Before we part with Clause 1 of this Bill, there are one or two things which my hon. Friends and I would like to say in reference to it. This Clause brings to an end the pension granted 140 odd years ago in perpetuity to the descendants of the great admiral Lord Nelson. It seems to us to be a very strange fact that on the very day when this Committee is bringing to an end a pension granted to the collateral descendants of the most illustrious of our volunteer sailors, the House should have passed a compulsory service Bill introduced by a Socialist Government and passed largely by Conservative votes. One of the main objects of the Nelson Act was to encourage volunteers. This should be remembered at this moment, when this House is about to commit what many of us regard as an act of disloyalty to the finest of our national traditions. It is particularly relevant to the Clause we are now considering, to recall that the Nelson Act was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day in these words, that it would be,

"the means of inducing others in the Royal Navy to follow Lord Nelson's brilliant example."

And the great Wilberforce, in this House of Commons, said that he viewed the grant, to which Clause 1 relates

"not so much as a provision for the family of Lord Nelson but as a pledge of national liberality held out to our Navy to encourage an imitation of that hero's example."

I do not think it inappropriate that we should be considering this Clause on an evening, which has brought to a conclusion a Debate on a compulsory service Bill.

I would like also to remind the Committee, on this Clause, that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing, in 1806, that Measure which we are now bringing to an end, used words which we ought in particular to remember at a time like this, when so much that is of great value in the world is being swept away, not only by our own action but by outside forces. He said that there was no desire that operated more powerfully upon the minds of many men than a desire to found a family, and that perhaps there was no class of men among whom this desire formed a greater stimulant to action than those who composed the officers of the Royal Navy. He ended by saying:

"What could serve as a greater encouragement than the example which this Bill provides of Lord Nelson's merits laying the foundations of a distinguished family?"

We tonight ought to recognise the fact that we are tonight bringing to an end the material means by which that family can be maintained in dignity and honour. It may be right for the House to do what it is doing; what could never be right is that it should not recognise exactly what it is doing. Times have changed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—but there has not necessarily been an improvement in the country, or in the things that really matter, the things by which history will judge this generation. Now the Government have to rely on other sanctions in order to fill the Royal Navy, and we have joined with them in applying those sanctions tonight.

We ask that this Clause be rejected on three grounds which I will briefly state. Firstly, we do not regard this Bill or this Clause as necessary, remembering the rushed system of legislation under which we are living. The Lord President of the Council said, not long ago, that the British legislative programme could not be reduced in any way, without seriously prejudicing the national interest. We cannot regard taking up the time of the House of Commons with this Bill, as in any way advancing the national interest. Secondly, we reject this Clause because it provides the shameful spectacle of the trustees of a great and historic trust—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Treasurer of the Navy, who is now the Paymaster-General—not only condoning a breach of an historic trust, but themselves initiating it in the House of Commons. Thirdly, we reject these proposals because, while no-one can dispute the right of every Parliament to do what it likes, this is not a question of, right but of behaviour.

The Parliament of 1806, mindful of the debt Great Britain was under to Lord Nelson, conscious that his victory marked a turning point in our national destiny, and realising quite plainly that the trust was to be settled, not upon those nearest and dearest to his heart, but upon his collateral descendants, none the less intended that this Trust should be permanent and that the grant should be for all time to whoever bore the honoured name and title of Lord Nelson. Now the Government are using their great majority for purposes which we regard as mean and unworthy. I hope that before the Committee passes this Clause it will remember this: if we are so unmindful of the intention of previous Parliaments, and if we have so little regard to what our great and historic predecessors intended, future generations may show the same contempt for the present House of Commons. I hope that in view of these considerations the Committee will refuse to vote for this Clause.

I do not wish to occupy the Committee long as the principle embodied in this Clause has been fully debated on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think it is necessary that something should be said. This annuity was the free gift of Parliament; it was given after full deliberation and debate, and in the most formal manner in which Parliament could make such a gift. This Clause simply terminates that annuity. Of course Parliament has the power to do what is now proposed. Parliament has the right to go back on anything, as easily as it can do it in the first place. We do not quarrel with the proposition that what is now proposed is legal. But the question is whether it is right to go back on that solemn undertaking. That is the question, and it is a question to which we answer an emphatic "No." There is, of course, something to be said for altering the present provision. There is much to be said, in view of the change of times, for the view that this annuity should be commuted, as other annuities of similar character given in the past have been commuted, with the agreement of all parties. If there were any question of putting forward proposals for commuting this annuity I do not think there would be any difference of opinion on the subject in any quarter of the Committee. But the proposal in this Clause is simply to confiscate the annuity at the end of what must be a very few years. The Nelson family, so far I as know, have maintained a dignified silence throughout the proceedings on this Bill. This is simply because they do not wish to haggle about financial niceties in this connection. I have in the same spirit refrained from putting down any Amendment to this Clause. But I hope that the Committee will divide against the Clause and that we shall register our objection to the principle contained in it.

