- 1. £3,300, Supplementary, Foreign Office.
- 2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £98,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1902, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service."
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)desired to call the attention of the Committee to a matter which had a distinct bearing on the Fair Wages Resolution of the House. That Resolution, passed on 13th February, 1891, dealt, generally speaking, with the employment of labour in connection with Government contracts. For some years previous to the passage of that Resolution, there existed a state of things which caused a grave scandal and shocked the conscience of the House. He referred to the sub-contracting and sweating which took place 70 throughout the country by many employers of labour, more especially in connection with contracts given by the Government. The sub-contracting brought about a vast amount of sweating, in consequence of which a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the question. The investigations of that Committee showed that employers and employed stood in a position totally different from that, for example, of landlord and tenant; in other words, that in nine cases out of ten no moral suasion or force could be brought to bear on the ordinary employer of labour, such as could be brought to bear on a landlord, and that, in fact, the system of sweating was a premium on inferior labour, and brought capital into antagonism with labour. The result was that the taxpayers suffered all over the country. He would not allude to what took place in connection with our battleships, where inferior work was done, and many of our soldiers and sailors were caused undue risk to their lives. In every Department at that time the taxpayers were being systematically robbed in consequence of this system of sweating. He would mention as an example the case of the London School Board, which had lost to the ratepayers in this way something like a quarter of a million of money. The result of the inquiry made by the House of Lords Committee on sweating was to bring about the Resolution to which he would refer. In that Resolution they would find the following words—
That closer attention to the conditions under which labour is employed is recommended to all employers of labour.As a result of this recommendation a Resolution was brought forward, part of the wording being as follows—That the Government should make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen.After that Resolution passed the case was brought before this House in August, 1893, of Messrs M'Corquadale & Co., who had houses in London and Glasgow. The question in reference to the Queen's Printers in Ireland was also brought forward. In these circumstances how did the Government of the day interpret this Fair Wages Resolution? He would quote from Hansard 71 what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar said in his statement when he was giving a pledge on behalf of the Government of the day. He said—The Government would consider that any preference given to a non-Unionist against a Unionist in regard to Government printing would be, to a large extent, against the principle of the Resolution.The hon. Member for Poplar further stated that—No preference should be given as between Unionists and non-Unionists.His contention was that one of the firms doing the main amount of printing at the present moment for the Government had made a distinct difference between non Unionists and Unionists. This firm was Wyman & Sons, who did the bulk of the printing for the Government, and amongst other things they printed the Debates of this House. At the close of last year they closed their house in Fetter Lane, and opened early in December another house at Reading. In that house at Reading they were now printing the whole of the Debates of this House, and in addition, they were printing other Government documents, and amongst others the Army Estimates. In their house at Reading they were employing women compositors. He would like to point out to the Committee that he was not raising the question of male as against female labour. He was raising the point as to whether this firm, having obtained a contract some time ago in competition with other employers of labour, were now, after the contract had run over two years and had another year to run, to be permitted to make an extra £3,000, £4,000, or £5,000 out of that contract, owing to the fact that they were able to do what no other employer could have done, or could have known that he would have been able to do at that time, by employing labour at a lower rate of wages than that which was current in the trade for competent workmen. By this system, this particular firm would gain £3,000, £4,000, or £5,000, and that money would be taken out of the pockets of the duly qualified members of the printing trade in London. This house at Reading allowed no Society compositors to apply for work as Society 72 hands. This firm established themselves in Reading at the beginning of December and since that time they had employed no Society men, thereby contravening the distinct understanding that there should be no difference between Society men and non-Society men. In order that he might not be tripped up, he desired to say that within the last few days a few machine hands had been taken on there who were Society men, because this firm, finding themselves in great difficulty, were obliged to apply to the Secretary of the Society to get a few of these machine men to go down to Reading. The standard rate of wages in London for fully qualified compositors was 39s, and the stun was what was called the "stab" wages per week. This firm had transferred its work to Reading, and it was paying there what was the "stab" rate of wages in Reading for duly qualified printers, namely, 28s. per week. To that he raised no objection, but what he asked was whether this firm were paying to these female compositors 28s. per week, which was the current rate of wages in the locality. Certainly they were not. Therefore, they were contravening the Resolution of the House of Commons, and his contention was that it was the duty of the Government to take such steps as they could to prevent this firm from dealing with their workpeople in this manner.Another point which he thought the House ought to consider was whether it was desirable or right that printing—more especially the printing of the Debates of this