Commons Sitting of 26 April 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz., Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  2
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz., Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; London Government Schemes (London and Penge, &c.) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz., Poole Corporation Water Bill; Sutton District Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of

  3
  Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz., Post Office Sites Bill.
  Thornton Urban District Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Brighouse, the Guisborough, and the Hemel Hempstead Joint Hospital Districts," presented by Mr. Runciman; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Belper (Rural), Blaby (Rural), Ealing, Harrowgate, Ilfracombe, and Runcorn," presented by Mr. Runciman; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
  London County Council (Money) Bill, "To regulate the expenditure of Money by the London County Council on capital account during the current financial period and the raising of Money to meet such expenditure, and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Private Bills (Group C)—;Mr. Cawley reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of Parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Aberaman; Ackton Hall; Blaennant; Bowling; Buckhill Pit; Bullgill Pit; Clifton Pits; Dowlais; Fforchaman; Hightown; Kippax; Manvers Main; Newmarket; Oat-lands Pit; Old Silkstone; Soothill
  4
  Wood; Strafford Main; and, Watergate Pit Colleries; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OE ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING.)
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Abberton; Abbots Morton; Accrington (two); Addington (two); Alberbury;. Aldborough (two); Aldermaston; Alford; Alvechurch; Andover; Areley Kings; Ashton under Lyne (two);. Asterby with Goulceby (two); Astley (two); Aston Rowant; Athelhampton with Burlestono; Baguley (two); Baldock; Banham (two); Barbon (two); Barnard Castle (two); Battersea; Bedern; Beetham (two); Belchford; Bergh Apton; Borrow; Billingford; Bilsdale (two); Birmingham; Birstall (three); Birtsmorton; Bishampton; Bishop Auckland (two)! Blackley; Bolton (two); Bosheston (two); Boxford; Brackley; Bradley; Braysworth; Brereton cum Smethwick; Bricklehampton; Bright-walton (two); Brixworth (two); Broad was; Broome; Broughton Astley (two); Brynamman (two); Buckingham; Buck-lesham; Burgate; Burgh; Burnham (two); Burton Joyce; Bushley; Canon-bury; Carmarthen (two); Chalfont St. Peter; Charlton; Charlton Horethorne; Chatham (six); Cilyewm (two); Checkendon (two); Chelford; Chorlton cum Hardy; Churcham and Bulley; Claines; Clapham; Clapton (three); Clayton le Moors; Cleckheaton (four); Cloughton (two); Cockerington; Cofton Hackett; Coldharbour (two); Combs; Cranworth; Cranworth with Letton and Southburgh; Crick; Cropthorne; Cuddington; Cuddington and Cheam Common; Culham; Culmstock; Cwmcarvan (two); Dafen (two); Darlington; Dartford; Datchet; Delabole (two); Denton and Haughton;. Derby (two); Dingestow; Ditchingham; Dorking (three); Dover; Dudley; Ealing; Eardisley (two); East Challon (two); East Haddon; East Molesey; East Tisted; Ebberston and Allerton (two); Eckington; Elmore; Esher; Eskdale; Eweline; Exeter; Farforth cum Maidenwell; Favorsham; Finstall; Flyford Flavel; Forncett St. Peter; Forthampton; Frampton on Severn (two); Frensham (two); Frostenden;

  5
  Gainford (two); Gargrave (two); Gilcrux (two); Gillingham (four); Glyntawe (two); Godalming; Gomersal (three); Goodramgate; Gorslas; Gorstas; Gorton (four); Great and Little Hampton; Great Cheverell; Great Comberton; Great Hockham; Great Horwood cum Singleborough; Great Witcombe (two); Greenhill; Grendon (two); Guarlford (two); Guildford (two); Guilsborough; Hales Owen; Hallow; Hardingstone; Harringworth; Harrow (four); Hartlebury; Haugh; Hazelmere (two); Hedgerly; Hedgerly Dean; Hemingby; Henbury (two); Henley-on-Thames; Himbleton; Hindlip; Holmwood; Holt; Horwich; Hurst Brook (two); Ipswich; Irnham (two); Islington (six); Kensington (three); Kidbrook; Kidderminster; Kingston-upon-Hull; Kingston and Dormston; Kintbury and Avington; Kirkby Stephen (two); Knighton-on-Teme; Leamington; Leigh (three); Letterston (two); Lincoln (two); Little Comberton; Llanfihangel Aberbythych (two); Llangeler; Llangennech, Llanhennoch (two); Llanllowell; Llannon (two); London; Long Marton (two); Loughfield; Ludborough; Ludger-shall (two); Lusby; Marsworth; Meldon; Merrow (two); Mitchel Troy (two); Moorsby; Muston (two); Newbold-on-Stour; Newbridge on Wye with Llysdinam (two); Newnhame; Newton Blossomville; North Crawley (two); North Elmham; Northwould; Norton and Leuchwick; Nottingham (three); Nutfield; Nuthurst; Oakley; Oare; Odisham; Okewood (two); Old Swinford; Ombersley; Ormesby (two); Ospringe; Overbury; Padgate (two); Pateley Bridge; Paulton (two); Pentlow; Piddletown; Plymouth (two); Preston (four); Preston next Faversham; Rainbow Hill; Raithby by Spilsby; Ranworth cum Panxworth; Rattlesden (two); Redbourne; Redditch; Red Hill; Revesby; Rochdale; Roscoe; Rougham; Rous Leuch; Roxeth; St. Albans; Salwarpe; Sansthorpe; Scamblesby cum Cawkwree; Scremby; Scrivelsby cum Dalderby; Shalford; Shamley Green (two); Sheldwhich Leys; Shelsley Beauchamp (two); Shenstone (two); Shepley (two); Shire Moor (two); Skirbeck Quarter; Smetterton; Southampton (six); South Stoneham (two); Sparsholt; Spilsby and Hundleby; Stafford (three); Stamford; Staunton; Stepney; Stockcross; Stoke Newington (six); Stoke Prior; Stoke Trister;
  6
  Stone; Stonham Aspal; Stoulton; Stourbridge; Stradbroke; Stretton (two); Swyncombe; Thorpe Hamlet; Tumby; Tunstall (two); Twyning; Tyldesley (two); Ulney; Upton-on-Severn; Upton St. Leonard's; Upper Arley, Upper Sapey (two); Walsgrave; Wantage; Warborough; Warmfield; Welford;. Welford cum Wickham; Werrington; West Ashby; West Gorton; West Hartlepool (three); Weston Longueville; Whaddon; Whitley; Whitson Goldcliff (two); Wichenford; Wick; Wilden; Willington Haimer (two); Willoughby; Witley; Wolverley; Wooburn; Wood-ford; Worcester (six); Wribbenhall; Yardley Hastings; and York; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition of the Personal Rights Association, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish British Women's Association, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Petition from Shoreditch, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petitions for repeal; From Manchester; Southport: and, Waterford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES.)
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland of all his Proceedings under the Act, for the year ended 31st March 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th March; Mr. O'Shee]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
  MAGISTRATES (IRELAND.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd March; Mr. Flynn]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND) (PERSONS COMMITTED.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th March; Mr. Mooney; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]
  PRISONS (RELIGIOUS CREED OF PRISONERS.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 26th March; Mr. Hay Morgan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 138.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND.)
  Copy presented, of Report and Papers relating to the Training of Teacher's for the past years 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (SCOTLAND.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th July 1905; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS.)
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for an exchange of Money Orders between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Switzerland, dated the 8th October 1905–17th October 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS.)
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for an exchange of Money Orders between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post
  8
  Office of Hungary, dated 28th October, 1905–16th November 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3564 to 3566 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS (KINGSTON -UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Report of the Board of Trade on the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill."—;(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH TEE VOTES.

  Posting of Typewritten Circulars.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state why typewritten notices of meetings, circulars, etc., do not come under the same postal regulation, as regards rate and manner of posting, as similar notices when handwritten; and whether he can see his way to modify the regulation so as to bring the typewritten into the same class as the handwritten notices and circulars.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) For postal purposes no difference is made between typewritten and handwritten notices, etc.

  Exemption of the Members of the Society of Friends in Natal from Military Service.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether members of the Society of Friends resident in Natal are exempt from military service, or whether they are liable to be called upon to serve under the last Militia Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Members of the Society of Friends resident in Natal are not exempt from military service under the local Militia Act of 1903. Resolutions for their exemption were rejected by the Legislative Assembly.

  Royal Engineers and Ordnance Survey.
  MR. FIELD): To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset

  9
  as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state if the 16th Company, Royal Engineers, are still on the survey, or whether they are only being drafted into other companies who are on the survey; whether survey companies of the Royal Engineers, when sent for their annual training to the Curragh Camp, receive full working pay whilst doing military duty there; and, if so, whether their' pay and travelling allowances are taken from the survey grant which is voted for direct survey work on the field.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The 16th Company, Royal Engineers, is no longer attached to the Ordnance Survey. Its removal leaves a slight excess (about twenty-four) in the establishment of non - commissioned officers and men for the three remaining companies, and these supernumeraries will be absorbed as vacancies occur. The Royal Engineers receive full working pay from the Ordnance Survey Vote while doing their annual training. Their travelling expenses are defrayed partly from Army Votes and partly from the Vote for the Ordnance Survey.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that ex-Royal Engineers non-commissioned officers have been made permanent in the Ordnance Survey after being only six months out of the corps and enjoying a military pension, and that instances have occurred where civilians after thirty-three years continuous service have been recommended for discharge without gratuity or pension; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) In some few instances ex-Royal Engineers have received permanent appointment, after a few months service as civilians, subsequent to their discharge from the corps with a pension. In almost all cases they continued to fill the same posts as they occupied while serving in the Royal Engineers. No civilians have been discharged after thirty-three years continuous service without gratuity or pension except on the ground of serious misconduct.