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I call your attention and the attention of the House to the fact that not one representative of the Admiralty is present on this important occasion?

That is not a point of Order.

I regret that the Committee has been called upon to vote for this Clause. I am glad, however, that the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House so that the largest possible number of Members may be directly responsible for the insertion of this Clause in the Bill. I cannot help thinking after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that there has been in relation to this Bill a certain amount of what I may say was not unexpected meanness on the part of the Government. I say "not unexpected" because I have now taken part in a few election meetings and invariably one encounters a rather curious, mean type of Socialist mind among those at the back of the meeting. They will get up and raise points on matters such as are relevant to the purpose of this Clause.

Before the hon. Member makes any further remarks, may I point out that he is rather away from the Clause?

I was leading up to the effect of this Clause. We are taking away, in this Clause, the power of granting the pension at the end of two lives; and I was saying that I have been asked again and again, whether I am in favour of withdrawing that pension. I believe that is what is in the Clause. I have been asked this question again and again at public meetings and I have, again and again, said that I believe that this is one of the pension schemes that it would be well to keep going. If it is taken away, a number of those Socialists who attend meetings will no longer be able to hold up the pension as an example. At many of their best meetings they will be deprived of this point. From one point of view that is the only good thing I can see about the Clause; otherwise it is thoroughly mean, and typical of the Government of the day.

Since hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeated the arguments which were stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it only right that some of the arguments made on the other side should also be stated. Hon. Members opposite have based their objection to the Clause on three grounds. The first ground is that it is a breach of faith with the Parliament of 1806. The second is that there should have been an offer of commutation of the pension; and the third, put forward by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), is that this proposal is an example of meanness on the part of this Government. With regard to the first argument, it is completely foolish, for the Parliament of 1806 was not in possession of the facts. That Parliament was not in full possession of the facts about the express desire of Lord Nelson as to how the money voted should be used in future times.

Is the hon. Member not aware of the fact that it was Lord Nelson's express request that the property and title should go together in the succession provided in the 1806 Act?

I contest that statement. Everyone knows that the last statement made by Lord Nelson was a demand that any help given by the State should go, not to the descendants, but to Lady Hamilton. Everyone knows, moreover, that there was a considerable battle between Nelson and the Admiralty, for, like many good sailors, he did not always agree with the Admiralty. Everyone knew that took place, and everyone knows that there were people in the Admiralty who wanted to suppress the facts about Nelson's express desire that any benefits should be given to Lady Hamilton. The Parliament of 1806 did not act as it should have done; it did not carry out the wish of Nelson, and if he were with us today, he would whole-heartedly support the Government.

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to what Lord Nelson would have done had he been here tonight. My hon. Friend says he would have supported the Government. I would like to ask if he is referring to the question now before the House, or to the one on which we have just voted?

Lord Nelson would have supported the Government on many of its Measures.

The hon. Member has just said that if Lord Nelson were here tonight, he would have supported the Government. May I ask if it is possible for a Peer of the Realm to vote in this House?

Not only he, but Lady Hamilton as well would vote with us, but the person we would not have in the Lobbies with us, would be the first Lord Nelson to receive this pension. He was guilty of great meanness, and more, because he was perfectly well aware of the express wish of the great Lord Nelson. Yet he was unwilling to pay what was due to Lady Hamilton, and she was buried in poverty in France. The great Lord Nelson would have believed that that debt should have been paid long since.

As regards the argument that this pension should have been commuted, it should be remembered that an offer for commutation was made some forty or fifty years ago to Lord Nelson. An offer was made to other persons, including Lord Rodney, and those people were patriotic enough, some fifty years ago, to accept the commutation; and if the Nelson family had been as generous and public-spirited, they would have accepted the offer of commutation which was made to them years ago. They would have ended the matter honourably, and would have saved the State some considerable sums. The hon. Member for Torquay said he had been asked at public meetings about this matter. In this connection I would like to say that I represent a naval constituency, and I, too, have been asked questions and have heard statements made on this subject. But I should not like to repeat the remarks to this House which have been used by some of the people at those meetings because the language would not bear repetition. There are naval pensioners who have not received the money which they should have received.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And are not receiving it now."] They are not receiving it now, perhaps, but I hope the position will be improved. According to some people Parliaments during the last 140 years have behaved meanly to the Nelson family. They have not done so. This House, 140 years ago, behaved meanly towards the memory of Lady Hamilton, and when there is a vote for this Bill, it will be a vote to wipe out the wrong which was done 140 years ago.

I think that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Michael Foot) has answered adequately the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton.

In view of the internationally adverse consequences of that description, I should be grateful for being given my proper constituency.

And will the right hon. Gentleman also apologise to the hon Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey)?

On a point of Order. In view of the past record of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will the Financial Secretary dissociate me clearly from that hon. Gentleman?

