"Mr Selwyn said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty intend to recal the Circular of the 2nd of February, 1860, relating to the rank of Chaplains in the Royal Navy, or to alter the Circular so as to make it accord with that portion of the Order in Council which relates to the same subject; and whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are prepared to make any arrangement, in compliance with the request of the Chaplains, that in choice of quarters, sharing prize money, and taking a passage, they rank with Commanders afloat, or field officers when employed on shore?".
Here's an idea:Lord Clarence Paget - With regard to the choice of quarters, by which he presumed the hon. and learned Member meant cabins, he had to state that Chaplains were always allowed one of the best cabins in the quietest part of the ship. With regard to sharing prize-money and taking rank as commanders afloat, he was afraid the Admiralty could not accede to that proposal. The Chaplains had never ranked with Commanders afloat, but had taken their rank with the Paymasters and Surgeons, and other Officers of that class, and the Admiralty had no intention of altering that arrangement.
MR. LINDSAY said: Sir, I rise to propose the following Motion:— "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the French, with the view of making a Treaty for the reciprocal abrogation of all discriminating duties levied upon the vessels and their cargoes of either of the two nations in the ports of the other; and for procuring such alterations in the Navigation Laws of France, as may tend to facilitate the Commercial intercourse, and strengthen the friendly relations between England and France."
This might have obviated any need for the Treaty of Rome, if multiplied a few times....
How much did creosote cost?
Mr. FRANCE asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would consider the possibility of extending the period of loan on creosoted fencing used in connection with small holdings to twenty-five years, in accordance with representations made by the Small Holdings Commissioners in different parts of the country, upon the strength of which rents had been fixed by county councils?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns) Perhaps I may be allowed to refer my hon. Friend to my answer given on the 21st instant to the hon. Baronet the Member for North Dorset, from which he will see that I have been advised that thirteen years is an adequate period to allow for the repayment of these loans.
And all this NOT from the known creosote obsessive of 1909, Mr Courthorpe
How about this for the British motor industry, erm, motoring?
Mr. BIRD asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would state the number of motor cars with bodies and also of chassis without bodies, all of foreign manufacture, imported into this country during 1909; and the value of the above and the value of the motor car parts and accessories imported from abroad during the same year.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton) 3,666 motor cars of a declared value of £1,223,053 and 4,855 chassis of a declared value of £1,321,596 were imported into the United Kingdom in 1909, in addition to other parts of motor cars valued at £1,771,960.
Mr. BIRD asked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state the value of British-made motor cars and chassis exported from this country during 1909 and the actual total of British-made cars produced in 1909, according to the returns of the British Society of Motor Manufacturers?
Mr. BUXTON Two thousand five hundred and eighty-three motor-cars and 219 chassis of United Kingdom manufacture were exported in 1909, their combined value being £1,037,787.
Having overturned the Treaty of Rome, maybe Beveridge could have been spared his report:
Mr. HUGH LAW asked the Prime Minister whether, in considering the amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, the Government will bear in mind the desirability of making provision at an earlier age than seventy for persons suffering from permanent physical disabilities?As in truly contributory, rather than via a governmental Ponzi scheme.
The PRIME MINISTER I do not think that this is a matter which should be dealt with by amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act. The Government have had under their consideration for some time past the framing of a contributory scheme for insurance against sickness, invalidity, etc., which it is hoped will to a considerable extent meet cases such as those described by the hon. Member.
And so to 1960, wherein Marcus Lipton finds American architectural adornments not his cup of tea.
Mr. Lipton (Lab, Brixton) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when planning consent was given to the erection of an aluminium eagle with a wing-span of thirty-five feet on the American Embasy Building in Grosvenor Square, London.
Sir K. Joseph The design approved by the London County Council included a large cartouche on the facade. It is now proposed to substitute an aluminium eagle. The planning authority is being consulted.
Mr. Lipton Will the hon. Gentleman say what on earth London will look like if all the foreign Governments represented here stick up monstrous national emblems on the buildings they occupy? Is not London already defaced and scarred by all kinds of architectural eyesores and so-called planning improvements, and has not the time come to call a halt?
Oh I don't know Marcus, I think it might be rather fun.
An unlikely take on the position of South Africa in the Commonwealth from a Labour MP:
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you very kindly to switch your attention from pigs and eggs to the problems of some films, bad films. I think the vast majority of people in the country and in this House are very concerned with the growing wave of crime and brutality that there has been since the war. That crime wave has been particularly evident among the young people of our nation, the people to whom we have to look for the leaders of the future.
...I quote, first, from a review appearing in the Sunday Express of 27th September, 1959. It referred to a film called "The Mummy," at the London Pavilion, and the following sentences are germane, I think, to what I am putting to the House. The review states:But we are now given a flash-back of Princess Ananka, describing the circumstances of her death.The only reason for doing this, as far as I can see, is to give you a close up of the way to cut off a man's tongue.Why put that in? Because the film's makers (Hammer Films), who have made a lot of money out of doing this sort of thing, believe that you will pay to see it—especially if it is in Technicolour.My second quotation is from the Daily Herald of 29th October, 1959, and refers to a film called "Eyes Without A Face," at the Cameo-Royal. It says:The daughter of a famous French surgeon is badly injured … and has 'an enormous wound instead of a face.Only the eyes are intact.'While she lopes about the house wearing a mask, Dad lures girls to his clinic, where he removes their faces and tries them on his daughter for size.He has already been successful with the same trick on dogs.I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for reading some of these details, but the review goes on to say:Finally, the daughter goes mad, and lets loose the dogs, who tear Dad to pieces … The lingering and obscene eye of the camera focusses on the following: The daughter taking off her mask (in close-up); the surgeon drawing a pencil round a girl's face as she lies on the operating table, then tracing the line with his scalpel (in close-up); the surgeon beginning to peel off the girl's face (in close-up); the face of the surgeon after a score of dogs have got at it (in close-up).'Eyes Without a Face' is a piece of revolting, pandering evil rubbish. The review very rightly comments 'Eyes Without a Face' is a piece of revolting, pandering evil rubbish."
Mr. Vosper I was coming to that point. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to horror films. I think the public, on the whole, regard the horror film as a film of a Dracula type. Despite what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and despite the Press criticisms, I think these are somewhat infrequent nowadays. The Board accepts what it regards as legitimate horror films, but it removes scenes which appear to it as disgusting or repulsive, and it invariably places horror films in the "X" category, which means that they must not be shown to children.
Both 'Eyes' and 'The Mummy' are available on DVD with '15' ratings.....