new Prayer Book, but there will be greater freedom and forms of service more appropriate, as we think, to the present day. It is in those circumstances and for those reasons that I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to this Measure going forward for the Royal Assent.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Han-worth, in the course of what I think all of your Lordships, whether you agree with him or not, must consider an extraordinarily able speech, spoke of the religion of this country, and I understood him to say that, on the whole, we were a religious nation. Somebody, I forget who, also said that the religion of Englishmen is what they are taught at their mother's knee. An instance occurs to me that I should like to mention—a personal one, but I hope you will forgive me for that. In 1848, which was a time of terrible trouble, of riot at home and revolution abroad, when altars and thrones were falling in all directions, I was taken to Church for the first time by my mother at the Royal Chapel at Whitehall. She said to me: "When the Creed is being said, I do not want you to turn to the Communion Table." Of course I did not do so, and I have never done so from that day to this, but afterwards I asked her: "Is it wrong to turn to the right or left, when the Creed is being said?" She said: "No. Why should it be? There is nothing wrong in that, but, what is wrong is what lies behind it." I shall never forget her words. She said that if the day should ever come when whole congregations all over the country should turn to the altar instinctively, it would be a terrible day for England and for the Church—that the Church would be at war with itself.
This prophecy has come true. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in the noble utterance that he made to your Lordships to-night, said: "The hour has come."
816
We see to-day vespers, the confessional, mass, reservation and adoration openly practised in many churches in England. With those tenets we do not agree, and we turn to our leaders in the Church for counsel and protection. What do we receive? In the words of my noble friend who has just spoken, we are told: "We will help you by persuasion and peace—peace by persuasion." We ask the Bishops for counsel. I should like very much to be allowed to try to express the gratitude that we feel towards his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Grace the Archbishop of York for their very sympathetic attitude towards those of us who do not agree with this Measure. The Archbishop of Canterbury was good enough to ask us to meet him and to explain the words of the Prayer Book. The Archbishop of York went further and invited us to ask questions, which we did. He answered them with great directness and courtesy, and he went further and did something that we had no reason to expect for, though the meeting was held with closed doors, he gave his sanction for us to use the answers that he gave in the Press.
We are told that we are to consider carefully what we are asking when we take up the attitude that we have adopted. What we ask is not much, and I think it is a perfectly legitimate demand. All we ask, all we require, all that we should be satisfied with is that, in matters ecclesiastical as well as temporal, Englishmen should be compelled to obey the law. The question of discipline is a very large one. My noble friend Lord Stanhope has an Amendment upon the Paper which he will move later, and accordingly I do not propose to take up any more of your Lordships' time. There is only one thing that I want to say in conclusion. So far as I understand, we are told that this is not a Bishops' Measure. I suppose not, because right rev. Prelates on that Bench—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—have deputed one Prelate, and one only, to defend the line that they have taken and have left all the rest of the defence to the laity of your Lordships' House. They have entrusted the defence of this Measure to one of their body who holds an almost unique position. He has gained the respect and admiration of everybody by his eloquence and piety, and I think what has endeared him more

817
than anything else to the people of England is his great sympathy with the working classes of this country, but he has made some very strong statements in the country during the last two or throe years, and there is one to which I most respectfully ask your Lordships to allow me for one moment to refer.
The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Durham, in the June number of the Edinburgh Review, wrote as follows:—
"The Evangelical Party in the Church of England has been described as an army of illiterates generalled by octogenarians—a description which is more unkind than untrue."
