SCENE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20084, 13 November 1930, Page 11

SCENE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

LABOUR MAN SUSPENDED.

HEATED INTERJECTIONS.

(UHITCO PRBSB ASSOCIATION —BT ILT.CTiIC TELEGRAPH—COrVEIGBT.) (Received November 12th, 7.50 p.m.) November 21. A scene occurred in the House of Commons during the debate on the School Age Bill, resulting in the suspension of Mr McGovern,' a Labour member. The President of the Board of Education, Sir Charles P. Trevelyan, moved a financial resolution, expressing the opinion that under the income limits 75 per cent, of, the parents whose children were kept at school for an extra year, would apply for maintenance grants, which would cost £3,750,000 for the first year, rising to £5,500,000. The Exchequer would bear 70 per cent, of this amount.

Mr W. J. Womersley (Conservative, Grimsby) argued that parents did not desire to leave their children at school for the extra year. Mr McGovern: That is a lie. The Chairman demanded the withdrawal of this remark. Mr McGovern: I will not withdraw. He is slandering the working classes. The Chairman pleaded; but Mr McGovern remained seated, and made no offer to withdraw.

The Speaker, the Right Hon. E. A. Fitzroy, was then summoned, and the Chairman named Mr McGovern for disregarding hi 3 ruling. Sir Charles Trevelynn, who was temporarily leading the House, moved the suspension of Mr McGovern. The latter 's back-bench supporters forced a division, when the suspension was carried by 305 votes to 40.. "When Mr McGovern was withdrawing, he stopped three times and hurled back interjections. "I wish you would show mora enthusiasm for the unemployed and feed the starving multitudes," he cried, and, as a parting shot ho yelled: "You are a dirty set of dogs. You are babyBtarvers.''

When the discussion (resumed, Sir John Simon (Liberal, Spen Valley) said that, while approving the principle of extending the school-going years, he did not favour the Government's method of giving maintenance grants without full enquiry into the parents' financial position. After all, the income-tax payers had to submit to even closer enquiries. Why not the beneficiaries?

The resolution was carried by 271 votes to 242.

The Liberals did not vote,