  Printing of Ordnance Survey Maps.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state under what circumstances machinery for printing and the printers working the machinery have been removed from the Ordnance Survey, Dublin, to Southampton for the purpose of printing Irish maps at Southampton; what is the cost of conveyance of the maps from Southampton to Dublin; whether he will inquire if it would not tend towards economy to have the work done in Ireland; whether he can state under what circumstances is the revision of the county Dublin being done by the Derby field section and being sent to Southampton for completion; whether this work could be done in Ireland by the Irish staff; and what was the cost of conveyance of the Derby Division field section to Dublin.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) On the completion of the one-inch map of Ireland there was not sufficient colour work left fully to employ the colour-printing press at Dublin, and such removals as were made wore carried out with a view to economy in colour-printing, but neither printers nor printing machines were removed to Southampton for the express purpose of printing Irish maps there. The cost of the conveyance of maps, etc., from Southampton to Dublin amounts approximately to £50 a year. It would cost about the same amount to send paper to Dublin for printing there, and no economy could be effected by the arrangement suggested. The Derby Division is not engaged on the Survey of Ireland, but in view of the breaking up of that division by the end of this year endeavour has been made, as far as possible, to find work for some of the surveyors attached to that division after the completion of their work in England. The section transferred to county Dublin, consisting of four men, has become part of the Dublin Division. The cost of conveying the section to county Dublin was about £3.

  Locomotives on Highways in Scotland.
  MAJOR MCMICKING: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been

  11
  drawn to the number of fatal accidents that have occurred within the last few years to men in charge of steam threshing mills and traction engines on highways in Scotland; whether he is aware that these accidents are frequently due to the provisions of the Locomotives (Scotland) Acts, 1865 and 1878, requiring one of the men to accompany the locomotive on foot, and to the men's inability to comply with this regulation when travelling long distances, whereby they are tempted to ride on the draw bars of the engine; and whether, in view of the loss of life that has taken place, and of the fact that motors driven at high speed are exempt from the above regulation, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the said Acts in the direction of allowing the men to sit at the rear of the last wagon.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I shall be glad to consider any information regarding these accidents. The Locomotives Act of 1898, following the Report of the Traction Engines Select Committee of 1896, allowed the man accompanying the locomotive to do so in such a manner as to be able to give assistance to any person with horses or carriages, and thus freed him from the requirements to walk on foot. This provision, which at present only applies to England and Wales, might properly, when a suitable opportunity occurs, be extended to Scotland, and I shall keep the matter in view.

  Leases of Irish Foreshores.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of leases or lettings held, and by whom, of foreshores round the Irish coasts, and the conditions under which these are granted, together with the particulars of the cases where the right of ownership is exorcised with the knowledge of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It has been the practice of the Board of Trade to present to Parliament once in every five years a statement of the particulars of all cases in which the rights and interests of the Crown in the shores and bed of the sea and tidal rivers have been sold, leased, or otherwise dealt with by the Board of Trade. The last Return contained the cases for the five years terminating December 31st, 1901. I can
  12
  supply the hon. Member with copies of these Returns, and also with similar statements as to dealings by the Board of Trade for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904. I am advised that it would not be expedient to give the information asked for in the latter part of the Question.

  Training Institutions for Midwives.
  MR. HELME: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the refusal of the Central Midwives Board to recognise certain of the large Poor Law infirmaries as training institutions, he will have a Return prepared showing the names of the institutions recognised as training institutions by the Central Midwives Board, together with the number of midwifery cases in each.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Lord President of the Council is the Minister concerned with the Central Midwives Board, and the matter referred to in the Question is therefore for him. I understand, however, that there would be no objection on his part to give the information desired.

  Decorations of Lord Beaconfield's Statue on Primrose Day.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will explain by whose authority and why there was forbidden to be placed on the statue of the late Lord Beaconsfield, on the anniversary of his death, a shield, composed of primroses and forget-me-nots, bearing a quotation from one of his utterances.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I gave instructions, in conformity with previous practice, that any wreath bearing an inscription which might cause pain to Lord Beaconfield's relations or political admirers should be removed, in order that the anniversary of his death and the statue erected to his memory should not lie made the occasion or the platform for current political controversy.

  Tobacco Imports into India.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the amount of

  13
  foreign tobacco imported into India during 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) During the year ending December 31st, 1905, the amount of tobacco imported into India was 5,397,032 pounds. In this are included cigars and cigarettes and every other form of tobacco.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of holdings bought out under the several Land Purchase Acts in the Coleraine Poor Law Union; the number bought out in the Ballymoney Poor Law Union, under the same Acts; and the aggregate amount of such purchases in these two unions.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission records of the sale of holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, which include all purchase legislation from The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, down to the Act of 1903, have always been kept by counties and not by poor law unions, and Returns of the number of holdings sold in each county are annually published. I understand that to prepare such a Return as is suggested would withdraw men from their ordinary duties and would take a long time, and that the preparation of such a Return would involve a great amount of work, not only in the Land Commission, but also in other departments. In the circumstances I fear that the importance of the suggested Return is hardly sufficient to justify the amount of extra labour that would be involved in its preparation.
  MR. GLENDINNING: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of probate of a farm which had been bought out from the landlord, the annuity to the Government could be deducted from the probate value when under £500; and, if not, what is the scale which the Inland Revenue has adopted in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) In the case of land purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, the redemption value of the annuity payable to the Land Com-
  14
  mission constitutes a legitimate deduction from the gross value of the land for the purpose of ascertaining the value on which estate duty is payable. If the nett value so ascertained should fall below £500, estate duty would be chargeable at the rate of 1 per cent., in the event of the purchase having been made by the deceased himself, but at the fixed rate of 50s. (or 30s. if the value were under £300) in the event of the purchase having been made by a predecessor in title to the deceased.

  Irish Intermediate Exhibitions.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what basis are intermediate exhibitions awarded; and will he explain why in June, 1905, in the middle grade girls, the number of £25 exhibitions awarded to modern literature was twelve, and science one, seeing that in both subjects the number of passes was the same, and honour marks in science only eight lower than in modern literature.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that the basis on which exhibitions were awarded in 1905 is contained in Rules 41, 42 and 43. As regards the second part of the Question, the Commissioners inform me that they are unable to give a reply, as the meaning of the Question is not clear to them, and perhaps my hon. friend will take an opportunity of putting the Question down in a more precise form.

  Charge for Armoy Water Supply.
  MR. GLENDINNING: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the ratepayers of the Ballycastle dispensary district, in addition to paying a rate of 10d. in the pound for water and sewerage charges, are to be further charged by the Local Government Board with cost of water supply to be taken into the town of Armoy, after a promise from the district council of exemption from paying any further rates for water or any sewerage scheme that might in the future take place over the Ballycastle union.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question, save that it is the ratepayers of the town of Ballycastle and not

  15
  the ratepayers of the Ballycastle dispensary district generally who should be referred to. The town of Ballycastle, consisting of the townland of Townparks, at present bears the cost of its own water and sewerage works; but, in consequence of a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Local Government Board had no power to exempt it when declaring the expenses of the Armoy water supply to be a dispensary district charge. The remedy for the grievance lies, however, in the hands of the local authority, as, if they consent to the cost of the sanitary works in the town of Ballycastle being also made a dispensary district charge, the Local Government Board will readily make an order accordingly. The Board have suggested the adoption of this course in a letter which they have addressed to the rural district council.

  The March of the 1st Buffs from Lydd to Dover.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether an inquiry has been hold into the circumstances under which the marches of the 1st Battalion of the Buffs, on Tuesday 10th, and Wednesday 11th instant, from Lydd to Dover, resulted in the death of two men, and on the falling out and conveyance to hospital of many others, owing to the extreme heat; and, if so, whether blame attaches to the arrangements made as to the rations or kit of the men, or to neglect of proper consideration on the part of the officers and surgeons of the regiment or staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, has not yet received a full Report on the case alluded to. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. Member any information at present, but I will take care that the matter is carefully inquired into.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Douglas Committee.
  MR. T. HART-DAVIESI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is able to state when the Report of the Committee presided over by Admiral Sir A. Douglas will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BARNES: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Reports and evidence of the Douglas Committee will be laid upon the Table; whether an opportunity for discussing it will be afforded; and, if so, when.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Papers are in a forward state, but it is not possible at present to say when they will be laid upon the Table. An opportunity for discussing the Report will be given on Navy Vote 12.

  Greenwich Observatory.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the London County Council have recently erected a power station on the Meridian, close to Greenwich Observatory; that the vibration caused by the engines and the smoke interfere with the use of instruments; and whether it will be possible in the future to rely on observations taken there for the purpose of the Nautical Almanack.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The matter is receiving consideration.

  Naval Construction.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can inform the House as to the amount of the total liability arising out of new ships of all classes now building or contracted for; and what is the number of ships of each class now building or placed out to contract.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The estimated cost of the new ships of all classes now under construction in the Royal and private Dockyards is £26,013,419. Of this total £12,126,220, has already been expended. The ships, are:—;six battleships, ten armoured, cruisers, eighteen torpedo boat destroyers, eighteen submarines, one repair ship, one royal yacht, three tugs and other small craft.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the House could be fully informed, before

  17
  the financial statement, what are the total sums to which it is committed in the present and future years by the policy of the Admiralty in regard to ships and works on land respectively.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The estimated expenditure in respect of ships now under construction in the present financial year is £9,516,508, and in subsequent years £4,370,691. Asregards works on land, the estimated expenditure under Vote 10, deducting the annuity in repayment of the works loan and expenditure on repairs and maintenance, is £690,191. The estimated expenditure under the works loan during the current year is £3,200,000. Commitments in respect of future years are approximately £847,000 for the completion of works begun under Vote 10, and £4,453,000 for the completion of loan works.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  MR. BELLAIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what is to be the heavy gun armament of H.M.S. "Dreadnought," and what number of heavy guns are to be kept in reserve for her to replace disabled ones.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A statement as to the armament and other details of the "Dreadnought" will be made when Vote 8 is discussed. It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give the information asked for in the latter part of the Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that by quoting the price of the guns in an Answer on the 2nd April,† the right hon. Gentleman has already given the information so far as foreigners are concerned?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Explosives Committee.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the names of the members amongst whom fees amounting to £1,450 are paid under Item B, Vote 9, of the Army Estimates, and what other
  † See (4) Debates, clv., 161.
  18
  duties are performed and emoluments-received by these gentlemen.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): This money is taken for the civilian members of the Explosives Committee, who are not in Government service. Last year they were Lord Rayleigh, President Sir A. Noble, and Sir W. Crookes. No other duties were performed or emoluments received by them so far as the War Office was concerned. Lord Rayleigh resigned his position as President at the commencement of the present financial year.

  Method of Paying Army Pensions.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by several boards of guardians in favour of the weekly payment of Army pensions; and whether he can hold out any hope that such a measure will be adopted.
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has been called to these expressions of opinion. The whole question is now receiving careful consideration.