The atrocious crime of being an old man—a very old man if you like—I do not for one moment seek to palliate or deny, and I ally myself with that which has been called by the Archbishop of Canterbury an army—that mighty host of Englishmen all over the country who think as I do—senile, incompetent, illiterate, ignorant, not up-to-date, not in touch with modern ideas. I ally myself with all of them, but I say that there is one virtue to which I think we may fairly lay claim and that is consistency. I have no more to say, except to ask your Lordships and the Bench of Bishops whether they approve, in such a crisis of the Church, in such a solemn moment as this, of such language as I have just read to your Lordships. Now I have done. All I have to add is that I cannot believe that your Lordships, in the course of this debate, will ever be influenced by language or sarcasm or ridicule such as this. I, and all who feel with me, in spite of the fact that we are not the extremists which my noble friend charges us with being—I and all who conscientiously oppose this Measure stand shoulder to shoulder, resolutely resolved to stand by the old faith which we learned at our mothers' knee—the tenets of which four or five years ago the Lord Bishop of Durham was the chief protagonist and champion, the old tenets for which some of our forefathers fought, and for which John Hampden died.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, there are some forty Catholic Peers who have a right to vote in your Lordships' House, and I think therefore your Lordships' may like to know that, so far as I am aware, none of them will take any part in the debate or in the voting. We feel that
818
it is not a question in which we should interfere with our vote, and therefore we intend to do nothing. Speaking for myself, I should like to say that although we should all like to see peace in religious circles, I cannot imagine a more incongruous body to bring it about than the present modern Parliament, composed as it is of men of various religions, professed agnostics and free thinkers, and of others who, perhaps, never go near a place of worship from one year's end to another, except perhaps to see their friends married or buried, or to be married or buried themselves.
If it is to such a body as this that the question of the Prayer Book, which practically is to lay down the doctrines and rubrics of the Established Church of England, is to be referred, if peace should come all I can say is that many of us would be very surprised. Certainly there did not seem to be much prospect of peace held out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth. I see that Bishop Knox says:—
"It is not merely that the formal assent of Parliament to matters which it does not profess to understand is in the nature of a farce. The position is worse than that. Parliament is asked to uphold to England and the Empire as the type of the public worship and as 'the pure profession of the Gospel' a Book which it has had no time to examine, no power to amend, and no competence or training to estimate."
All I can say is that I for my part feel intensely relieved that I shall have no responsibility in the matter.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, when I heard the first part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, I gathered very distinctly that he was opposed to the Measure, but I could not find out why, and it was not until he had gone some distance in his speech that I discovered the reason was that he did not think it wise that there should be an alternative service of Holy Communion. The noble and learned Lord is a great authority on matters of law. He is, as he has told you, a devout Churchman, and he has done good service to the Church, but after all the fact that he does not think it wise to have an alternative service of Holy Communion, is not to be weighed against the opinions of the great majority of the Church Assembly—Bishops, clergy and laity—who devoted their minds to this subject for several years.

819
As I heard his speech develop I traced exactly the development which I have traced in the published works and speeches of his most respected brother, the Bishop of Norwich. Exactly the same principles were stated by the Bishop of Norwich in 1920, and I have read and studied all his speeches and pamphlets, I think. Alter the immaterial parts of the service, and those things which no one really too much cares about, says the Bishop of Norwich, but do not touch that which everybody does care about, and do not have an alternative service of Holy Communion, because it is not wise. After all this violent opposition there is no suggestion of anything doctrinally wrong. The noble and learned Lord contented himself with quoting three Bishops, who at one time had one opinion and who after long discussion and fresh information have now learned to be wiser than they had been before.
He went on, no doubt, to speak of the change of either doctrine or emphasis. I have heard that expression used once or twice—that there is a change of emphasis. Those rhetorical phrases must be carefully examined. If you talk of change of emphasis, I would refer to something which your Lordships are likely to hear before this debate is over. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, has expressed his intention of opposing this Prayer Book. Now the noble and learned Lord and some others whose names I have heard mentioned are no doubt ornaments to any part of the United Kingdom in which they live, and we are very glad to welcome them into this island if they do not prefer to be in their own island; but, after all, they are all born of the Irish Church—and here is where my parable comes in. The Irish Church was separated by Statute from the Church of England at the time of the Disestablishment. It was free to make its own canons, and it set to work to make some canons and to forbid several ritual usages which are lawful in the Church of England. If there ever was a change of emphasis it was the change then made by the Irish Church.