House—should be taken away from London and done at Reading. Surely other firms might say that had they known that it was permissible to take this printing away from London they would not have taken it to Reading, but to Brussels or Amsterdam, where they could have had the work equally well done at a very much cheaper rate. Therefore, he contended that a very great injustice was being done to all those other firms who were in a position to compete for this contract. In other words, it was cutting the throats of other employers. He would like to draw attention to the Report published in 1896 dealing with printing contracts. At that time great dissatisfaction prevailed, because the bulk of the printing contracts and almost the whole of the work was in the hands of one par- 73 ticular firm, Messrs. Eyre & Spottiswoode, and it was shown that they had one house which was known as an unfair house. Nevertheless they paid very high wages, which were practically as good as the wages paid in Union houses. The Comptroller of the Stationery Office in the ease he had mentioned admitted that this scale was to this extent the most generous scale, that there was no other scale accepted by so many compositors, and that consequently he treated it as the standard with which he decided the question whether the wages paid in any case corresponded with the wages generally accepted as current in the trade. He submitted that he had made his case good, namely, that the Government printing was being done at this moment in the teeth of the Resolution of the House of Commons; and that it was being done by a firm which was not paying the current rate of wages in the locality. He should be very glad to have some explanation from the Government upon that point.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £97,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
§ (6.55.) THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)I will preface what I have to say by repeating hero what I have said on other occasions, that the present Government and the Treasury, in regard to all contracts over which they have control, are anxious to secure the complete fulfilment of the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution. We have always striven to secure that, and I have myself on more than one occasion, on behalf of the present Government, since I came into my present office undertaken to investigate any specific cases of alleged breach of the Fair Wages Resolution with as much care and attention as I could devote to the subject. I think it will be evident to the Committee that any cases of a breach of this Resolution should be specific, and should be laid before the Government with sufficient detail to enable them to go into the exact facts of the ease. The hon. and gallant Member alleges that a certain firm, one of the many firms of printers which the Government employ, has broken the spirit and I suppose the letter of the Fair Wages Resolution, because they have established 74 large works at Reading quite recently, whereas previously they did all their work in London, and have now removed a good deal of their work from. London to Reading. The second allegation is that it is improper that at Reading they should employ women on work upon which they had hitherto employed only men.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONsaid his objection was that they did not pay to the women the standard rate of wages in the locality for that class of work. What he complained of was that this firm did not give to the women the 28s. rate which was current in the district for compositors.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman will remember t hat he put a Question the other day as to whether the Government could not under the contract prevent the removal of this work from London to Reading, and the employment of women instead of men. I understood from that Question at the time that the solution which the hon. Gentlemen desired to see adopted was that the work should be confined to London, that the contractors should not be allowed to take it out of the Metropolis, and that the contractors should not be allowed to employ women.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONI made no such suggestion. What I wish is that women should be paid the current rate of wages in the locality for that class of work. It is generally recognised by the Society of Compositors that women may be employed if they receive the same rate of wages as men. The current rate of wages is 28s per week for compositors in the locality of Reading.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINFrom the interruption of the hon. Gentleman, I gather that he is not objecting to the transfer of the work to Reading. Then what is the meaning of the suggestion that this transfer is taking something from London workmen? I understand further that he no longer complains that the work is done at Reading, and that, whatever may have been the inference to be drawn from the language of his Question the other day, he has no desire to exclude women from the work, and his single 75 contention is that women, if employed on the work at all, ought to be paid the same wages as men. I do not think such a contention as that can find any sanction in the Fair Wages Resolution of this House. I doubt very much whether in any trade, or any work, the hon. Gentleman can find an instance where female labour commands the same rate of remuneration as male labour. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Perhaps I may be allowed to correct myself. I mean to say, what, of course, the Committee knows, that the wages of women as a general rule run lower than the wages of men. What we have to consider in the case of this employment is whether the wages given to the women are fair wages, and if any information is laid before me to prove that the firm is paying the women unfair wages for women s work I will most carefully: investigate it. No such allegation has been suggested before, and I cannot without inquiry prejudge a case of this kind, or express an opinion on the course of action which has been taken. If a particular rate of wages in a particular district is paid for men, I cannot say that in all such cases I will enforce the same wages for women. If a case is made out that women are being underpaid, then I will give it my most careful consideration, with an earnest desire to enforce to the full the letter and the spirit of the Resolution which was passed by the House.