  Ordnance Committee.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the names of the civil members amongst whom fees amounting to £1,000 are paid under Item A Vote 9, of the Army Estimates; and what other duties are performed and emoluments received by these gentlemen.
  MR. HALDALE: This money is taken for the civilian members of the Ordnance Committee who are not in Government service. The present members are Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. H. R. A. Mallock. No other duties are performed, or emoluments received by these members as far as the War Office is concerned.

  Cost of the New Short Rifle.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what percentage of the new short rifles are being made at Enfield and Birmingham, respectively; will he quote the contract price for the manufacture of the rifle at Birmingham and the cost of manufacture

  19
  at Enfield, inclusive of cost of material, workmanship, general charges, and allowances for inspection; and will he state what percentage for depreciation of tools is allowed in this estimate of cost.
  MR. HALDANE: It is assumed that a comparison is required between the rifles made at Enfield and those made by the trade including the London Small Arms Company and Sparkbrook. This year short rifles will be made in the proportion of about two at Enfield to three in the Trade Factories. The latest ascertained price for the Ordnance Factories is £3 18s. 5d. per rifle in 1904–05, and the estimated price for 1905–06 is £3 15s. 8d. No charge for inspection is included in these prices, but 10 per cent, of the value of machinery is included to cover depreciation. Tools are charged against the cost as usual. It is not considered desirable to state the present price of the trade rifles, but it is not anticipated that there will be any material difference this year between Ordnance Factory and trade prices.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the placing of this order for new rifles at the Sparkbrook Factory will enable the workmen who have lately been discharged from the Government factories to be kept on by the new Company.
  MR. HALDANE: We have given the orders on as handsome a scale as we could for that very purpose. If the hon. Member desires further information perhaps he will put down another Question.

  Local Option in British Colonies.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return of the provisions in Colonial laws under which powers of local option in regard to the issue or renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors are conferred upon the inhabitants of British Colonies, showing the licensing authority, the licensing area, the different options submitted to a popular vote, with the proportion of voters required to carry each option, the persons entitled to vote, and the periods at which elections are held.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHLL,: I shall be glad to grant the Return desired by my hon. friend on the understanding that it relates only to Colonies possessing responsible government.

  General Botha and Chinese Coolie Crimes.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech made on March 28th by General Botha at Germiston, in which he is reported to have said that assaults, murders, and robberies by the Chinese coolies on the people of the Transvaal were the order of the day, and that these outrages increased every day; whether he has yet received from Lord Selborne the promised Return of crimes committed by the Chinese; and what steps the Transvaal Government have taken to put a stop to the suffering thus inflicted upon British citizens in that Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a report of a speech by General Botha at Germiston on March 28th, but do not find in it the expression quoted by the hon. Member. The return which covers the period June 1st, 1905, to February 28lh, 1906, has now been received and will be published without delay. It shows that the largest number of outrages occurred in July and August last. Lord Selborne in a despatch dated March 5th has stated that "the police measures which have been taken to protect the inhabitants of the Witwatersrand from the lawless acts of the small number of criminals who are to be found among the Chinese coolies have been undoubtedly successful."

  Transvaal Finance.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the Transvaal has been repaid the loan advanced to Mr. Van Rensburg when Member of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal, in regard to which legal proceedings were lately instituted.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no recent information on this subject, but will make inquiry.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the propriety of publishing a full Report of the Proceedings of the Conference between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of Self-governing Colonies, 1902.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Conference itself decided that a full Report should not be published as the hon. Member will see from page 1 of Cd. 1299, and it is not now possible to alter that decision.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Did not one of the Colonies object to the publication of the full Report?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.

  Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what measures have actually been taken and put into force by the Transvaal authorities to give effect to the intention of the Government to give the Chinese coolies working in the mines, who had a genuine and honest wish to go home, the power to do so, and to do away with the unusual and illegal practice of allowing trials of the Chinese to be conducted in the mines without any recourse to the ordinary Courts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the Question, it is a matter of regret to the Secretary of State that he should still be unable to make a final statement on this matter. Affairs of considerable importance and urgency have required Lord Selborne's presence in Bechuanaland, and his personal in fluence and authority are most desirable in the full and satisfactory settlement of a question so complicated and difficult. Every effort is being made by the Secretary of State to fulfil the pledges given to Parliament with the utmost expedition; and I must ask my hon. friend and the House for an extension of their patience and confidence. In reply to the second part of the Question, the extent of the Witwatersrand reef and the scattered distribution of mining estates along it would oppose practical difficulties of an insuperable character to any system of trying Chinese coolies accused of minor
  22
  offences in the ordinary Courts of the Colony. Serious offences are in all cases so tried. The Inspectors' Courts will, however, be outside the mining compounds. Buildings have been in some cases already prepared and will be in all cases prepared for that special purpose. Free access has been secured to all persons wishing to attend any session of these Courts, and notices to that effect have been posted outside each court. It is clearly in the interests of the coolies that they should be tried by the Mining Inspectors who are Government officers of good personal qualifications, and who are familiar with Chinese customs and with the Chinese language.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether it was not the case that minor offences had been tried in buildings outside the mine premises for quite eight or nine months past.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he believed that that was so in a considerable proportion of mining estates on the Witwatersrand reef. It was proposed to insist on that in respect of all the other mining estates.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the coolies were tried in this manner with the sanction of the Chinese Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If my hon. friend desires to suggest by that Question that the procedure is illegal and a violation of the Convention, I believe there is no foundation for such a suggestion. I believe the procedure is entirely legal and entirely in accordance with the Convention.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the distinction that separates a minor from a major offence?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The powers of the mining inspectors, who have magisterial functions delegated to them, are limited to the imposition of a fine up to the maximum of £75—;a very heavy fine, no doubt—;and of sentences not exceeding six months imprisonment. All offences which would require more severe penalties would, naturally, be excluded from the purview of these

  23
  magistrates, but the instructions which the mining inspectors have received lead them still further to transfer all sentences of a serious character, even though they might be dealt with within these limits, to the ordinary regular Courts.
  MR. VERNEYasked whether the hon. Gentleman could confidently assure the House that these inspectors were thoroughly acquainted with the Chinese language.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is the principal qualification for their appointment.
  MR. J. WARDasked the hon. Gentleman whether it was possible to name a date when these instructions would be published. Nearly two months had elapsed since this statement and pledge was made in the House, and evidently nothing had been done.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the hon. Gentleman was not right in saying that nothing had been done. He recognised that the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, was entitled to press the Government for a definite decision on the matter, and it was his earnest hope to be able to announce that decision without unnecessary or undue delay.

  Tibetan Indemnity.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make any further statement regarding the payment of the first instalment of the Tibetan indemnity, amounting to Rs. 100,000, which was due on January 1st last.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): Communications between the Government of India and the Tibetan representative are still proceeding. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is it the fact that the Tibetan representative has returned to his own country?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I can add nothing to the Answer I have given, but if my hon. friend desires he can communicate with me privately.

  Great Britain, China, and Tibet.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government for the adhesion of China to the Tibetan Convention of September 7th, 1904.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The negotiations with the Chinese Government are still proceeding at Peking, and I hope may soon be brought to a conclusion; when that is so, the result will be made known. Meanwhile, in view of statements which have appeared recently, I may say that the negotiations do not contemplate an alteration of the Tibet Convention.

  Increase of the Egyptian Garrison.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what increase is contemplated in the Egyptian garrison; whether such increase is due to the frontier problem; and, if so, whether it is intended to be temporary or permanent.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The strength of the Egyptian garrison was reduced in 1904. Lord Cromer considers now that, in view of the unrest existing in Egypt, which is in some measure due to the action of the Porte in connection with the frontier, it is desirable to reinforce the garrison. This will be done, but the actual details are still under consideration. It is impossible to say for how long this increase will be necessary. This must obviously depend upon circumstances.

  Macedonia.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can lay upon the Table a copy of the règlement as at present administered in Macedonia by the representatives of the six Powers and Turkey.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, Sir, a. copy of the règlement will be laid.

  Turkey and Egypt.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether lie can lay upon the Table any Papers explanatory of the differences that have recently arisen on frontier questions between the Governments of Turkey and Egypt, and of any steps taken by His Majesty's Government in relation thereto.
  SIR EDWAED GREY: It is not possible to lay Papers at the present moment.

  London Police and the Public.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an inquiry has been made, and, if so, with what result, into the case of two gentlemen, Dr. Gerothwohl, a British subject, lecturer at Trinity College, Dublin, and Air. Lavalette, a Belgian, who, on the night of the boat race, were wrongly arrested at Vine Street police station, and not in Piccadilly as stated by the constables, and charged with being drunk and disorderly, and roughly handled by the police.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have made inquiries into this matter. The charge of drunkenness which was brought by the police against the gentlemen mentioned in the question was dismissed by the magistrate, and I gladly accept the view that the police, who were maintaining order in Piccadilly on boat race night in circumstances of great difficulty, were mistaken on this point. But after the fullest consideration I find it impossible to impute blame to them in this matter or to entertain the graver charges made against them. If these charges are to be pressed, it must be by proceedings in a court of law, which are open to the hon. Member's friends.

  Exmouth Burial Dispute.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Reverend G. P. de Putron, vicar of Withycombe, near Exmouth, recently refused to permit a Nonconformist minister to officiate at the burial of a parishioner in the parish churchyard, on
  26
  the ground that the parishioner had died outside the limits of the parish; and whether having regard to the fact that the vicar was acting within his legal right, the Government will take steps to introduce a measure to amend the Burial Act so as to prevent the possibility of such occurrence in future.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The case has not previously been brought to my notice, but I will make inquiry into it.

  Post Office Mail Cart Drivers.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now give the result of his inquiries into the case of Robert Eyres, a mail-van driver, charged on Monday, April 2nd, at the Central Criminal Court, with furious driving, who stated in his defence that he was on duty from fifteen to eighteen hours a day, and that his horse, on the day of the alleged offence had been in harness for twelve hours; and will he state the hours usually worked by this man and the hours worked on the day in question.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I find that the man's duty ordinarily covered a period of fourteen and a quarter hours (and not fifteen to eighteen as stated by him); but of this period nearly five hours were his own for rest and refreshment. On the day on which he was arrested for furious driving twelve and a half hours had elapsed since he attended at the contractor's yard; and of this time four hours had been at his own disposal. I understand that the day's work is practically of the same length as that of drivers employed by private firms of carriers. The horses employed on those duties work for fourteen hours one day and rest the next. I am giving the question of these contracts my attention.
  MR. J. WARD: Was this man employed directly by the Postmaster-General or was he employed by a contractor.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir. I am looking into the conditions of these contracts.

