Mr John Rawlinson: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly entitled to give his illustration, but he must not go into details. He is entitled to say that it is not a paying speculation to finance cotton growing in Kenya because we have lost large sums in other Dependencies. He is entitled to use that as an illustration, but he must not debate it.
Mr John Rawlinson: If the hon. Member can tell me what the proper designation of his party is, I shall know whether to rule the expression "Labour party" in or out of order.
Mr John Rawlinson: Is this in order on a Supplementary Estimate?
Mr John Rawlinson: I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's account of this. I should like to have heard far more about this railway, which is probably about the most ridiculous enterprise that even the Post Office has ever entered into. It was a tube railway for the benefit of the Post Office, and the Post Office only, running between the Genera] Post Office in Newgate Street and Paddington Station....
Mr John Rawlinson: At present, though it was begun in 1913, all we have to this day is a railway running from Paddington to the Post Office which carries a few mails, and a few postal officials when required. Originally they had the idea of connecting Euston and the other northern termini. That, apparently, has been abandoned altogether. But we still have the tube railway for the benefit of taking the Great...
Mr John Rawlinson: The railway was open from Paddington Post Office years ago. This is an extension, I understand, to Whitechapel.
Mr John Rawlinson: I do not attach the slightest blame or responsibility to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Estimate for this tube railway, but he does not impress me in the least by saying that something has been approved of by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) or by someone on my own Front Bench. I am not here simply to ratify everything which is done by...
Mr John Rawlinson: When shall we have the text of the Treaty?
Mr John Rawlinson: I was going to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same matter that has been brought forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is a matter of the administration, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department has acted somewhat harshly, if not wrongly. In April or May of last year his Department issued a very strong appeal to the local authorities to get on...
Mr John Rawlinson: 80. asked the Minister of Health whether, in the cases of those patients who were received into private mental institutions in 1922 without being seen by a magistrate, and without the provisions of Section 8 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, having been adhered to, such patients have been since discharged, or, if not, under what power they have respecively been detained?
Mr John Rawlinson: Have any steps been taken to remedy the defect as to the giving of notice as required by the Act?
Mr John Rawlinson: I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I do so in order to call attention to the unsatisfactory way in which members of this Commission have been selected. I agree that every shade of opinion should be represented upon the Commission, but I have had many complaints on this point from those residing in my constituency that, in the constitution of this Commission, a very important section of...
Mr John Rawlinson: I never expressed any such view, and, in fact, it was expressly stated in Committee that probably no one at Cambridge desires that this problem should be settled by this House, but that the University should settle it.
Mr John Rawlinson: It is as well to clear the ground as to what is the exact issue before the House, and I think the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten), who seconded the Amendment, rather went wrong on that point. The Mover, my colleague in the representation of Cambridge University (Mr. J. Butler), I think will agree with me that the meaning of his Amendment is perfectly plain. To me,...
Mr John Rawlinson: That was a very different matter from this. If I remember rightly, there was an Amendment which the Opposition declined to have withdrawn on that particular occasion. If I managed by some means to get my hon. Friend to ask for the withdrawal of his Amendment, and it was objected to, that might be the position to take up. But the case is different here. You have the decision of the Committee...
Mr John Rawlinson: In proportion to the numbers.
Mr John Rawlinson: The hon. Member who has just sat down did not seem to follow what was said, either by the hon. Member for Ilford or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as regards the Beer Duty, he did not seem to understand, firstly, why it differs from the Sugar Duty, and, secondly, why it is not an inducement to brewers to brew bad beer. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it fairly clearly...
Mr John Rawlinson: There is all the difference in the world between the Beer Duty and the Sugar Duty. The reason, why the Sugar Duty cannot be reduced is because at the present moment the market is very much in the hands of middlemen and of certain original owners of sugar, and it would be impossible to see that any concession that was made by the Government was passed on to the consumer. With the Beer Duty...
Mr John Rawlinson: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member who moved this Amendment upon his eloquent maiden speech. I know that he speaks with great authority on this subject, having been a member of the Metropolitan Police Force, and therefore he is qualified to speak upon this subject from the inner side. We must, however, agree that this fact justifies us in taking something off his very excellent speech. We...
Mr John Rawlinson: 81. asked the Home Secretary what is the present position the Special Constabulary Reserve (London); and what steps, if any, are intended to be taken in reference to that force, either by disbanding it or otherwise?