§ (7.5.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said he was not altogether satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman. He was willing to concede that so far as the Financial Secretary of the Treasury was concerned, it was his desire that the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution should be applied in this case, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman altogether appreciated the nature of the accusation or complaint made by the hon. Member for West Newington in this matter. The facts, so far as he understood, practically divided themselves into three heads. The first, to which the thought the hon. Gentleman in his reply did not give sufficient attention, was that these contractors—he believed the facts were not disputed; if they were, of course his argument might, to a certain extent, fall to the ground—took this contract in competition with other con- 76 tractors as London contractors, that the idea and the inference to be drawn when they tendered for the work, and the intention of the Treasury in taking it, was that these being London contractors they would employ London men and pay the London rate of wages.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not want to interrupt the Iron. Gentlemen, but I do not wish him to speak under any misapprehension. The Government by no means desire to confine these contracts to London, any more than in the case of Ireland to Dublin, or in the case of Scotland to Edinburgh. They desire contractors from any part of the country.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONWhat about Brussels?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI did not understand that that suggestion was made seriously.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONQuite seriously. It has been suggested that this work should be done abroad.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not suggest that the work should be done in Brussels, but that equal opportunities should be given, so far as the nature of the work and the circumstances will permit, to any contractor in the United Kingdom who is capable of carrying out the work. We carefully avoided making a condition in the specification of the contract to bind the contractors to carry out the work at a particular place. I have had representations made to me in regard to Government contracts to admit provincial contractors for work which has hitherto been too much the monopoly of London contractors.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was not arguing that these contracts ought to be given to London firms. He thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite appreciated the point of the hon. Member for West Newington. This was a London firm. They tendered and got the contract. They tendered at a price which enabled them to pay the London rate of wages, and they had now taken the work away from London to a large extent into another part of the country, where they were paying a lesser rate of wages with 77 the same contract in existence. What did that mean? It meant that the only persons benefiting from it were the contractors themselves. They contracted at the larger rate of wages, and were now paying a lower rate than when the contract was given to them. The Government did not gain by that. Probably the work was worse done. [Cries of "No."] Well, it was done probably by less skilled people. [Cries of "No."] At all events the Government did not gain anything, and wage-earning men as a class were unquestionably losing, because the contractors were Paying less for the same class of work than a year or two ago, As he had said, the only persons who had gained so far by taking the work from London to the provinces were the contractors themselves. [An HON MEMBER: And the provinces.] Particular individuals, no doubt; but these particular individuals at the expense of other particular individuals of the working class. The wage-earners were worse off as a whole, because the contractors were paying less than before. He did not object to have proper competition in regard to these things; but when this particular contract was to be given out, the competitors who were considered suitable for carrying out the work were under the impression that they would have to pay the London rate of wages if they took the contract.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken The condition they had to fulfil was than the work should be done within a given time, and provided that they could do it within that given time they were not under any condition whatever as to where the printing should be done. There was no attempt to bind any of the competitors to do the printing in London.