  Life Saving on Coasting Steamers.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make inquiries of his officers how many times of their own knowledge they have seen the boats provided for the safety of passengers or crew on coasting vessels actually in the water and the gear in order; and if he can ascertain from masters of coasting vessels how many times during the year the boats under their charge are actually lowered into the water.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,: Special inquiries have been made into the matter to which my hon. friend refers. In the case of passenger vessels the Board of Trade surveyors now make a practice of seeing the boats lowered and also that the gear is in order at every survey. With regard to other coasting vessels no exact figures can be given, but these vessels generally have at least one boat in the water at every port for working purposes and the surveyor's reports tend to show that, when more than one boat is carried the other boats are generally lowered from time to time. The hon. Member is aware that a cautionary notice on this point is now in course of being issued to owners and masters by the Board of Trade.

  Workmen's Trains.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, measures to confer upon the statutory tribunal described in the Report of the Select Committee on Workmen's Trains the right to direct that travelling facilities for workmen be provided in such manner as the tribunal deems best in districts where building development seems probable.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have been in recent communication with the railway companies serving the Metropolitan district on the whole subject I of the recommendations of the Committee, including of course the point raised in the Question. The replies received are now under consideration; meanwhile if the I hon. Member will bring to my notice any particular case in which the desired
  28
  facilities are not provided it shall be looked into.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will Papers be laid before Parliament giving the particulars received from the companies.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he would like to see the communications before coming to. a decision on the matter.

  Education Bill Finance.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, what sums out of the £1,000,000 provided in the Education Bill it is estimated will fall to the share of Blackpool, Preston, Southport, and Blackburn respectively.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): As I stated on the First Reading of the Bill, the Grant will be distributed in aid of the local education rate upon terms to be laid down hereafter in the Code. The general principle upon which the Board of Education will proceed in the ultimate distribution of the new grant will be to have regard both to the actual increase of local burden consequent upon the Bill, and to the existing amount of the education rate. I cannot at this stage attempt any estimate of the sums that will fall to the share of any individual authorities.
  MR. ASHLEY: On what data did the right hon. Gentleman base his estimate of £1,000,000 sterling?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to give that information.

  Educational Bill Statistics.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of separate school departments under head teachers in existence at the close of the last completed statistical year, classified as Council, Church, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Jewish, and British, and other undenominational school departments, respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: The numbers of separate school departments for the statistical year ending July 31st, 1905, are:—;Council, 12,157; Church of England, 16,320; Roman Catholic, 1,843;

  29
  Wesleyan, 639; Jew, 24; British and other undenominational, 949.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of children enrolled at the close of the last completed statistical year in Council, Church, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Jewish, and British, and other undenominational schools, respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: The figures for the statistical year ending July 31st, 1905, are:—;Council 3,083,990; Church 2,305,949; Roman Catholic 339,554; Wesleyan 135,868; Jewish 8,149; British and other undenominational 171,471.

  Certificated Teachers.
  DR. MACNAMAEA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of certificated teachers engaged, at the close of the last completed statistical year, in Council, Church, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Jewish and British, and other undenominational schools respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: To obtain the information asked for in the Question would involve enormous labour, the results of which would hardly be commensurate with the time and expense involved.

  Orphan Home Schools.
  MR. FERENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether orphan homes, having schools, will be able, in case the Education Bill becomes law, to retain the management of the schools, as at present, under Government inspection; and will they be entitled to receive Government grants as heretofore.
  MR. BIRRELL: I must refer the hon. Member to Section 38 of the Education Bill; the effect of which will be (if it becomes law, to leave the position of those schools much as before.

  Powers of Local Authorities.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the existing law, local authorities have power to prescribe instruction in secular subjects alone in some of the schools provided
  30
  by them, while prescribing undenominational religious instruction in the rest; and whether the Education Bill will affect the powers of local authorities in this respect beyond the provisions therein as to facilities.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part "No."

  Fruit Culture.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether His Majesty's Government is taking measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Fruit Culture; and whether any steps have yet been taken to carry out the suggestion of the Committee that a special sub-department of the Board of Agriculture should be established to deal with matters connected with the fruit industry.
  SIR EDWARD STEACHEY: The recommendations of the Committee on Fruit Culture are receiving attention, and we are in communication with other Government Departments with regard to such of them as do not fall exclusively within our own jurisdiction. We are in sympathy with the suggestion that the Staff of the Department should be somewhat enlarged so as to enable it to do more for the fruit industry, but some increase of expenditure would be entailed, and at present no definite statement on the subject can be made.

  New Government Buildings.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the furnishing trades generally will, at the proper time, be publicly informed that the Works Department are open to receive tenders for the supply of furniture and fittings for the new War Office and the other Government Offices, which are in course of erection; and whether it has hitherto been the practice to obtain furniture and fittings from one or two firms.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The furniture in the existing offices will, so far as possible, be utilised in the new buildings, and most of the additional articles required will be of the ordinary official patterns for which contracts are current. In certain cases not covered by such contracts competition will be invited from a large number of approved firms. It is not desirable to advertise for tenders from the whole trade; but any firm having a factory in or near London, where inspection of work in progress is possible, is allowed to tender on application, provided that proof is given of its ability to carry out work satisfactorily, and that the Government rules as to rates of wages are observed. It has not been the practice to obtain furniture from one or two firms.

  London's Parks.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any new contract has been recently made for the right to place chairs in the parks and to sell refreshments in the Kiosks; for how many years chairs were allowed to be placed in the parks without anything being paid for the right of doing so; when was the first payment made, and what was the amount; what amount was received last year; and, if any new contract has been made, what will be the amount paid during the present year.
  MR. HARCOURT: The reply to the first Question is in the affirmative. No payment was received for chairs until 1896. In 1896–7 the sum received was £1,105, and in 1905–6, £1,210. A new contract has been made which will increase the receipts for the present year to £2,780. As regards refreshment Kiosks, certain re-arrangements have recently been under settlement for Regent's Park, Greenwich Park, etc., but they are not yet all settled, and the extra receipts cannot be finally stated.

  Houses of Parliament—;Refreshment Department, Wages of Employees.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether the food supplied, and the wages paid, to the waiters and other employees in the refreshment department of the House of
  32
  Commons are in accordance with the trades union rate; whether, seeing that one-half the grant of £2,000, which is annually made by this House to the Kitchen Committee, was obtained to pay the employees fair wages, he will say whether the grant has been or is being used to pay such wages, or whether it has been used to purchase and store wines in the cellars of this House; whether, seeing that the wine, at present mainly champagne, in the cellars of the House is valued at nearly £6,000, the Kitchen Committee will either increase the price of each meal supplied to Members of this House and apportion the amount so received among the waiters and employees of the refreshment department, or dispose of some of the stock of wines to enable them to do so; whether, when provision has been made for adequately remunerating the employees, the Committee will resolutely prohibit the practice of tipping waiters or any other employees; and will the Committee present a complete financial statement and balance-sheet annually to the House.
  MR. JACOBY: The wages paid, and the food supplied to the waiters, and other employees of the refreshment department are, in the opinion of the majority of the Kitchen Committee, fair and satisfactory. The conditions of employment being different to restaurants, hotels, etc., it is impossible to compare rates of wages. The grant of £2,000 which is annually made by the House to the Kitchen Committee is expended on wages for the employees. The amount paid in wages and salaries last year was £4,036 16s. 6d. The Kitchen Committee do not propose to increase the price of meals, and owing to the difference of opinion of Members of this House, have decided not to lay down a hard and fast rule as regards the practice of tipping. The Kitchen Committee will present its usual annual Return before the end of the session.

  Physical Deterioration.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have yet arranged to issue the parochial medical officers, sanitary inspectors, and inspectors of poor leaflets containing the opinions of the Committee

  33
  on Physical Deterioration relative to ventilation and the bringing up of young children, with a view to the dissemination of information on these subjects
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Board will shortly issue a leaflet on the management of young children. They have already issued a comprehensive circular on the control of pulmonary phthisis. The Board are considering what further measures may be recommended.

  Balinakill Burial Ground.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the cause of the delay in finding a site for a new burial ground in place of that at Balinakill, in the parish of Uig, island of Lewis, which has been repeatedly reported to be overcrowded, and the coffins only covered with a few inches of earth.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The proprietor has agreed to enlarge and otherwise put the burial ground at Balinakill into proper condition, and the work is to be commenced during the course of the spring. The delay appears to have been caused by the negotiations.

  Congested Districts Board Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state when the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope upon an early day.
  MR. WEIR: When, this month or next?
  MR. SINCLAIR: It will be very shortly.

  Inverness Fisheries.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that destitution prevails among the fishing population in the islands on the west coast of Inverness-shire, that the Congested Districts Board and the Fisheries Board have refused to help the population to provide fishing
  34
  boats and gear and otherwise to develop the industry; and whether, under these circumstances, he will appoint a Committee, similar to the Mansfield Committee which reported on the sea fisheries in parts of Sutherland and Caithness in 1904, to report as to whether any stops can be taken to develop the fishing-industry on the west coast of Scotland, or to assist the fishermen in the prosecution of their calling.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No special information has reached me as to any exceptional destitution, and there is no present intention of appointing another Committee; but the state of the fishing industry and the general condition of the population referred to is under the consideration of the Government, in connection with legislation which is under preparation.

  Irish Agricultural Schemes.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how soon does he expect the return of Local Contributions to the Cost of Schemes under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act, 1899, will be available.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I am informed that it is not at present possible to state when this Return will be available. Certain necessary particulars have to be procured from local authorities throughout Ireland, who will be asked to furnish them with as little delay as possible.

  Untenanted Land.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how soon does he expect the Return of Untenanted Land, ordered on 27th March, will be available.
  MR. CHERRY: It is anticipated that this Return will be ready in about two months.