May I apologise to both hon. Members? Perhaps honour will be then satisfied. I think I may say that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport answered, pretty adequately, the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). But, nevertheless, as there was an interjection from that side of the Committee asking whether someone from these Benches was not going to reply I will briefly underline what my hon. Friend below the Gangway said. I should, firstly, correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford when he said that the trustees for this pension had, in some way, gone back on their trust. Now I thought that I, at least, if not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear, when we were dealing with this Bill in its earlier stages, that the trustees have nothing whatever to do with the £5,000 per year pension received by the present holder of the title. The trustees set up functions under Clause 2, which deals with the Trafalgar Estates and, as I think the Committee knows very well, the estates were bought with further moneys which were granted by Parliament, namely £90,000 to which was later added another £9,000, making nearly £100,000. The trustees' job was to look after and administer on behalf of the trust, which was set up under the 1806 Act, the estate which was bought with that money granted by Parliament. We are dealing here, in Clause 1, with the perpetual pension of £5,000 a year which was granted to the holder of the Nelson title. The hon. Gentleman's allegation is therefore unfair and untrue, and I hope he will withdraw it.

It is not true, either, that Mr. Speaker or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or others who are trustees for the estates, have in any way gone back on their trust. As a matter of fact, when we come to Clause 2, if it is necessary, I can tell the Committee that the Nelson family is going to gain. There will be benefit to the Nelson family under the provisions set forth in Clause 2. But we are dealing now with Clause 1, and I would like to say, in furtherance of what the hon. Member for Devonport said, that it is quite true that an offer to commute this pension was made in 1889—twenty-seven years purchase was then offered. And although others who received perpetual pensions at that time, for example, the Rodney family, thought fit to accept commutation, the Nelson family refused and, as a result, have since received from the public purse no less a sum than £285,000. To me, it is grossly unjust that now, at this date, they should be permitted to come along and do what they, or the holder of the title in 1889 refused to do, namely to commute.

May I ask if it is not really unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to quote these gross sums? If he held his present office for ten years, would it be fair to say he received from the State ten times his actual salary? He knows perfectly well this gross sum is subject to a high rate of taxation.

Of course it would be fair to multiply my present salary by ten and say that is what I have received by way of salary. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I realise very well that taxation is penal. But in previous years it was comparatively very low. Therefore, I think there is little or nothing in that point. As a matter of fact, taking the pension over the period since it was first granted, the Nelson family has received more than £700,000; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Income Tax during most of that time was either non-existent or very modest. In the year 1887, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced this Bill, was born—[Interruption]—right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite started this; we did not. The allegations have come from that side of the Committee. In the year 1887, a Select Committee which did not have a single Socialist among its members, came to the conclusion that this pension should cease. It said that at most it should be continued for one life only. We have doubled that, and are allowing this pension to go on for, at any rate, two lives. May I, as the hon Gentleman has done some quoting, quote from s leaderette which appeared in the "Observer"—not a Socialist journal—on 8th December last. They said:

"The decision of the Government to end the Nelson family pension will find some support in a series of Nelson letters which come up for sale at Sotheby's on 17th December. These letters directly refer to the Admiral's pension, and are written to George Rose, then Treasurer of the Navy. They show, as Mr. Wilson Harris pointed out, in the best speech of the Commons debate, that Nelson was concerned for the security of Emma and Horatia, and not with his parson brother in Norfolk. We cannot now, and it proved impossible then, keep Lady Hamilton solvent. Nelson himself had plenty and did not, as some think, die poor. But the nation has now paid, for nearly a century and a half, substantial sums, totalling more than £700,000, to his indirect descendants. Sometimes the privilege passed from uncle to nephew, or from brother to brother."

This is the "Observer"—not a Socialist newspaper.

"Is there any equity in maintaining this, a state of affairs never envisaged by Nelson himself, whose thoughts were all centred on Emma and upon his sense of responsibility to her. Were not the 102 Tories who voted for continuance regarding rather the letter of the law more than its spirit? And even as to the letter of the law, that may be faulty, since what Parliament has done, it can legally undo. The Government view that ample justice has now been done to the great Admiral's memory surely represents both equity and popular opinion."

That is what we now say, and we ask the Committee to give us this Clause.

Were it not for the fact that the Financial Secretary's statement was so utterly inadequate, I would not have risen now, because there are other hon. Members of this Committee who wish to say a great deal tonight on issue. I think it is a pity, if I may say so, Mr. Beaumont, that the Financial Secretary, speaking for the Government, should rely, first of all, upon some extract from the "Observer."

May I say that I am sorry that I could not quote from the "Financial Times"? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I meant no discourtesy by that. I should have been only too delighted to quote from that famous journal, if I had had the opportunity.