MR. SYDNEY, BUXTONPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would state the names of the other contractors who tendered in regard to this matter. He repeated that those who tendered at the time were under the impression that they would have to do the work in London and pay the London rate of wages. What he objected to was, that during the currency of a particular contract the wages of those employed on the work should be reduced, and that the contractors should make an undue, unfair, and improper 78 profit cut of a Government contract, The second point raised by his hon. friend was with reference to the wages of women. These contractors had employed women instead of men for the same reason that they took the work from London to Reading, namely, in order to put profit into their pockets at the expense of the working class as a whole. The third point, upon which the Financial Secretary of the Treasury did not say one word, was one which, to his mind, was quite as serious as the other two matters. His hon. friend distinctly stated, and he believed it was not a matter in controversy, that in this Reading branch no member of what was called the Society of Compositors, the trade union of the printers, was allowed to be employed. That was absolutely contrary, not only to the spirit, but practically to the. letter of the Fair Wages Resolution, and it was contrary to the pledge which he himself gave in this House at the time the Resolution was passed on the part of the then Government. That pledge, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would not deny it, was as specific as it was possible to make it. It was that no firm taking a Government contract should be able to favour non-Unionists at the expense of Unionists.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)Your pledge was repeated afterwards by the present President of the Board of Agriculture.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe pledge was repeated afterwards by Sir John Hibbert, and by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. He (Mr. Buxton) took some personal interest in the matter, and they had a clause inserted in all their contracts to that effect. He did not know whether the clause existed at present, but if the facts he had stated were not disputed, it was clear that these Government contractors had broken the terms of the contract. What steps would the hon. Gentleman take to see that the contract was carried out inviolate both in letter and spirit? There had often been debates in the House in reference to the way in which the Fair Wages Resolution might be carried out. Having had something to do with the passing of the Resolu- 79 tion, he should like again to be allowed to say in the House what he had said on more than one occasion, namely, that the object of that Resolution was to do away with the old system, under which no mention was made of the rate of wages to be paid, with the result that the worst employers, the sweating employers, could only be, or were almost bound to be, the Government contractors, because they got labour at a lower rate of wages.
He was glad to say that for many years past the Government had been, as it ought to be, a model employer, and it ought to see that its contractors moved more or less in that direction. The sole object of the Resolution was to take care that the contractors were respectable employers of labour, and it should be carried out in spirit as well as in letter. He knew from personal experience in office in many Departments, what an extraordinary amount of deadweight there was in regard to this question; there was a tendency to take the lowest contract, and not to inquire too closely into the wages paid. He hoped. the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary would look into this question, and see whether the contractors had broken the contract and the Resolution both in the letter and in the spirit.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in all those contracts, certainly in the one to which reference had been made, there was a clause providing that no preference was to be given to Unionists over non-Unionists, or to the latter over the former. There was to be perfect equality of treatment. He understood from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Unionists were expressly excluded from Messrs. Wyman's works on account of their belonging to the Union. If that was true, then there would be a distinct breach of the contract. Until this evening he had had no suggestion of that, but he would investigate the matter.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Gentleman to go a step further, and enquire whether the rate of wages paid at Reading was such as was recognised by Trade Unionist, and for which Trade Unionists could work there. Of course it was one thing to exclude Unionists, 80 as Unionists, but it was another and worse thing to exclude Unionists by offering a low rate of wages.
(722) MR, JOHN BURNS (Battersea')said that there was no complaint, generally speaking, to be made as to the frank statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, viz., that he was disposed to see that the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1891 was complied with both in spirit and in letter. The House would remember, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take note of it, that when the Resolution was passed in February, 1891, women compositors were unknown. And what was more, the whole of the Government printing was confined to London, and there was a decided understanding that all employers who competed for contracts would have to pay the rate of wages current in London. Since that time things had changed, and a number of firms had taken their works out of London. That might be a movement which had its counter-balancing advantages, but it seemed to him, from the point of view of fairness of competition, that a country firm employing women compositors should not compete with a London firm under the Resolution of 1891, when women compositors were non-existent. They had no right to ask that national work, paid for by the national taxpayers, should not be done in Galway, or the north of England, or in Scotland, or that a ring should be put round London and all national work be done within the ring; but it appeared to him that Wyman & Company, as soon as they got this contract, transferred their works to Reading, where the wages were 28s. a week instead of 39s. a week paid in London; and that the firm went further and supplemented this advantage of 11s. a week by employing women at lower wages.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there were a great number of women compositors employed in Edinburgh.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSadmitted that that was the case now, but he repeated that this firm by the transfer of their works to Reading had the advantage of 11s. a week, and the further advantage of 81 employing women at a less wage than 28s. a week. He maintained that equal pay for equal work should be paid to both men and women. He trusted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would make further inquiry into the matter, and that Messrs. Wyman & Company should be kept to the spirit and the letter of the Resolution of the House of Commons. He rose, first of all, to thank the hon. Gentleman for his willingness to inquire into this matter, and his desire to be fair and just, and to tell him that the only way to do this was to insist on the principle of paving equal wages for equal work. If he did this he would combat every point that had been raised. It was said that men were being excluded because they were Trades Unionists. In interpreting the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, he had taken the broad and general view that the current rate of wages ought to be paid by all employers, and that if female or child labour was substituted for the higher priced male labour that was a moral evasion of the Fair Wages Resolution.