  Juvenile Prisoners in Ireland.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of prisoners of

  35
  twelve years of ago and under sixteen years of age now in the local prisons in Ireland, and whether he will give particulars of the offence and sentence in each case?
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of prisoners of sixteen years of ago and under twenty-one years of age now in the local prisons in Ireland, and whether he will give particulars of the offence and sentence in each case.
  MR. CHERRY: In order to obtain the information asked for in these two Questions, reference to the several prisons in Ireland will be necessary, and this will take some little time. My right hon. friend will forward the information to the hon. Member as soon as it has been prepared.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why it is stated in the Report for the year 1904 of the governor of Belfast prison that twenty-five juvenile adults were incarcerated in that prison, when the Report for the same year of the governor of Maryborough prison states that all juvenile prisoners sentenced to one month's imprisonment and upwards are sent to that prison; and whether he will furnish particulars of the offences and sentences of the twenty-five juvenile adults incarcerated in Belfast prison referred to in this Question.
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The governor of Belfast prison made no allusion to juvenile adults, viz., persons between sixteen and twenty-one years of age, nor did the governor of Maryborough prison allude to the subject. The statement made by the governor of Belfast prison was that twenty-five juveniles, viz., persons under sixteen years of age, were committed during the year. The governor of Mountjoy prison stated that all juveniles sentenced to one month's imprisonment and upwards are sent to that prison. Of the twenty-five juveniles committed to Belfast prison, four who were sentenced to a month's imprisonment or upwards were transferred to Mountjoy prison.

  Cork Evicted Tenants—;Case of Mrs. Mary Eagan.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are now in a position to take some effective steps to bring about the reinstatement of Airs. Mary Eagan in the farm of Caherduggan, Bartlemy, on the Nason estate, county Cork, seeing that the holding is still in the landlord's possession, practically derelict, and that the principal obstacle to the evicted tenant's reinstatement appears to be reluctance to give consent on the part of the agent to the estate.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have already approached the owner in this case through his agent, but have not received any reply to their communication. The Commissioners are again communicating with the agent on the subject.

  Case of Patrick Foyle.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of Patrick Foley, of Fermoy, whose father was tenant of the farm of Consane, Water-grasshill, on the Lowe estate, county Cork, was evicted in 1880, and has since died, and to the fact that the holding is now occupied by another tenant, named Justin McCarthy, at less than half the rent paid by the evicted tenant; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will take into consideration the claims of the son of the deceased tenant for an allotment of untenanted land not necessarily in the neighbourhood.
  MR. CHERRY: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas Foley, who states that he was a joint tenant with Patrick Foley and that both were evicted in consequence of the latter having fallen into arrear in the payment of his portion of the rent. The Commissioners will enquire into the case as soon as may be possible.

  Condition of the Royal Canal.
  MR. GINNELL: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade what communications, if any, were addressed by the Board of Trade to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, pursuant to the Reports of the Board's inspectors on the condition of the Royal Canal; and will he explain why the Board of Trade held inquiries, in view of the expense to those who obtained them and to the State, if the Board are unable to give effect to the recommendations of their own inspectors, and to protect this public waterway from destruction.
  MR. KEARLEY: General Hutchinson was appointed to inspect the canal in 1894, on a memorial received through five Members of Parliament, from fifty-five traders, asking for an inspection of the canal under Section 41 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Further complaints were received of the condition of the canal in the following year, and Sir Francis Marindin was appointed to make an inspection under the same section. The Reports of both General Hutchinson and of Sir Francis Marindin were for warded to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, and further correspondence passed between the Board of Trade and the Company, who, in November, 1895, gave an assurance that no effort would be wanting on their part to ensure the carrying out of the various recommendations contained in Sir Francis Marindin's Report so as to maintain the Royal Canal in a satisfactory condition. Since the two Board of Trade inspections referred to, other inspections have been made on behalf of the Board of Control, a public body appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant under an Act of 1818, and composed of members of the Irish Board of Works. The functions and powers of the Board of Control as regards the canal have recently been fully explained to the Royal Commission on Canals, now sitting, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the evidence bearing on the point. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 10th instant,† the Board of Control inform me that they are now considering the Question of further proceedings.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having
  †See (4) Debates, clv., 1165.
  38
  regard to the facts that the Royal Canal was constructed as a waterway for public use, largely with moneys voted by the Irish Parliament, was subsequently acquired and is now controlled by the Midland Great Western Railway Company, subject to the statutory obligation of maintaining the canal in a navigable condition for public use, that the railway company in their own interest have allowed the canal to become unnavigable, and that all these facts have been ascertained and reported by inspectors of the Board of Trade, whether the Board of Trade will, on behalf of the public, enforce the statutory obligation by compelling the railway company to execute the works of restoration and maintenance which that company's neglect has rendered necessary.
  MR. KEARLEY: This is a repetition of the Question which I answered on the 10th instant,‡ and I can only refer the hon. Member to that Answer.

  Kenmare Harbour.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been made on a previous occasion for the loan of the dredger, now employed on the west coast, to improve the port of Kenmare; and whether he can arrange that this request will be complied with in the near future, seeing that it is urgently required at Kenmare.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am informed that the Board of Works have written to the County Council of Kerry asking whether they desire to have the vise of the dredger "Sisyphus" on the usual terms, for the improvement of the harbour of Kenmare. The Board have been informed that their letter will be laid before the county council at its next meeting, on 10th proximo.

NEW BILLS.

  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES (No. 2) BILL.
  "To establish a single franchise at all elections, and thereby to abolish university representation and to remove the
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clv., 1165.

  39
  Disabilities of Women," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Byles, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Atherly-Jones, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Money, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Sheehan, and Mr. P. W. Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  Sir George Kekewich, Mr. Dundas White, and Mr. Butcher nominated members of the Select Committee on the Crown Lands Bill, with Two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection. (Mr. Whiteley.)
  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  Sir George Kekewich, Mr. Dundas White, and Mr. Butcher nominated members of the Select Committee on the Dean Forest Bill, with Two Members to to be added by the Committee of Selection. —;(Mr. Whiteley.)

  SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee:—;
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–7.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1. £002,700, to complete the sum for Customs.
  2. £1,429,500, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,290, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
  MR. WEIRraised objection to the payment of £2,000 as salary to the Lord President of the Privy Council and also to the proposal to pay an additional £100 a year to the
  40
  noble Lord's private secretary. With regard to the Lord President of the Council, he said that nothing had been paid to the holder of that office for some years, and he regretted very much that the Government should be willing to vote the sum of £2,000 to the head of a department the administration of which did not cost more than £12,000, the greater part of this money being paid in salaries. He also took exception to the payment of another £100 a year to the noble Lord's private secretary, thus making that gentleman's salary £300 a year, in addition to a large sum he was receiving as clerk to one of the Departments. It was simply throwing £2,100 in the gutter. What would the noble Lord do for such a salary? He felt that when he (the speaker) could not get 2,000 farthings for his people in the Highlands of Scotland he had a right to complain of such excessive expenditure; and so long as it was carried on by any Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, he should protest. More especially did he protest because the present Government was pledged up to the hilt to retrenchment and reform. If the Lord President of the Council must have a salary he should be paid a reasonable sum and not one sixth of the whole expenses of the Department. What was the meaning of it? He would like an Answer from the hon. Member, for he could not allow the Vote to pass without some satisfactory explanation. He had a Motion down to reduce the Vote by £2,100, but he hoped the hon. Member would see his way to give some pledge whereby the sum of £2,000 might not be paid to an ornamental officer. Then with regard to the £100 to be paid to the secretary. He did not know anything about either the noble Lord or his secretary, but he did know that such proposed expenditure was excessive. Let the Government be true to its colours, and not create such a post as the one proposed. It was the creation of a new salary—;and such a salary!—;to which he objected. Let them be fair in the matter, and not throw away one sixth of the expenditure of the whole Department upon one man, just because he was a noble Lord, and then follow that by throwing £100 at the head of a private secretary who was already receiving £200! What was that extra £100 for? Was he going to take off

  41
  the burden from the shoulders of the noble Lord? He protested against it, and unless he got a satisfactory Answer that the Government would wipe out some, at any rate, of that £2,000, and the £100, he should deem it his duty to move a reduction at a later stage.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said he strongly approved of the hon. Member's desire to effect economy, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite aware of the ground upon which the £2,000 was paid. The late Lord President of the Privy Council was also President of the Board of Education, and as President of the Board of Education he received the sum of £2,000 a year. The present Lord 1'residont of the Privy Council was now in the House of Lords, as was also the late Lord President. The President of the Board of Education was now in the House of Commons, consequently the Lord President of the Privy Council represented the Education Department in the House of Lords. If the Committee refused to vote this money, he would be the only member of the Cabinet who was not in receipt of a salary. He felt bound to say that with regard to the noble Lord's work, he fully deserved a salary of £2,000, which was the smallest amount paid to any Cabinet Minister. With regard to the £100 to be paid to the private secretary, he would point out that that Secretary had to do Departmental work and received an additional £100, as did a private secretary engaged by any other Cabinet Minister. Therefore, his hon. friend would see that there was no extra expense at all in the matter. The Lord President of the Privy Council was not given £2,000 because he was a noble Lord, but as salary as a member of the Cabinet, representing the Education Department in the House of Lords. His hon. friend might be right or wrong in his view of official salaries, but there was no reason why he should take exception to this particular salary, unless he was prepared to take exception to all other salaries.
  MR. WEIRpointed out that he took exception to the salary because it was a new salary. It meant an additional £2,000 on the taxpayers of the country.
  MR. MCKENNA: My hon. friend is mistaken upon that point.
  MR. WEIRsaid there were excessive salaries. He was always prepared to vote salaries to men who did the work. As to the private secretary, of course he had to do some work, but what additional work was he doing which necessitated an additional payment of £100 a year, making a payment in all of £300, together with another £600 or £700 a year as clerk to one of the offices? It looked too much, and he strongly objected.
  COLONEL LEGGEalso objected. He said the Lord President of the Privy Council was now to receive a salary of £2,000 for 1906–7, which he did not receive in 1904–5. They were told that he received this sum because he represented the Board of Education in the House of Lords. Surely if he represented the Board of Education, the salary should be paid out of the Education Vote? He would also like to know what the noble Lord's duties were; there should be more information upon the matter laid before the Committee. He begged to move a reduction of £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,290, be granted for the said service:—;(Colonel Legge.)
  MR. MORTONsaid the late Tory Government was the most extravagant Government that had over been in existence. The question before the present Government was one of economy, and unless they practised it they could not hope to carry out the promises they had made. The £2,000 in question would pay a number of Members of Parliament a decent salary; therefore if the Government would strike it off from the Vote they would have some money to deal with the question of salaries to Members of the House. They were told that this sum was the smallest salary received by any member of the Cabinet. That, he contended, was not a fair way to judge it. They should judge the question by the amount of work done. What was the amount of work done by the Lord President of the Privy Council as compared with