I hope the Committee will believe that I had nothing to do with this thoroughly unsolicited tribute. The right hon. Gentleman and his master, who are so fond of quoting from the "Observer," may remember that the proprietors of that paper are not at all bad at transferring sums to their future generations. In any case, I think that that article was a mean one. I was interested to note that the Financial Secretary, apart from his news cutting, was saying, "Ditto," to what was said by the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot). The speech of the hon. Member for Devonport was full of bias, but at least it was, as a performance, more adequate than that of the Financial Secretary. The speech of the hon. Member for Devonport was full of irrelevancies. He talked a lot about the second Lord Nelson's performance. I understand that the hon. Member is a passionate devotee of the Cromwell family. They knew how to look after themselves, and before the hon. Gentleman goes into history, he had better look into the arrangements they made. I approach this question on different grounds—

What about Bernard Baruch?

I do not understand the relevance of that interruption by the hon. and opulent Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I do not quite understand why he should jeer at Mr. Baruch. The hon. Member is probably richer, because Mr. Baruch is more charitable. But I must not be led away by these interruptions. I want to remind the Committee that we have certain responsibilities. We are here, tonight, tearing up a contract. Let us have no doubt about that. I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary. Perhaps he may be allowed to make his speech afterwards. I would remind him that this Committee has certain responsibilities, and that this tearing up of a contract is a serious matter. It affects all sorts of arrangements made by this House—

What is the contract in this case?

The contract is the solemn word of Parliament—

Really, that is not a contract. Let us know what the contract is in this case?

I have said that it is the solemn word of Parliament, and on this side of the Committee we believe that when we give our word we should keep it.

Do I understand that no legislation was passed by the Conservative Party which annulled previous legislation?

My hon. Friend, and former constituent, must not drag me away from the point I was trying to make. I am saying that this is tearing up a contract, which will have a very bad effect on the future of many of the boards and sinecures set up by the Government. It is a very melancholy fact that Lord Nelson is deprived of his pension, but we have a precedent here tonight. When all these sinecures, these boards upon boards, these monopolies with wealthy directors set up by the Socialist Party—

The right hon. Gentleman knew that I was going to stop him, and I have stopped him.

I apologise, Mr. Beaumont, but you will not, perhaps, stop me before I say that we would put an end to them in the same way. Having issued that little warning, I wish to say a word or two about the only material matter in the Financial Secretary's speech. He talked about the generosity of the Government in giving a pension for two lives for Lord Nelson and his heir. Of course, he did not disclose to the Committee that both these gentlemen are nearly 90 years of age. [Interruption.] He did not disclose it tonight. If he regards such a concession as a method of defending this bilking Measure, he is entitled to his opinion, but all that remains for me to say is that it is—

I do not know how, if we are going to continue this pension for these two lives, that is bilking these old gentlemen. If the right hon. Gentleman likes the word "bilk"—and no doubt he is familiar with it—that phrase might be applied to those who follow the present Lord Nelson and his heir, but it should not be said, and it should not go out to the country, that we are taking from the present holder or his heir the £5,000 a year for so long as either or both of them live. I may say that the Nelson family is a long-lived family. I say further that these facts were brought out clearly when we discussed this matter before.

We have been told by the Financial Secretary, in justification of his performance, that the Nelson family are a long-lived family. He admits that both of these gentlemen are nearly 90 years of age, and now he has to fall back on the argument that perhaps they will go on living a long time more. Let me say to the Financial Secretary that I do not withdraw the word "bilking." I repeat it, and I say that it does not lie in his mouth to talk as he has done tonight. If the Nelson family could get £2,000 a year free of Income Tax to keep up the house they live in, they would accept it very rapidly. [Interruption.] Yes, other people do, including many of the Coal Boards and others, but I will not go into that.

May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Beaumont, whether it is in Order to discuss on this Bill the salaries of Ministers, and so on?

I did not mention Ministers.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is keeping very near the border line. Sometimes he gets over it, and on those occasions he is in conflict with the Chair.

If I may say so respectfully, Mr. Beaumont, I think your definition of what I am saying is right. These interruptions drag one near to the border line, but I will not be tempted to go over it. I want to finish by referring to the Financial Secretary's speech. In my judgment, a more inadequate performance was never given by a Minister. The Financial Secretary's performance tonight was squalid, shameful and shabby, but it does teach us a lesson as to what we shall have to do in years to come.

I should have a great deal more sympathy for hon. Gentlemen opposite if I felt that they were really and seriously concerned with the memory of Lord Nelson. I feel that they are much more concerned about something which they regard as far more sacred—that is private property.

The hon. Member is wrong.

Had they consulted the dignity and the name of Lord Nelson, perhaps they might have learned something from the conduct of the present Lord Nelson and his heir. When this Bill passed its Second Reading, it was sent to a Select Committee at which any interested person could petition against it. The present Lord Nelson did not petition; his brother did not petition; and the third generation did not petition. There was no petition at all by any member of the Nelson family.