§ (7.33.) MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)expressed the opinion that the Fair Wages Resolution, since it had been passed, had been abused in every part of the country. He was extremely sorry to notice that the hon. Gentleman in referring to female labour had fallen into a serious error when he said that, generally speaking, women were paid less than men for the same work. He had, however, corrected himself, when that was brought to his attention, by stating that in most cases women were paid less for the same work. It was unfortunate that the representative of the Treasury in this House, with regard to the official work of his Department, should be prepared to adopt such a principle as that. The principle the Treasury adopted with regard to firms who had entered into contracts for carrying out public work was that the firms should only be bound to pay the standard rate of wages in the locality. That principle gave rise to such an evasion of the Fair Wages Resolution as had occurred in this case. Supposing this firm, instead of taking their work to Reading, where probably there were other printing establishments where a standard rate of wage has been set up, had gone to an obscure village in Essex where no standard rate of wages existed, the 82 same thing would happen then as happened at Tralee, where a printer refused to pay a fair rate of wage. In that obscure village in Essex, supposing they paid their workmen not 28s. a week, which was the standard wages in the provinces, or 39s. a week, which was the standard rate of wage in London, but 20s. a week, would the hon. Gentleman hold that that was carrying out the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution? How had the Government carried out that Resolution in the case of Pinner of Tralee? It was shown that that man was paying a low rate of wage. There were no printers nearer than Limerick, but though the Government held that the wages were far higher at Limerick, they stuck to their bargain with Pinner of Tralee. The hon. Member for Battersea had called attention to a very important principle—equal wages ought to be paid to men and women for equal work, and if that Resolution was carried into effect, we ought not to leave it in the power of a firm like Messrs. Wyman, by taking their work down to a place like Reading, to set up a standard rate of wage for their women in that locality lower than the standard rate for men in the same locality. Probably at Reading no other firm employed women, and Messrs. Wyman were the only employers of women in that locality, and were thus enabled to set up a standard rate of wages themselves, and by paying that rate were able to show that they were entitled to have nothing said to them by the Government. He contended that if Messrs. Wyman were not paying for this work by the piece, they were bound to pay to their women the current rate of wages for men in that district. They should be compelled to show that they were paying their women equal wages for equal work. Therefore, on the ground, firstly, that the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to labour under the extraordinary impression that the rate of pay for women should be less than that for men; and secondly, that the Fair Wages Resolution had, in his opinion, been abused throughout the country, he considered that the hon. Member for West Newington had taken the proper course 83 in raising this question. He did not think that the hon. Member had reason to be very well satisfied with the explanations that had been given, and hoped he would go to a division.
§ (7.40.) MR. LOUGH (Islington,W.)said that he understood the hon. Member to say that the assurances of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had satisfied him. Everybody would feel that he had discharged a public duty in bringing forward this matter. As the debate was not to be prolonged, because of an item in the Estimates of great importance which followed it, he was desirous of calling attention to just one matter. The total amount of this Estimate was £98,000, and as much as £94,000 of that amount was said to be in3reased cost caused by the war in South Africa.