  43
  the President of the Local Government Board or the President of the Board of Trade? Everyone knew that the Lord President's office was a sinecure, and that some friend or favourite was shot into it for the sake of the salary. They were expecting something better from the Liberal Government, and if they could not get it then they ought to divide the Committee, in order to let the Government know that they meant business. With regard to the increase of the salary of the private secretary, his hon. friend had not explained it sufficiently. He (the speaker) understood that the private secretary was to get an extra £100, making his salary £300, beyond the salary he was getting as clerk in another Department. If that was so, then who was the favourite? What work did he do, and if he was properly employed in another office how was it he had time to be a private secretary at all? They were not attacking the Government on a Party question at all. It was a question of dealing with money belonging to the nation, and they wanted to economise. He agreed with his hon. friend who mentioned that the sum proposed was a large one to pay the Lord President. It did indeed seem a very large sum to pay to a gentleman who had not much to do. He wished to put a question before the hon. Member. What were the hours of labour of the Lord President of the Privy Council? Such officials objected to men having eight hours a day. What, he wished to know, were their hours; were they three hours, or what? He wanted a definite answer to his question from the hon. Member, and if he did not give it to-day, he would have to on another occasion. When people high in office objected to working men having an eight hours day, he wished to know what number of hours per day they worked. He took it that they had a very short day indeed and that a good deal of their time was spent for—;well, otherwise than in their Department. Why was it he could never find these officials before eleven o'clock in the morning?
  THE CHAIRMANhoped the hon. Member was confining himself to the Privy Council Vote.
  MR. MORTONexplained that he was not referring to any other officials than
  44
  those mentioned on the Paper before the Committee, and he again repeated his questions. He thought if these high officials were to put in an eight hours day, the Government would be enabled to get on with half the staff and at half the expense. Considering the difficulties of getting money for objects which the Government had promised, he desired to impress upon the Committee the necessity of effecting economy in every direction.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYdeclared that the assertions of gross extravagance brought against the Conservative Administration, though freely made, never had been and never would be proved. The late Government created a state of things by which, to save the country's resources, the Lord President of the Council discharged the duties of the President of the Board of Education, and it was absolutely impossible to deny that at the present moment the country was finding £2,000 more for the services of the Department than was the case under the late Administration. The Financial Secretary of the Treasury had placed his defence of this salary upon the wrong, ground. The Lord President of the Council was receiving this salary not because he was discharging the duties of the Board of Education, for those duties were now being discharged by a right hon. Gentleman in this House, but because he had still the duty of putting through a number of Orders in Council not relating to education at all, but which had to be submitted to the Sovereign and the Privy Council by other Departments. He had heard no reason yet why the clerk who under the late Government used to perform the duties of Private Secretary to the Lord President, and never had a salary of more than £200 for the work, should now receive an additional £100 a year. They were awaiting an explanation of that. The fact was apparent that the country got the same services under the late Administration for less money than under the present Administration.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsupported the reduction. The present Government were returned to Parliament for peace, retrenchment, and reform, and this was their idea of economy. The hon. Member for Sutherland asked what work was done

  45
  by the Lord President of the Council. He should like to ask if that Minister did any work at all.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was most refreshing to find this new-born zeal for economy on the part of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side. He would like to remind the Committee, however, that under the new arrangement the House had the benefit, which they had not in the last Parliament, of questions being answered by the President of the Board of Education across the floor of this House.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is that worth £2,000 a year?
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would point out in the second place that the Minister who was in receipt of the salary in question would be charged with the duty of conducting the Education Bill through the House of Lords, and he did not think that would be a sinecure. He certainly thought that during the present year the occupant of the office would earn his money. But the hon. Gentlemen who were showing this now zeal for economy must remember that Ministers of the Crown in the late Administration held 60 or 70company directorships between them, and that the country was now benefiting by the Prime Minister's having reverted to the old practice in that respect.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to extend that argument.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he only desired to point out that it was a consideration amongst others which made it well worth the while of the Committee to pass the Vote under discussion.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEremarked that the Government not only proposed to spend £1,000,000 a year in carrying out their new education proposals, but they now further proposed to give a now Minister a salary of £2,000 a year to carry those proposals through the House of Lords. He thought that formed a very curious commentary upon the pledges which Liberals gave at the recent election to pursue an economical policy, and he commended to the
  46
  consideration of the Committee their inconsistency in that respect. As far as he was concerned, he would oppose the Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he could not find words to express his astonishment at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side. Those who were absolutely the most recklessly extravagant in every shape and form in the last Parliament, and for years past, were now the very persons who were stirred by every consideration of economy. Therefore, the only effect of the action of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side was to incline him to support the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which he was not naturally inclined to do. He agreed thoroughly that the salary in question was altogether too high, and as they were at the beginning of a new Parliament, and would have to discuss the Estimates week after week for some time to come, he ventured, with the most earnest desire to be friendly, to advise the Government that they should take the bull by the horns and make up their minds to effect considerable economies in the public service. Running all through the Estimates there were salaries altogether out of proportion to the work done. There were the most glaring inequalities in the matter of salaries—;gentlemen receiving such sums as £1,500, £1,200, and £800 a year, after which there was a sudden drop, and persons, whose services were quite as necessary to the State, and who worked just as hard, received remuneration which was surprisingly small. In the late Government reform was not to be expected in these matters in any way; he never remembered the slightest attempt made to effect economy of any kind. But here was a Liberal Government which, if it had come into power on anything, had come in upon the cry of economy. The country was anxious that there should be in matters of this kind considerable retrenchment, and he thought the Government would be well advised if they altered the scale which now prevailed, and showed the people outside that there was in this matter some real and solid difference between the present Administration and the last. If a beginning could not be made on this Vote,

  47
  he invited some statement from the Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of the Government that in these days, when there was so much want out of doors, and the question of unemployment was so pressing, the Government seriously intended to make some effort to reduce public expenditure, and to see if they could not get these posts filled at much more moderate salaries than were now paid.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it should be noticed that whilst the Government were asking for £2,000 for the post of Lord President they refused an increase of salary to the abstractors employed in the office. The abstractors had asked for an increase or £,1 in their salary and to be put on the same plane as other civil servants in regard to annual leave, but they were not to have a moment's consideration. A private secretary, however, who was on one of the highest rungs of the Civil Service ladder, was to receive £300 a year extra for writing the letters of the Lord President, as to whose duties the Committee had no sort of information except that the Lord President had to sign certain documents. They were now being asked to place upon the revenues of the country a charge of £2,000 a year in order that a job might be found for a noble lord who could not otherwise be admitted into the Government. He hoped this matter would be pressed to a division in the interests of economy.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked if it was necessary to have the Education Board so very largely increased. Already they had two representatives of that Board in the House of Commons, and he hoped it would be possible in the near future, instead of having both the President of the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary in this House, to at least have one of them in the House of Lords.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not think the hon. Member for East Clare would succeed in convincing the Committee in regard to the extravagance of the late Administration. He thought new Members would find that the hon. Member for East Clare was never to be taken seriously. New Members would find that the hon. Member had only
  48
  looked at two columns on the Estimates paper. They would see from the Estimates for 1905–6 that there was an item of £7,605 for the Privy Council and under the new Administration these Estimates were £9,512. That was the most clear and definite answer to the charge that the late Administration was more extravagant than the present. There were many hon. Members on the Opposition side who would stand by hon. Members on the Ministerial side in their determination to carry out the pledges they made in favour of true economy at the last election. He looked forward with confidence, therefore, to the result of the division which would shortly take place.
  MR. MADDISONsaid that the man who was in ignorance of the waste and extravagance of the Tory Party must indeed have been out of politics for thirty years. He did not think that anything connected with education was the best thing upon which to begin economy. But he could not help expressing the opinion that these salaries were put far too high. There was the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department who would have to pilot the Education Bill through the House, and discharge his onerous duties at the Education Office, yet his salary was exactly the same as that of the Lord President of the Council. He had not a word to say against the noble Lord, in fact he had a great admiration for him, but he strongly objected as a democrat to giving a Member of the House of Lords, for doing probably one-third of the work the President of the Education Board had to perform, exactly the same salary. He thought the Government should take seriously into consideration the overhauling of all the Departments, and adjust the salaries to the duties performed. He did not think they could have all salaries of the same size—;he did not believe that every man was worth the same amount of money, but in this case a Member of the House of Lords was receiving exactly the same salary as a Minister in the House of Commons, and he thought that was not fair to the taxpayers of the country. There were a great number of pressing social reforms, and the only way to get these reforms was to reduce wasteful and unnecessary expenditure. While he did not regard hon. Members opposite as being really in

  49
  earnest in this matter—;[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"]—;he pressed the Leaders of the Liberal Party not to consider the saving of a few hundred pounds a small thing. They must remember that everything saved that was not actually needed was so much gained for beneficent purposes.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid it appeared to him that the main reason for voting this salary was that the Lord President of the Council would be called upon to pilot the Education Bill through the House of Lords. He wished to know if the Government anticipated that the Education Bill would go through in one ordinary session, or was it going to occupy the whole time of the present Parliament? If the Bill was to occupy the time of this Parliament, the Lord President would assuredly earn his salary, but if the measure was disposed of in one session, then it was not easy to see what work could be found for the noble Lord to justify his salary, unless he was to become a maid-of-all-work to the Government in the House of Lords. There was some justification for the principle that payment should be made according to results, and he quite agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Clare as to the overpayment of some and the under-payment of other officials. He thought the hardest worked Minister on the Treasury Bench was the Patronage Secretary.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid this discussion had brought out in very bold relief the extreme carelessness with which the present Government was formed. The Government had begun very badly with education, and in his opinion they would end badly with a great many other things. The best thing to be done would be for the Financial Secretary of the Treasury frankly to acknowledge the faults of the Prime Minister in forming his Cabinet.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the Privy Council Office Vote and the works of that Office, and not the formation of the Government.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was going to suggest how the question of economy came in. The Government were clearly committed to a policy of retrenchment, and the point he was dealing with was the carelessness shown in the formation of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is out of order in discussing the carelessness shown in the formation of the Government.
  SIR. GILBERT PARKERappealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to deal frankly with this question and acknowledge the mistake that had been made.
  MR. H. H.MARKSsaid it was surprising to him to hear the expressions of astonishment by hon. Members opposite in regard to the attitude the Opposition were taking up on this Question. They had been accused of displaying a new-born zeal for economy, but it was not of recent birth, it had been with them for years. It might have lain dormant, but the atmosphere of those benches had a stimulating effect. That was no new experience to hon. Members of this House. Politicians did endeavour sometimes to make amends in Opposition for opportunities neglected when they were in power. It was an experience which hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had had in great abundance, and the example which they had set in bygone years was one which it seemed to him the present Opposition might properly follow. It might be that they were unfortunate in having selected this particular Vote, because it concerned education more or loss. It had been said that the Government could not afford to economise on education. He thought that was true. If there was one thing in which the Government could afford to be liberal to themselves, it would be in education. He and his friends were in the position of not being able to support the Government with respect to most of the pledges which wore given on its behalf at the general election and by means of which it came into office, but there was one item in the programme of the Government in regard to which they were in a position to give their united support. They could support it in