May I say in fairness to the family of Lord Nelson and also as a Member of the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) was the distinguished and impartial chairman, that there are considerable costs associated with petitions. The intentions of the Government in the matter had already been made known on Second Reading. The Nelson family were about to lose a substantial income. Was it fair to expect them also to incur possibly heavy legal costs in petitioning against the Bill when they already knew what the Government's intentions were?

What was in the minds of the Nelson family I do not know. All I know is that their conduct was far more dignified than the conduct of the Opposition.

That is not fair on the part of the hon. Member who was chairman—

I am only speaking here—

It is unworthy of the hon. Member.

I am only speaking of the facts as I know them. Every Member of the Select Committee is entitled to speak in this Committee, and two of them have already spoken. Surely then the Chairman of the Select Committee is entitled to speak. If the Chairman of the Select Committee is not entitled to speak here why were there cries for him when the Cable and Wireless Bill was being considered? Really, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. For the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee is not entitled to speak on this matter is to say something which is entirely contrary to custom.

An old Spanish custom.

I find it very astonishing that when I get up primarily for the purpose of pointing out the dignity with which the present Lord Nelson and his heirs have acted in this matter, I should be greeted with protests from hon. Members opposite. I ask them to exercise the same dignity as Lord Nelson. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) have referred to our breaking a solemn contract. The suggestion is that what was done in 1806 is sacrosanct for all time. What was the House in 1806?

A victorious House and an honourable House.

It was 26 years before the first Reform Bill; it was a House that was representative of the rotten boroughs and was elected through corruption.

I think the hon. Member had better leave that subject altogether.

I will not labour that point. All I will say is that what I know of the House of Commons of 1806 leads me to the conviction that we in this year 1947 should not be bound by a body such as it was.

Before the hon. Member leaves the House of Commons of 1806, perhaps he will remember first, that its Members were not paid £1,000 a year, and, secondly, they had no political fund.

The Members may not have been paid £1,000 a year but they made their money other ways.

I think perhaps hon. Members have had a pretty wide field in this Debate so far, and I will draw the reins tighter from this time onwards.

I do not desire to add to what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill—and if I may say so, this Debate seems to be developing into a Second Reading Debate. I find myself, however, differing from both the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) as to the Parliament of 1806. After all, there is continuity in this House, whatever Reform Bills have been passed at various intervals. When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford enunciated the doctrine that it is hardly within the competence of this Chamber or any successors of this Chamber to repeal any Measure passed in 1806, I can only say that if we kept hanging round our necks all the legislation passed from 1806 onwards, we should find ourselves in a peculiar position. It is surely open to this House in 1947 to pass judgment on something that took place in 1806. That Parliament in its wisdom or its unwisdom passed this Measure making provision for the heirs of Lord Nelson in a way that was contrary to the wishes of Lord Nelson, and refrained and perhaps rightly refrained from carrying out his known wishes.

It would be a profound mistake to think that the memory of Lord Nelson is in any way bound up with this Nelson pension. Not one man in 500,000 in this country, before this Bill was introduced, knew that such a pension existed, or even that an Earl Nelson still lived. The real memory of Lord Nelson is in his own achievements, his tomb in St. Paul's, the square built in his memory and the monument erected in the middle of that square. That is a sufficient tribute to Lord Nelson without the necessity to maintain this pension. As for the manner of bringing it to an end, it would have been harsh and arbitrary to have deprived the present holder of this income; it would perhaps have been harsh and arbitrary to have deprived his brother and heir, of it. But to say that unborn Nelsons should continue for all time, to enjoy this pension is neither logical, nor fair to the taxpayers of this country. I think, therefore, that the Committee would be well advised to bring this discussion to an end at this stage.

We all know that the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has been perfectly consistent throughout this Bill, but I am still in considerable difficulties as to where the Government in general and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in particular stand in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman doubtless has been so preoccupied with Budget considerations that he has hardly had time to give serious thought to this matter. He has taken some time to expound to us, as have some other hon. Members, that it was not the intention of Lord Nelson himself that the pension should descend in the way it has, through his collateral descendants and that, therefore, it was a fit and proper thing for Parliament now to terminate this arrangement. Having said that, the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell the Committee in one sentence of his speech that under one Clause the Nelson family were going to be better off than they are today.

indicated dissent.

That is what the right hon. Gentleman said on Clause 2—that it would be found that the Nelson family were going to be better off under this arrangement. If I am wrong the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow will reveal it.

I do not want to prolong this discussion, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants me to clear up the point, I can do so in this way. I was trying to show that there was a difference between the perpetual pension, with which this Clause deals, and the estate, for which another £100,000 was voted. It is the estate for which the trustees were appointed, and the descendants will be better off because the estate will be freed, and they will be able to sell it.

The right hon. Gentleman underlines and emphasises the point I was trying to make. The estate was never left to Lady Hamilton, or to her daughter Horatia, who, by the way, did have issue of some six children by a clerk in holy orders. This estate did not go to that family, but to the brother—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now expressing views on Clause 2, and not on Clause 1.