The Committee had come to look with suspicion on these Supplementary Estimates. Although this Estimate was not much in itself, an excess of nearly £100,000 ought to be carefully scrutinised when it was said to be due to the war in South Africa. It was a matter that required explanation. How was it that a proper Estimate of this cost was not made 12 months ago, and a sufficient sum asked for? That was most important, because the Committee had the very greatest difficulty in arriving at the cost of the war, when all these amounts were pooled together. First, they had a large Supplementary Estimate for the war itself. Then there was the statement lately made that some of the money voted for the South African police had also been utilised for the purposes of the war. The only exlanation given was that this excess of nearly £100,000 was due to the war. Some further explanation ought to be given in respect of this matter, arid an assurance that next year a sufficient amount of money should be taken in the Estimates, so that the House should not be required to deal with such a Supplementary Estimate as this.
§ *(7.44.) MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)said that as a practical printer himself and a member of his Trade Society he had no objection to the employment of women compositors providing they received the same rate of wages as the men whom they displaced. 84 He hoped that the hon. Gentleman in any inquiries that he was making at Reading would see whether an undue proportion of boys or improvers were employed, because such a practice as that was to be deprecated, and it certainly ought to be taken into consideration in this inquiry which was to be made. Another point, which affected not only London but Manchester and Edinburgh and other cities, was the fact that a system had grown up of tendering for the work of a particular district where it was supposed that the contractors were going to carry out the work in that district, when, in fact, they intended to do nothing of the kind, but intended as soon as they secured the contract to transfer the work to some other place where wages were lower. He hoped in the future when contracts were given out that the Government would see that the persons who secured them were prepared to compete, and on fair terms. The Fair Wages Resolution said nothing as to the standard rate of wages for women, and he did not know where the hon. Gentleman would be able to obtain the "standard rate of wages" for women. He knew that no firm could employ female labour unless they were going to sweat them, and get them to work at lower wages. If, in the 20th century, women were going to become the bread-winners and allow the men to take a rest, then he must insist that the women should be paid the same rate of wages as the men they displaced, and lie hoped that this firm of Messrs. Wyman would be made to toe the line, and do what was right in this matter.
§ (7.50.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said that so far as he could see the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had agreed that Messrs. Wyman must pay the usual trade rate of wages at Reading.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat I said was that they must conform to the House of Commons Fair Wages Resolution; they were to pay the current wages in the trade.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that that meant that Messrs. Wyman must pay 85 the current wages in the trade. Further, the hon. Gentleman held that if Messrs. Wyman employed women in place of Men they must pay the women the same rate of wages as the men.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir, I did not say that.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREhoped under those circumstances that the hon. Member for West Newington would divide on this question, because if women were paid less than men, the male compositors would be driven out of the business. But, whilst agreeing with the hon. Member for West Newington, who had put forward this matter, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Poplar, whose complaint was that Messrs. Wyman had, since entering into this contract, removed their works out of London. He saw nothing in that complaint. because when the contract was competed for it was perfectly well known that provincial firms were competing as well as London firms, and therefore there was no reason
§ why, having got the contract, Messrs. Wyman should not remove to Reading. His reason for pointing this out was that the hon. Member for Poplar had stated that the work was better done in London than in the provinces, and in one case he certainly knew that statement was not correct. Northampton did much better work than London, and therefore the House must take it that the work could be as well done in the provinces as elsewhere. Lot there be fair treatment on both sides. If the provincial printer moved up to London he could not get more out of the contract, and if the London printer moved into the country that was his own affair.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONAs I do not consider the explanation of the hon. Gentleman to be satisfactory, I intend to divide the Committee.
§ (7.57.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 28.)
87| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork,N. E.) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Doherty, William |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hammond, John | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stro'd | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Malley, William |
| Blake, Edward | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | O'Mara, James |
| Boland, John | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boyle, James | Joyce, Michael | O'Shee, James John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Kearley, Hudson E. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Burns, John | Kennedy, Patrick James | Price, Robert John |
| Caldwell, James | Labouchere, Henry | Reddy, M. |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Roche, John |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Levy, Maurice | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Crean, Eugene | Lewis, John Herbert | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lundon, W. | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sullivan, Donal |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | M'Fadden, Edward | Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r |
| Delany, William | M'Govern, T. | Thompson, Dr. E C (Mon'gh'nN |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mooney, John J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Ure, Alexander |
| Edwards, Frank | Moss, Samuel | Wallace, Robert |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Murphy, John | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Newnes, Sir George | Whiteley, George (York, W. R. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Young, Samuel |
| Field, William | O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary Mid | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.) | Captain Norton and Mr. |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Nannetti. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml's | Pilkington, Lieut,-Col Richard |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Gore, Hn. G R C Ormsby-(Salop | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Austin, Sir John | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Graham, Henry Robert | Purvis, Robert |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds | Randles, John S. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Groves, James Grimble | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hamilton, RtHnL'rd G (Midd'x | Renwick, George |
| Bigwood, James | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Helder, Augustus | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney |
| Bull, William James | Henderson, Alexander | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Butcher, John George | Hogg, Lindsay | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hope, J F (Shaffeld, Brightside | Russell, T. W. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, John |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Knowles, Lees | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. | Lawson, John Grant | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. | Spear, John Ward |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lowe, Francis William | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Stroyan, John |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Macdona, John Cumming | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Denny, Colonel | Maconochie, A. W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Majendie, James A. H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mitchell, William | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) | Wi11iams, Rt Hn. J. Powell-(Bir. |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Morrell, George Herbert | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Finch, George H. | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wood, James |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Muntz, Philip A. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Forster, Henry William | Murray, Charles J.(Coventry) | |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW | Nicholson, William Graham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Sir William Walrond and |
| Gibbs, Hn. A G H (City of Lond. | Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley | Mr. Anstruther. |
§ Original Question again proposed (8.10.)
§ (8.40.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he observed that this Supplementary Vote of £94,000 had been rendered necessary on account of the additional sum required for South Africa. How was this very large sum required, and did it include the cost of printing the proclamations?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis is almost entirely for the supply of printed Army forms which were required in greatly increased numbers in consequence of the war.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat kind of forms?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINForms of every kind, which the Army uses in time of peace and which arc required in very much greater quantity in time of war, such as certificates and discharges, papers in which the doctors in the hospitals put down the requirements of their cases, the special medical comforts ordered for them, and the papers for recording the pay of native drivers employed with the troops in South Africa. Every kind of form has been required in 89 greater number lately, owing to thegreat dispersion of the troops which necessitates the establishment of depots in larger number. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen that I should answer a Question put to me earlier in the debate. It has been asked how it arose that we had so much miscalculated the expenses of the war as to require this great Supplementary Estimate. I should like to say one word about it. The Committee will allow me to remind them that this Estimate was prepared last November twelvemonth for the financial year beginning on the 1st of April following that. It is the general practice of the offices to prepare their Estimates a considerable time in advance, so that they may be submitted to the Treasury for confirmation. We have to reserve some time to ourselves for examining the Estimates. It was quite impossible for them to decide how much the expenditure in connection with the war in South Africa would be. The Stationery Office could not be expected to know when the war would come to a close, and they very deliberately, and, he thought, wisely, took the responsibility of putting only a very moderate addition to the ordinary Vote for the war expenditure, expressing their readiness to present a Supplementary Estimate if necessary. The ordinary expenditure by the War Office for stationery in time of peace was roughly £80,000, and an Estimate for £105,000 was presented, but the expenditure for the year would be nearly £200,000.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the hon. Gentleman could say what the expenditure was in the previous year?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that hon. Gentlemen might take it from him that the expenditure for the present year was greater than that for the year before. This great expenditure on account of the War Office had, however, not escaped the attention of the Controller of the Stationery Office, and he was pursuing inquiries with a view to seeing that in no ease was any waste or unnecessary expenditure incurred.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the answer of the lion. Gentleman 90 amounted to this, that the miscalculation. was due entirely to the prolongation of the war.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that it was not a miscalculation. At the time the Estimates were made up it was impossible for the Stationery Office to say how long the war would last, and it was thought better to put in a very moderate Estimate.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the general election had been fought on the cry that the war was over, and the hon. Member had made his Estimate on a calculation that the whole thing had terminated.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not take that.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury threw a very interesting side light on the way the whole things in regard to the war had been going on. The Government had been living from hand to mouth from week to week, and from month to month, as had been shown by the manner in which the Stationery Estimate had been prepared. He asked whether the cost of the printing of the famous proclamations issued in South Africa was included in the vote.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the proclamations were printed here in order that they might be laid before the House. But the copies circulated in South Africa were printed in South Africa.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the printing of those proclamations was a scandalous waste of money, for they were not worth the cost of the paper. As a protest against the issue of those useless documents, which had been scattered broadcast over South Africa, and which had added so much to the amount of the Stationery Office Vote, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £200.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding 91 £97,800, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr Lloyd-George.)