  51
  regard to its promises of economy and retrenchment. It was the one thing on which they could offer any help to the Government, and he earnestly hoped hon. Gentlemen would not reject the offer in this particular case with which they were making a beginning. It had been said with perfect truth that there were abundant opportunities for economy in bygone years, and that they had not always been able to avail themselves of them. They should regret I that, and they should now show their repentance by making up for lost time. For that reason he hoped I the Amendment would be carried to a division. He would heartily support it.
  MR. MCKENNA: said the spirit of economy which had been manifested by hon. Gentlemen opposite had been some what tardy in making an appearance. It was welcome at any time, and when he had to resist some of the appeals made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, he hoped he would have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite in resisting those appeals. He was rather surprised at this moment to see the great historic Tory Party following the lead of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: The best leader they ever had.
  MR. MCKENNA: said that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have his support whenever possible if they sought to reduce the Estimates on the ground of economy. What were the circumstances of the present case? They had the great historic office of Lord President of the Council which had attached to it membership of the Cabinet. This particular member of the Cabinet had duties to perform quite independently of his duties as member of the Government; he had to answer for the Education Department in the House of Lords. He did not refer to his particular duties as Lord President of the Council, because he fully admitted that those duties were very insignificant. He thought that any member of the Government who had to answer for the Education Department in the House of Lords was not overpaid with a salary of £2,000. That appeared to him sufficient ground why the noble
  52
  Lord in question should receive this salary.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Does the Gentleman who answers in the House of Lords for the Board of Trade get a salary?
  MR. MCKENNA: The noble Lord who answers for the Board of Trade has no existence.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I understood that Lord Granard answered for the Board of Trade.
  MR. MCKENNA: His Lordship has no official existence.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Has the Lord President of the Council any official connection with the Board of Education?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, he has now. He did not think it was really necessary to go into details. The hon. Member for East Clare had expressed the desire that the members of the Government should take this opportunity of making deductions from salaries in the House of Lords. He regretted that he was not authorised by any of his colleagues in the Government to offer to make any reduction in their own individual salaries. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset had asked whether the salary would be continued after the Education Bill had passed through the House of Lords. The noble Lord was not receiving his salary simply on account of his duties in connection with the present Education Bill; he would answer in the House of Lords for the Education Department for all purposes so long as he held office. The salary was in no way dependent on the conduct of the present Bill. The hon. Member for Gravesend had complained of the extravagance of the present Government. He would remind the hon. Member that his figures were wrong. The total of the salaries paid to the President of the Council, the President of the Board of Education, and the Financial Secretary of the Board of Education was £5,200, and not £7,500. It was perfectly true that the salary of the private secretary of the Lord President was higher now than last year. The reason

  53
  for that was that the private secretary had not only to deal with questions addressed to that Minister, but also to hold himself in readiness by remaining in the precincts of the House during the whole of the debate; he might have to remain here day after day, and perform in addition his departmental work at the office. He did not think the private secretary was overpaid by an addition of £100.
  MR. PAULsaid the hon. Member for Sheffield had done his best to bring the discussion down to the level of a Party squabble. The salary of the Privy Seal was abolished by Mr. Gladstone in 1885 and revived by the late Lord Salisbury when he was in office. He hoped that as sensible and intelligent men they would treat these recriminations, he would not say with contempt, but he would say with the respect —;for it meant the same thing—;they deserved. The serious question which they had to consider was whether they should give their sanction, if not to the creation, to the revival of a salaried sinecure. It was perfectly well known that the Lord President of the Council used to have some very important duties to discharge, and the Vice-President was his subordinate. Now, he believed, besides the mere formal signing of documents, the Lord President of the Council had no official duty of any kind to discharge. Lord Londonderry when President of the Council was also President of the Board of Education, and under that arrangement there was a saving of £2,000 a year of public money. It was said that Lord Crewe would answer for the Board of Education in the House of Lords. He was not sure on the constitutional question whether the Lord President was still an official connected with the Board of Education. He was under the impression that the Board of Education was created by statute a separate Department, and that the Lord President of the Council was no longer connected with it at all. If it was said that Lord Crewe had political functions to perform in the House of Lords, what about Lord Ripon, who had to answer for his Department and lead in the House of Lords, and was a most important Member of the Government? Lord Ripon was universally respected both by supporters and by opponents; he did his work exceedingly well without any
  54
  salary at all. The Committee ought to pause before sanctioning an arrangement whereby an officer was to be voted a salary of £2,000 a year for doing nothing at all.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that the point brought forward was really worth the attention of the Financial Secretary. When the Education Act of 1902 was before Parliament it was conducted by two Ministers, one in each House; but now there was a new Bill before Parliament it was said to require three Gentlemen, each with a salary. That did seem to him to be a matter which required meeting and justifying. In this particular instance the duties of the noble Lord would be to pilot the Education Bill through the House of Lords. It was really a perfectly open question whether he would have any duties to perform at all. They had to see the Bill sent to the House of Lords before they knew whether he would have any duties to perform or not. He therefore thought the Government should first have made certain that the noble Lord would have any duties to perform before they put down the salary. He admitted that the attempt to pilot the Bill through the Lords might be a difficult duty—;and he hoped it would be unsuccessful—;but he did not think it justified an extra £2,000 a year on the Estimates. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Reduction would persist and go to a division, because it would show to the Committee and to the country that, whatever might have been the failures of the Party to which he belonged in the past, they might at any rate be said to be deriving some benefit from their misfortunes. The hon. Member for East Clare had taunted them with exhibiting a new-born zeal for economy, but he thought it was very hard upon them if, having suffered a great reverse, they were not now to try to assume some of the airs of virtue which had won for Gentlemen opposite their places on the Treasury Bench. If they had not gone to the country with all that assumption of virtue which they were now endeavouring to prove was absolute hypocrisy and had not paraded the country with the cry of economy, many good men who were now wandering about the country would be in the House and they themselves would not be

  55
  gracing the Treasury Bench. The matter was of considerable importance, for they would be setting an example to the municipalities throughout the country—;and they all knew that the ratepayers had to contend with an undue growth of salaries—;and he hoped the reduction would be pressed to a division.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the hon. Member for Northampton had accused him of bringing the discussion down to the level of a Party squabble. The hon. Member never addressed the House without bringing forward some such charge; but he could not progress a single inch in establishing that charge without conveniently ignoring the fact that hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House had roundly accused the Tory Party of extravagance in the past; and if the hon. Member supposed that the Opposition were going to sit tamely under these charges without answer he was very much mistaken.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would ask the Committee not to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down by indulging in recrimination on one side or the other. He did not recognise the right hon. Gentleman as an economist, but as a bad example. However, there was no principle which was more loudly professed by the majority of Members elected to this House than that of economy; and if they were to have economy they must begin somewhere. It was no use saying that they were in favour of the general principle of economy and then when there was a clear case for economy to go in for extravagance. He thought the hon. Member the Secretary of the Treasury had made the best defence he could of this Vote. But what were the facts? The Lord President of the Council was a very important official in former days. He had a great many duties to perform. He had to look after cattle disease and education, although no one could understand the association between the two. But there was now a Minister for Agriculture who looked after cattle disease, and a Minister for Education who looked after the schools. Therefore the Lord President of the Council was deprived of all the duties which that high officer used
  56
  to perform. In the last Parliament—;that wicked and extravagant Parliament —;the Lord President of the Council combined the functions of two Ministers, but was only paid the salary of one. There was now a very distinguished Minister of Education who very efficiently performed the difficult duties which fell to his lot; and there was also a Minister of Agriculture. Then there was a Lord President of the Council created for what purpose? To read out Answers to Questions dictated for him either by the Minister of Education or by the very able permanent officials, and £2,000 a year was supposed to be not too large a salary for that duty. There was the Lord Privy Seal who had responsible duties to perform. Lord Ripon was the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords, and had to be present in the House of Lords every day; but he did not get a single penny of salary. The only difference he could see between the position of the Lord President of the Council and that of the Lord Privy Seal was that the latter was independent of salary, and the former was not. He was very sorry for the former, and if that noble Lord wore a working man he was just the man he would like to give a salary of £2,000 to for doing nothing. But that was not the duty of Parliament. What was the use of hon. Gentlemen coming to this House, representing the masses of the people of the country, and demanding money clamouring for public and social improvements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the same time voting a salary of £2,000 a year to a nobleman for doing nothing except adding a little ornament to the Treasury Bench in the House of Lords?
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that as an advocate of economy he had listened with interest to the debate. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool that they must begin somewhere with economy; but he should like to begin at the right place, whereas the hon. Member would begin at the wrong point. The position, as he understood it, was that Lord Crewe was a member of the Cabinet. Did the hon. Member maintain that a member of the Cabinet ought not to receive a salary? He believed that a man should be paid full value for the work he did. Lord