Am I not in Order in referring to something which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?

I allowed it only by way of illustration.

I will pass immediately to the next misstatement of the right hon. Gentleman. His argument will hardly stand examination. I was a little disquieted to find that the Financial Secretary, of all people, does not know the difference between gross and net income. He went on to explain the large sums of money the family have drawn since commutation. It was only the other day that a certain right hon. Gentleman was given £116,000 a year in order to provide him an income of £4,000. If that goes on for 10 years, the right hon. Gentleman who draws this income will have taken £1,116,000 for services to the community, which some regard as less distinguished than Lord Nelson's. Let us, therefore, have no more references to the large sums drawn in net and gross incomes. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Devon- port (Mr. Foot), because he wrote some very wounding literature about the last Parliament. I did not realise that he was about to engage upon another edition of "Your M.P." for the Parliament of 1806—

That was a comparatively innocent Parliament compared with the last Parliament.

I do not see that the hon. Member and myself are in any position to judge, as neither of us had the pleasure of sitting in that House of Commons. He told us—I do not know on what evidence—that the Parliament of 1806 were in no position to make a decision in this matter, that they were not seized of the facts, and were not aware of Lord Nelson's wishes. The great Lord Nelson, who has now been dead for a number of years, has a number of gentlemen interpreting his mind for him. If it is not the hon. Member for Devonport, it is Mr. Hannen Swaffer, describing what Nelson would have done in the Navy today. One of the things I am looking forward to in the next world is to hear Lord Nelson's opinion of Mr. Hannen Swaffer and the hon. Member for Devonport.

All these arguments seek to escape the real issue. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) descended a little from his role of financial expert to that of a psychologist. He claimed to know what was in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself. He said we were not moved so much by respect for the memory of Lord Nelson as by the defence of private property. Surely there is a much higher issue in this matter than that. It is not a question of what appears in the "Observer" newspaper about what letters are going to be on sale at Sotheby's, or wherever it is. The Financial Secretary did not tell us by whom the letters were written, or to whom. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the letters, or whether we may know what the passages were.

Tomorrow.

We will wait in patience, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will arrive with a better brief than he did today. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) said that this Parliament is in no sense bound by a decision of our predecessors in 1806 any more than the next Parliament will be bound by the decisions of this Parliament. Repeal is contagious disease once it has been encouraged. What we are concerned with on these Benches—

What about the Land Values Bill?

I think I might possibly be ruled out of Order if I discussed land values on this occasion. What we see here is the clear intention of our predecessors being very lightly swept away. It is only a few minutes since we were listening to the Minister of Defence telling us about the perilous past and the thanks we ought to give for our victory. Lord Nelson, by his great victory, gave peace to Europe for 99 years, and how pleased we should be if we thought that the acts of the present Government would give us peace for 99 years. That was the atmosphere in which this grant was made.

May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? Could he please remind the Committee whether the battle of Waterloo was before or after the battle of Trafalgar?

The battle of Waterloo was in the year 1815, and if the hon. Gentleman has studied the history of the Napoleonic Wars—

I have not.

:I thought not by the intervention he made. Had he done so, he would have known that the turning-point in the long struggle which made Waterloo and the defeat of Napoleon possible, was the battle of Trafalgar.

I cannot allow these historic digressions.

I certainly cannot set up as an instructor in history to hon. Members opposite, who found such difficulty in recollecting the history of their own party only this afternoon. The point I was trying to make to the Committee was this. The mood of the House of Commons when it made this grant, was a mood of thankfulness for a great victory. They believed, and I am bound to say I have always thought they were right, that the victory of Nelson at Trafalgar was the decisive factor in the Napoleonic Wars. It is quite true that Waterloo followed—

So did Austerlitz.

Really, Mr. Beaumont, hon. Members must not make these rather childish remarks. I realise that they think that their time in the House is short, and they will soon be leaving us for good—

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks to the first Clause of the Bill.

These interruptions have made my remarks rather longer than I had intended. I was saying that Parliament in that day did think that this was a fitting manner in which to reward the great service of the great Admiral. They made that decision rightly or wrongly—hon. Members opposite think wrongly. But if that decision is not to be respected, then I say it is a flagrant breach of faith.

The whole tendency of our public life today, dominated as it is by the Socialist Government, is to destroy—

Order.

The hon. Member is out of Order in his first sentence.

With great respect, Mr. Beaumont, this breaking with a trust of the past is a manifestation of a psychological tendency, under which this country is moving in this present time—

We are not discussing that. We are discussing the first Clause of this Bill.

With great respect, this Bill is being brought forward by the Government who ask for the approval of the Committee. Surely it is in Order to examine the intellectual and spiritual motives behind it?

The hon. Member might have made that speech on the Second Reading but it is not in Order at this stage.

Since the hon. Member has been called to Order three times is he entitled to continue—

Order.

The matter on which we are engaged—

May I have an answer to my question?