Have we rejected the Irish Church in consequence? Do not its members communicate at our altars? Are not their priests as entitled as English priests to
820
hold English benefices? No Bishop can refuse them except on grounds on which he can refuse an English priest. If there ever was a change of emphasis it was the change made when the Irish Church got free and established its own canons, which it has been my fate quite recently to study. You can have what you may call some change of emphasis and yet have the same Church. The Scottish Episcopal Church, too, is in communion with the English Church. You have taken pains to give their clergy a position in which they can avail themselves of benefices in the English Church. Twice in the reign of Queen Victoria was there legislation upon the subject, the second time as late as the 27th and 28th years of the Queen's reign and the result of that is that, with a single previous permission of the Archbishop of Canterbury, every Scottish Episcopal clergyman is as entitled to serve in an English church and to hold an English living as an Englishman. And yet the Scottish Episcopal Church has two Communion offices, and one of those Communion offices is very like the new office which it is proposed to make the alternative English office. Several Colonial Churches have altered the English Liturgy. The South African Church has altered quite as much, I think, in the direction of the Scottish Episcopal Church as any; yet the Colonial clergy are again, under the Colonial Clergy Act, able to hold English livings under the same protection as Scotsmen. The change of emphasis is, after all, a very little matter.
Then the noble and learned Lord took some weapons out of that controversial armoury of which we have all seen so much in the last two months. I hope and trust he has not read a good many of the papers. I dare say their authors thought they were preaching to the converted, and did not send them to him. If he had read them I am sure he could not have spoken about not giving pain or hurt to anybody. Some of them are most disgraceful, most cruel to the faith of numbers of devout people, and, in addition—which is another matter—as offensive as possible to our Roman fellow-countrymen. Some of them are disreputable to the last degree. However, there are some others, and out of some of those I suppose these new points, which nobody ever thought of when the matter was before the Church Assembly, have been discovered. They have found,

821
after all, that possibly there are occasions when there will not be prayers for the King. What a godsend to the opponents of this Measure! Nobody had thought of it. If anybody had thought of it in the Church Assembly, which was full of learned and earnest opponents, the point, if there is a point, would have been cured at once. But, after all, what does it come to? There are two occasions which cannot be avoided when the King must be prayed for. The first and most important of all is in the service of the Holy Communion, when he comes into the Church militant prayer; and the other is the old ancient ritual prayer "God save the King"—Domine salvum fac Regem, which is historically of the greatest importance, because it is known that one of the great disputes has been, when a Republic has been established, whether that should be turned into Domine salvam fac Rempublicam. All this is because some clever person has found out what nobody had ever thought of—that on some future occasion there may not be a prayer for the King, and you are asked to believe that His Majesty is being insulted.
The other thing is the Black Rubric. The noble and learned Lord should have had his perceptions aroused by the expression "the Black Rubric"—the black red thing. Of course it is not a rubric. It is a statement of doctrine, and there are two exact parallels which nobody seems to have found—two other statements of doctrine in the Prayer Book, which are stated once and for all, and not repeated twice. Why should they be? Those other two are in the Baptismal Service. There is the statement that by God's Word infants who die after baptism shall be saved, and there is the statement about the use of the Cross in baptism. Those are two doctrinal canons, just as the so-called Black Rubric is a doctrinal statement; they are put once into the Prayer Book, and only once, though there are two services of Baptism and two services of Holy Communion. So again, if it had occurred to any of the thoughtful and anxious and earnest opponents who spoke during the debates in the Church Assembly to say that they wanted the Black Rubric printed twice, I dare say people might have obliged them.