§ (8.58.) MR. FIELD (Dublin, St Patrick)thought the House was entitled to some more explanation as to the enormous addition to the amount of this vote. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary thing that these Estimates were brought forward in this haphazard way. Some opportunity should be given to hon. Members to know what items in the Estimates were to be discussed.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork. N.)said that the cost of printing the proclamations had been a woful waste of public money, because they had had no good effect whatever; on the contrary they had done very much harm. The Committee should, he thought, mark the extraordinary extravagance of the increase of £98,000 in this vote.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the points raised by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin had been already dealt with by him in a speech, which, perhaps, the hon. Member had not heard. He merely rose to make an appeal to the Committee. He thought that there was an understanding, as the hon. Member opposite had said that the Committee should not prolong the discussion on the Estimates. This was only the second Estimate, and there were several others on the Paper. He therefore ventured to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the question.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he fully realised that there was such an understanding. He had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he thought that they ought to have a division.
§ (9.0) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 137. (Division List No. 29.)
93| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork,N.E. | Hammond, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Allen, Chas,P.(Glouc., Stroud) | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | O'Malley, William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Mara, James |
| Blake, Edward | Joyce, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boland, John | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Shee, James John |
| Boyle, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Price, Robert John |
| Burns, John | Levy, Maurice | Reddy, M. |
| Caldwell, James | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lundon, W. | Roche, John |
| Cogan, Denis J. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Fadden, Edward | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Govern, T. | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Cullinan, J. | Mooney, John J. | Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N |
| Delany, William | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Moss, Samuel | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Murphy, John | Ure, Alexander |
| Doogan, P. C. | Newnes, Sir George | Wallace, Robert |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Edwards, Frank | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Young, Samuel |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Field, William | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Mr. Flynn and Mr. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Doherty, William | Nannetti. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Bain, Colonel James Robert | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Banbury, Frederick George | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bartley, George C. T. | Brookfield, Colonel Montagu |
| Austin, Sir John | Bigwood, James | Bull, William James |
| Butcher, John George | Helder, Augustus | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Carlile, William Walter | Henderson, Alexander | Renwick, George |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hogg, Lindsay | Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) |
| Cavendish,V. C. W (Derbyshire) | Hope,J.F (Sheffield, Brightside | Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc | Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Clare, Octavins Leigh | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Knowles, Lees | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Lawson, John Grant | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Russell, T. W. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Rutherford, John |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Lowe, Francis William | Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Denny, Colonel | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Macdona, John Cumming | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Maconochie, A. W. | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Duke, Henry Edward | M'Calmont, Col. HL. B. (Cambs. | Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. | Spear, John Ward |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Majendie, James A. H. | Stewart,Sir M'rk J. M'Taggart |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Stroyan, John |
| Finch, George H. | Mitchell, William | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow | Valentia, Viscount |
| Flower, Ernest | Morrell, George Herbert | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Forster, Henry William | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick,S. W. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Welby,SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Muntz, Philip A. | Williams,Rt HnJ Powell-(Birm |
| Gibbs, Hn. A. GH. (Cityof Lond. | Murray,Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Gordon,Maj. Evans- (T'r H'ml's | Pemberton, John S. G. | Wilson-Todd,Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Wood, James |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wylie, Alexander |
| Graham, Henry Robert. | Plummer, Walter R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Pretyman, Ernest George | |
| Greene,SirE. W (B'rySEdm'nds | Purvis, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Pym, C. Guy | Sir William Walrond and |
| Groves, James Grimble | Randles, John S. | Mr Anstruther. |
| Hamilton, RtHn LordG. (Mid'x | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Reid, James (Greenock) | |
| Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Remnant, Jas. Farquharson |
Original Question put and agreed to.