The rule is this: if I wish to ask a Member to resume his seat I will do so.

Is there not a rule that if a Member is called to Order three times by the Chair he should not continue his speech?

The whole matter is in the discretion of the Chair.

This Clause which we are debating tonight, and against which I hope we on this side will divide, deals with the determination of a contract, promise or pledge, whatever the Committee likes to call it. This Committee is to decide tonight whether it will break trust with the former Parliament of 1806, which it has a right to do, if it thinks it is justified. But I feel that Members of the House of Commons of 1806, who have been so

rose—

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

It may be difficult to convince Members opposite that some of us attach enormous importance to this Bill, but as we listen patiently to many things that move them deeply so I think we might have some consideration in return. I do not propose, after the lengthy protest that we made about what we regard as a bad Measure, to detain the Committee very long on this Clause, which deals with the Trafalgar Estates. The Financial Secretary said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Treasurer of the Navy—an office now merged in the Paymaster-Generalship—are trustees, not of the annuity, but of the estate. That is true, but many of us feel that the two trusts are deeply intertwined, and that is why I made reference then to them on Clause 1. With regard to the estate, the right hon. Gentleman said that the holders of the title of Lord Nelson will be advantaged by this Clause, because they are now free from any ban on selling or developing the estate. We are not here making our protest out of any particular consideration for whoever may be the Lord Nelson of the day, although he is as much entitled to personal protection as any other citizen of this country. What we are concerned about is the question of principle—and on that we have made our protest on Clause 1—and also the fate of a fine and historic estate, with a magnificent house, and that arises now on Clause 2. It may be true that the owner of the estate at the moment may now be free to develop the estate and turn it into anything he likes; he may be free to sell it brick by brick to the United States to buy those thing that the Government in their wisdom think should have the highest priority; but this would not be, to us, a worthy national purpose. Therefore, I have risen to ask the right hon. Gentleman what it is proposed to do with the Trafalgar Estate, and what has happened to the negotiations that we understand have been taking place between Lord Nelson and His Majesty's Government.

As I indicated when we were dealing with an earlier Clause, Clause 2 deals with the Trafalgar Estates, which were bought, as I have already indicated, with £99,000 which was granted by the House for the purchase of a mansion house and lands going with it, in which it was hoped the successive Lord Nelsons would live. That is an entirely different thing from the proposed pension with which we have just been dealing. Under an Act which was passed in 1813, it was definitely laid down that no holder of the title could bar the entail, and therefore, the estates have been entailed to successive holders of the title from that time until now. It was felt, when this Bill was being discussed before its introduction, that it would be unfair to the Nelson family to take away the pensions and not give the holder of the title some easement so far as the sale of the estate was concerned, and, therefore, Clause 2 was put into the Bill. It is, as I have already said, beneficial to the Nelson family in that the holder of the title can now, if he is so minded, sell the estates, although the funds which will accrue from any sale which may take place will have to be held under the Settled Lands Act, 1925, in trust, but the trustees can be of the Nelson family's own choosing. It will not be, in the sense that it is now, a public trust. It will be a private family trust, and in that sense they will be able to deal with it as they will.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked me whether the suggestion that this mansion house should be put to some use by the nation had come to any conclusion. The position is that negotiations have been going on, but that, unfortunately, no conclusions have yet been reached. The Committee already knows there was a suggestion that this mansion might be used for the Admiralty as a centre for training young sailors, or for some other purpose connected with the Royal Navy, or with the dependants of men who have served in the Royal Navy, but these suggestions, and others of their kind, have not come to anything so far.

Sir Ben Smith is not going to buy it, is he? The right hon. Gentleman need not look so worried

I was not worrying at all, but I was thinking if the "Financial Times" wanted to make a generous gesture through its chief proprietor, I am sure the Nelson family would only be too delighted, supposing the price were good enough, to come to terms with the right hon. Gentleman. I can only say that we still think it may be possible to arrange for the house to be used for one of the purposes suggested during the Debate on the Second Reading, but that I can make no very hopeful report at present.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked a question and I permitted the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reply to that question. However, on consideration, I do not think that the future of the estate comes within the purview of this Clause, which really deals with legal aspects.

I will endeavour, of course, to keep as closely as possible to the legal aspect of the Clause and I should like to ask a question or two on it. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained—and I think that this is a legal as well as a technical matter—that the estate is now no longer one which is a national trust, but one which comes into the hands of the private trustees. May I ask, if that is so, at this moment before the Bill passes, is this estate subject to Death Duties; and when it becomes a private trust will it be subject to Death Duties? It is going to make a tremendous difference if by the passing of this Clause the estate is made subject to Death Duties. I think that point is worthy of consideration, because if it is subject to Death Duties the generosity about which we have heard so much just now is not anything like as big as it might have been.