822
Then again, unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord has not quite sufficiently studied some matters. He complained that where there was no parochial council there would be no power in the congregation to appeal to the Bishop. He forgot that where there is no parochial council the parish meeting takes the place of the parochial council, and has exactly the same power. In regard to the rules, after all, nobody seems to have read the Preface of the Prayer Book. The Preface of the Prayer Book provides that if people doubt or diversely understand something they shall refer to the Bishop, who, if necessary, shall put it before the Archbishop, and, just as those diverse doubts cannot touch the real rubric and all that the Bishops can do is to say that a thing is within or without the rubric, so these new rules are merely conjoint decisions of the Bishops or Archbishops as to what is within the rubric or what is not. I do not think it will be necessary to say anything more about the speech of the noble and learned Lord against this Measure. After all, it came to this: "I do not think it wise to have two services of Holy Communion; I think you are altering the emphasis, and I do not like reservation." I do not think I heard him say that he would not have it, but he did not recognise its practical use, which, after all, is the real matter; but he merely said in effect: "I do not like it because it may lead to something."
Now I would ask your Lordships to let me go a little bit into history. The great deadness of the Church of England, which arose when the non-jurors left it in the time of the early Georges, has been broken by three great religious revivals—the Wesleyan, the Evangelical (often called the Simeonite) and the Tractarian, which we may call the Puseyite. The Puseyite revival began in the year 1833. All three were devotional revivals really, but the Puseyite differed to some extent, perhaps some might say greatly, because it looked back into history and outwards to other countries. It was not so self-centred and it very soon took the form of increased outside devotion and care in the services. It is interesting to know—because people now talk of these people being lawbreakers, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, has talked about obedience to the law—that the first complaint against

823
the Puseyites was that they were too law-observant. There was a famous article in the Quarterly Review of 1843 which made that attack upon the Puseyites, which went item by item through the changes they were introducing—which were all restorations of law—and complained of them for being too finicking in legal matters.
It was only the other day that I had occasion to read the Diaries of Lady Frederick Cavendish. Your Lordships will remember that she was a niece and great friend of the late Mr. Gladstone, and very much concerned with him in Church matters. She was not a ritualist by any means, but a frequenter of humdrum churches and a great seeker after sermons. About the year 1880 she finds this article in the Quarterly Review of 1843 and she is astonished at the things they made a fuss about in 1843, upon which by 1880 everybody had come to agree. When I say "everybody" I ought to omit my Lord Lincolnshire. Let me remind your Lordships of what the things were that were complained of as innovations and as Popish between the years 1843 and 1880. These are the sort of things that horrified the people of that day: Surpliced choirs; turning to the east at the Creed, and intoning. I have seen a legal opinion prepared at the instance of Bishop Perry, of Melbourne, who after his retirement from Melbourne took very much the position that Bishop Knox is taking to-day after his retirement from Manchester, to the effect that any intoning was illegal and, if I remember rightly, the chanting of the Psalms except in Cathedrals was also illegal. Processions, if anything except the barest shambling of the choir after the clergyman into their seats, processions of the choir in surplices, if they were singing a hymn with a banner or a cross in front of them, were anathema. Flowers on the altar, crosses anywhere in the Church, though they were allowed outside, the use of the word "altar," though you were allowed to speak of the altar rails—all these things which nowadays you cannot get young people to believe could ever have been in dispute—I have tried it—were all matters of furious indignation in the period of which I am speaking.
Then came the ritual prosecutions. In those days, when I was young, I thought
824
very hardly of the prosecutors who prosecuted the clergy for ritual and of the Judges who condemned them. In my later life, for I am also an octogenarian, I have come to see that after all there were two sides to the matter; that devout, religious people were so accustomed to their old mode of service that it was a positive hardship to them to find any change, and that the more devout and the more religious they were the less likely they were to be sympathetic towards these innovations. However that may be, a series of ritual prosecutions began. Let my Lord Stanhope take this to heart. They were all before he was born and the worst consequences were over before he was of the age of discretion. He had better take that bit of history to heart before he makes his speech to your Lordships. One or two of those prosecutions failed. In the Knightsbridge Church cases, though the innovators, the Tractarians, had some losses, they had considerable gains. They had a canon of construction laid down which was greatly in their favour and to which they have always appealed ever since. But every other prosecution found its mark.