The next point with which I should like to deal is in regard to the trustees. I think we are all clear that there are official trustees at the present time. I should like to ask whether any wish has been expressed that we should no longer have any connection between the historic estate and the estate administered by these new trustees, when the official trustees are abolished by this Clause. There are certain other things in this Clause about which I am not clear. I should like to ask what is meant by this phrase in Clause 2 (1):

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the limit imposed by law on the number of trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Act, 1925."

So far as I can see, under this Clause we are dealing only with limited trustees. Is there any reason to put this in the Bill at all? I think that the Bill is strong without it, though I am not a law adviser of the Government. I would like some information on the point from one of the Law Officers. I see that the principal Law Officer is present and the second Law Officer is here, too, but I do not see the unofficial law officer in the Committee tonight. Surely from the principal Law Officer or his deputy I can have an explanation of this matter. I think it might be helpful and that a good number of other Members might like to know something about it. It seems to me to be a point of substance, and for that reason I must press for some explanation.

Briefly the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that under Section 5 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894, these estates were not subject so far as the principal was concerned, to Death Duties. The Death Duties payable were only payable in so far as the life interest of the tenant for the time being was concerned. The question asked was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1894 will continue to apply to the estates now that this change has taken place. I am advised that it will—that the tenant in possession will continue, under the trust which will be set up, to enjoy the provisions of Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1894. As far as Clause 2 (3) is concerned, I hope I shall not be asked to delete that because there is a good deal of meat in it. It is under that Clause that the Nelson family are going to enjoy the new benefits of freedom to sell the estates if they so desire.

I always try to be courteous, and I am sure the Committee would wish me on this occasion to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the way he has answered this question. I want to go further than that on this occasion and say that the right hon. Gentleman has treated this matter in a kindly way.

I think we ought to hear a little more about Clause 2. It seems to have been gone through very rapidly. I understand that the Clause did away with the official trustees, so that Lord Nelson and his brother could appoint their own trustees, and under those new conditions they will be allowed to sell this property. The Financial Secretary has half handed it over already, or at least he thinks he has. He has told us about using the House for Admiralty purposes or for sailors. Has he any authority for saying such things? I think they are most improper. I suggest that the Government should do this thing differently. If they are going to take away Lord Nelson's gratuity, why not give him a job with the Coal Board? The remuneration he would receive would enable him to maintain his position with the dignity which our predecessors expected him to have.

I have not spoken on this Measure, and the House need not be afraid that I shall detain them long on this occasion. It is right, however, that I should state my opinion about it. This is a squalid little Bill, characteristic of the squalid little minds who devised it. I cannot attach quite so much importance to it as some of my hon. Friends do. I do not see why Parliament should not, in its wisdom or unwisdom, alter or terminate arrangements made some 150 years ago. What I cannot understand is why it cannot do so decently generously. I cannot understand why it is not considered honourable in this House to pay proper compensation for what is being done. I would point out that the actual cost to the Treasury would be negligible owing to the incidence of Death Duties and Surtax. I imagine that the net gain to the Nelson family would be extremely small indeed. I am driven to the conclusion that this Bill is characteristic of much of the policy we are asked to approve at the present time. It is introduced, not for its own merits, but simply for the purpose of wasting Parliamentary time.

I do not think that question arises on the Third Reading, which, as the hon. Member knows, is confined to what is in the Bill.

I was trying to confine myself to what is in the Bill. We have been gagged and guillotined on every kind of Measure, but not on this. We have been guillotined on the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill but not on this.

The hon. Member must keep to the subject-matter of the Bill, otherwise I must ask him to resume his seat.

The provisions of this Bill are not designed to expedite Parliamentary business. I say no more than that the Bill has been introduced for the purpose of wasting Parliamentary time.

I should like to ask whether, in. passing this Bill, we are not forgetting the fundamental fact that we are breaking a solemn promise made by Parliament some 150 years ago. I may be old-fashioned, but I think a promise is a promise. There is no doubt that 150 years ago Parliament wished this pension to be in perpetuity, and it is therefore, highly undesirable that this Parliament should say that that is not to be the case. A promise is a promise, and I feel that that is the only thing that matters in this Bill.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me?

No, I am sorry. There can be no argument about this. [Interruption.] I wish to repeat that—I feel it absolutely essential that when a solemn promise has been given we should support that promise, even 150 years later.

I rise simply because of the indecent sneers which we have heard from the other side of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken was sincerely voicing his opinion when he said that this Bill represented the breaking of a solemn promise. That is a view that may or may not commend itself to hon. Members of this House. But it is, clearly, held with great sincerity, and I think it is a poor day for this House and a poor day for this country when expressions of opinion of this nature are greeted with sneers and jeers from the little minds opposite.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who was greeted with sneers and so on by the rest of the House, did not give way to allow me to ask him a perfectly simple question.

Why should he?

Because it is common courtesy in this House to give way.

May I say I did not give way to the hon. and gallant Member because I wanted to say what I was going to say very shortly. If I appeared discourteous I am very sorry.