Will your Lordships remember that though the prosecutions were founded upon dislike of these things as Romish, they never dared to make it a legal point that these ritual acts were symbolical of untrue doctrine; perhaps "never" may be too strong, but they hardly ever dared to do it. What they did was this. They relied on the Act of Uniformity. They said: This is an Act which requires uniformity, absolute and rigid uniformity. There is a clause in the Act which says that there shall be no rite or ceremony other than or additional to that which is prescribed in the Book. I was much mixed up with these controversies then and I have been mixed up with them for sixty years. There were times when I could have said "other than or additional to" in my sleep. In blindly striking out at new proposals which they disliked the prosecutors and the Courts relied on those words "other than or additional to." In Martin versus Mackonochie the Privy Council carried it so far that they said it was unlawful for the clergyman, after he had consecrated the holy element in the bread, to kneel for a moment in reverence at the altar, to rise and consecrate the chalice and then to kneel

825
again. They said, "There is no prescription for it in the Book." They were like shylock, who said he could not find it in the bond. That being the case they condemned Mr. Mackonochie and ultimately, if I remember aright, he was suspended.
When you once come to that provision, the Prayer Book was never intended to be construed in that way. It was the successor of previous Prayer Books. The first Prayer Book was worked by a body of priests who had been doing service all their lives and who, naturally, except so far as they were taught by the new Prayer Book, imported their old usages, You could not construe the Prayer Book like an Act of Parliament. If you did it resulted in the dullest and barest and hardest and driest things. Nobody had done it and nobody has ever done it, according to that provision which was in the Prayer Book in those words, if you are to apply the Privy Council criteria.
What happened when these clergy were being pulled for any of these new usages? After a time, after they had been dragooned here and driven there, after five priests had been put in prison and two had been so persecuted that their lives were shortened—for that is what happened—the clergy began to say to the Bishops or to anybody else who came to them: "Why do you prohibit me doing this because you say it is not warranted by the words of the Prayer Book? You do not say it is doctrinally wrong; you say it is not warranted by the words of the Prayer Book. So-and-so breaks the rules more conspicuously than I do, and as for Archdeacon So-and so he is slovenly and omits his duty by not having services on Saints' days. At the worst I am only responsible for excessive zeal." It became impossible for the Bishops, particularly after the Public Worship Act, 1874, which exacerbated matters, to enforce all that. Not that they want any new Act of Parliament such as Lord Hanworth suggested, not that they want any great legal powers to enforce discipline, not that they want Lord Stanhope on the new Public Worship Regulation Act, but because no law will do which has not moral force to back it and because you cannot deprive one clergyman of his living or send him to prison for looking over a hedge when somebody else is not sent to prison for stealing a horse. It is for that reason you
826
want this Measure. It is because you want liberty and order.
I support it because it will lead to order through liberty instead of the present narrow construction and anarchy. It will take years before you get order. Anarchy which has lasted for forty years (since the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874 showed its teeth in sending people to prison), not because the Bishops had not legal powers, but because they could not enforce them—they would have had to enforce them against everybody, including themselves—anarchy which has lasted for forty years will take a long time to cure. Much patience, much sympathy, much tender handling, much judicious language will be required to produce something like order. At this moment there is no order. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes and you cannot prevent him because there is no principle on which you can enforce the law against A. and neglect to enforce the law against B. It is for those reasons that I invite you to accede to this Measure (on which a great deal more could be said) which at least provides no change of doctrine and at the utmost a change of emphasis, alternative powers and liberty, and gives a chance that gradually and slowly the lines may be tightened and, within a large ambit at any rate, there may be order and no excess outside it.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): In assenting to this Motion, as I think your Lordships will, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that, having studied the list of speakers who wish to address this House, I think you will find it necessary to sit after dinner to-morrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till to-morrow.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 143.)
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  ROYAL EDINBURGH HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL AND NERVOUS DISORDERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL.
To be read 2aon Thursday next.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
To be read 2aon Thursday next.