  57
  Crewe had occupied the position of Viceroy of Ireland and other offices. He had been chosen by the Prime Minister to be one of his Cabinet, and did any one say that £2,000 a year was too large a sum to pay him for sharing the responsibility of carrying on the business of the Empire? It was said that Lord Ripon, who was also a member of the Cabinet, did not get a salary. Lord Ripon might be a very rich man and it was very good of him to serve his country for nothing; but it did not follow that other men could do that in a spirit of generosity. If it was right that Lord Crowe should be in the Cabinet, it was right that he should be paid a salary. He took part in a division in this Parliament where a largo majority of the House, including the hon. Members below the gangway opposite, voted in favour of paying Members of Parliament a salary of £300 a year. He wondered whether his hon. friend, when the country was sufficiently prosperous and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to grant it, would refuse to accept that salary of £300 a year. That was the common sense view of the matter. Economy was a right and proper thing, but he did not think it was fair to try and knock off the whole of the salary of a man who was eminently fitted to be in the Cabinet and who took his share of the responsibility of the government of the Empire.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that this was a matter which concerned every Member of the Committee. He knew something of the duties of the Lord President of the Council because he had had the honour for many years to occupy the position of Registrar of the Privy Council. In those days the Lord President of the Council was head of the Education Department and, of course, he was paid a salary. But what had happened since the present Government came into office? The representatives of the Education Department were now both in the House of Commons. They wanted to eat their cake in the House of Commons and for the Lord President to enjoy it in the House of Lords. He had not a word to say against the noble Lord who was the Lord President of the Council; there was no doubt that he was a man of great ability and well qualified to fill
  58
  any position, but that was not the point. The point was that the Government had started a new mode of retrenchment. They were going to begin by giving £2,000 a year to a member of the Cabinet who had no work to do, and they gave him a secretary, with a salary of £300 a year to help him to do nothing. The statement that the Lord President would answer Questions for the Education Department in the House of Lords seemed to him to raise the constitutional point whether he could properly do so. It appeared to him that if the noble Lord answered any Questions for the Education Department he could only do so as a matter of courtesy and not as a matter of right. He thought the recent Education Act prescribed that the duties should be performed by the Minister who presided over the Board of Education and his subordinates. Therefore, as Lord Crewe did not come into that category, if he answered Questions at all it would only be as a matter of courtesy, and he was going to be given £2,000 a year for doing that. The Prime Minister might have been pressed by the circumstances of the case, and perhaps was not able to pick and choose, when he settled his Cabinet as he did. If that was so, as head of a Party professing retrenchment, the Prime Minister should, nevertheless, "face the music," and retain Lord Crewe in the Cabinet without any salary at all.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought that this was a more serious matter than hon. Members appeared to realise, and he did not think the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire had made the case of the Government any better by laying so much stress on the fact that Lord Crewe was a Cabinet Minister. The hon. Member seemed to think that being in the Cabinet carried a salary with it, but as far as he knew there was no such office known to the Constitution as a member of the Cabinet.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not advocate that the noble Lord should be paid for his work in the Cabinet. He had stated that Lord Crowe had great influence and great responsibility in regard to his work in the Cabinet.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Member certainly gave the impression that because a gentleman was a member of the Cabinet he should have a salary, and deserved one, but, as he had said, there was no office known to the Constitution as that of a member of the Cabinet. Some of the gentlemen in the Cabinet held offices which carried salaries, but others did not. The office held by Lord Crewe, against whom personally no one could say a single word, was not one which carried a salary with it. The point was that the Government were creating a new salaried office. They had their representatives of the Board of Education in this House, they were creating a third representative of education in Parliament who was put in the House of Lords and received a third salary. The Government might very easily have bestowed the office of Lord President of the Council upon some other member of the Administration who was already in possession of a salary or somebody who would not require any salary at all. He thought, with all due respect to the hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorganshire, that if they were to begin economy at all they should begin with the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman had said that his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool was on the right tack, but that he was beginning at the wrong end. In his judgment, however, they were beginning at the right end. Let them start their economies in the House of Lords, and that could be done by making some new arrangement in this matter. In the late Administration the Lord President of the Council without salary was the same person as the President of the Board of Education with salary, and the Government were creating a new office with a new salary in the House of Lords.
  MR. MCKENNA: The salary is not new; the salary has existed for centuries.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in what he said to a certain extent, but he was sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that under the late Administration the two offices were combined. What they complained of was that the Lord
  60
  President of the Council who was not the President of the Board of Education was to get a salary. It might be said that Lord Crewe was a most capable person for the post. There was no doubt he was, and the cruel part to his mind in dealing with matters of retrenchment was that they could not act without seeming to attack individuals. Nobody wanted, so far as he knew, to say a word against Lord Crewe. No doubt he deserved his salary as much as the Secretary of the Treasury did, if he had work to do for it. It was simply a question of putting on the Estimates an item which did not appear last year. People might say it was only a couple of thousand a year, and no doubt that was a small item, but if they were seriously to attempt to cut down these Estimates, they had to begin by cutting down small items and eventually, if they succeeded, the items added together would represent a very large sum. He did not know what the people of this country who desired curtailment would do, but having a few weeks ago listened to the wail of the hungry children going to school, and the cry of the aged people who had lost their strength and had to go to the workhouse, he would not be a party to fresh expenditure when it could be obviated by appointing another person. Moreover, he would point out that in regard to the House of Lords there was great scope for economy.
  MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed that this was not a personal matter, with regard to the noble Lord who occupied the office which they were debating, and they did not intend that it should be so. He was, however, delighted to have the opportunity of discussing a question of this kind, not on the salary of some fourth class clerk, but upon that of a noble Lord who held office and was a member of an assembly which was much too expensive already, and that they could discuss it without reference to the merits or demerits of Lord Crewe. He wanted to know the hours of labour in this Department, and he was entitled to an answer. It would not do for the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench to think that they could ignore Members because they were humble and came from a far away constituency like Sutherlandshire. They must have anwers given to the questions asked

  61
  in a gentlemanly, proper, and, above all, in an intelligent manner. He had asked what salary this gentleman who occupied the position of private secretary got in the other Department with which he was connected, but no answer had been given. Then again they had had no answer given to the question why this gentleman was to have £100 more than was paid last year. He was afraid that some sort of favoritism was being displayed by somebody. He had asked for this information and hoped that his hon. friend would give it without obliging him to make two or three more speeches. For his part, he did not want to be hard upon the Tory gentlemen above the gangway when he found them assisting in the matter of economy. He remembered that ten years ago reformers obtained assistance from them and got £1,000 knocked off the Estimates for the House of Lords in one night. He wished the Committee to remember that these gentlemen had been living a very wicked life for the last ten years, perhaps because they wore overpowered by somebody from Birmingham, or somewhere else. Now that they were free apparently from that restraint, instead of sneering at them, he wanted to encourage them. With a little encouragement of that sort they might, during the next six or seven years, at least effect economy in some of the items of expenditure. Let the Liberal Party take care that they did not within the next two or three years sink to the same low level as that of the late Tory Administration. He held that it was not the duty of a Member of this Committee to vote with his Party on questions of this kind and to say nothing. Hon. Members should do their duty to the country and not make questions of economy Party questions. His complaint was that the Government which had gone had so managed that these two offices should be held by one man, and that, therefore, the present Government could surely have found in the other House a man who would have taken up the office of Lord President of the Council, an office in which there was nothing to do, without the salary. Some hon. Members thought that all Ministers ought to get a salary of £2,000 a year, but his hon. friend the Paymaster opposite who did many times the amount of work that the Lord President did, got no salary, nor did the junior Lord of the
  62
  Treasury who did ten times the work. He wished to know what time these gentlemen in the Privy Council Office gave up to their duties, and he wished to know the name of the gentleman who acted as secretary, and the amount of his salary in the other Department in which he was engaged, and he hoped the Financial Secretary would give him that information without obliging him to make another half-dozen speeches on the subject.
  MR MCKENNAsaid he was only too anxious to give the hon. Gentleman an intelligent answer, but he thought he would agree that it would have been much better if he had wanted an answer to these questions that he should have given some notice of them. He could not pretend to have all these details, the names and the salaries of all these gentlemen, at his fingers' ends. Had the hon. Member given notice that he required to know the name of a particular secretary, and what his hours of labour were, and what his salary was, he would have been most happy to have furnished the information.
  MR. MORTONsaid he would repeat the Question on the Report stage.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that so far as the office of the Lord President of the Council was concerned, that office carried a salary of £2,000 a year, and whenever that salary had not been paid it had been waived by the voluntary act of the noble Lord who hold the office. It would be quite open to Lord Crowe, if he held another office, to abandon the salary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDpointed out that the office of Lord President of the Council was usually coupled with another office, carrying a salary, and that therefore the salary attaching to the office was usually saved.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite right in many instances. He believed Lord Rosebery held another post and therefore did not take the salary, and also the Duke of Devonshire, but there were many other Lords President who did not hold other posts and who took the salary. [An HON. MEMBER: Name them.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Name one in the last twenty-five years.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid if the hon. Gentleman would give him two minutes he would supply the information. He did not think hon. Members opposite were justified in pressing this matter very far. The office of Lord Privy Seal did not carry a salary, but when that was the only post held by a Cabinet Minister a salary was attached to it. [AN HON. MEMBER: Two wrongs do not make a right] He did not say it was wrong, and he did not think it was wrong. He thought a Cabinet Minister was entitled to a salary. He submitted with confidence to the Committee that it was a most reasonable thing that every Cabinet Minister should receive a salary of £2,000 a year, and when they found a Cabinet Minister did hold the post of Lord President of the Council, to which a salary of £2,000 was attached, he did not think they should ask him to abandon the salary. He did not think a Cabinet Minister was over-paid for the work he did.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: What work?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that if the hon. Member, who had never served in a Cabinet, would ask any of his friends who had had that honour, they would tell him that the work done by a Cabinet Minister was not over-paid at £2,000 a year. The work of the Lord President of the Council was no doubt very small, but the post carried with it a salary of £2,000 a year, and the post was always held in conjunction with a position ill the Cabinet. Constitutional practice did not permit of the payment of a Cabinet Minister as a Cabinet Minister. There-fore it was only reasonable to revive the salaries attached to these offices from which the departmental duties had largely disappeared, and allow the Cabinet Minister to draw the salary, because his work as a Cabinet Minister involved serious responsibility and a great amount of time in addition to other work.
  MR. WEIRsaid he did not regret this discussion in the slightest. The Financial Secretary of the Treasury had had many words of wisdom addressed to him by hon. Members opposite, and had been well lectured upon
  64
  the subject of the Government carrying out the pledges they gave during the election to effect economies. He hoped those words would sink into the heart of the hon. Gentleman, and that he would not fail to remedy this matter and see that this sort of thing did nut occur in any other Department. He reminded hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government was young in office, and appealed to them to allow this matter to drop and to give the Government another chance, especially as many of the Ministers were new to office—;
  "For while the lamp holds on to burn
  The greatest sinner may return."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the reason why his hon. friends behind him had taken up this matter was not because they objected to the payment of the Lord President of the Council, but because, as a matter of fact, when the office of the President of the Board of Education was created, it was on the distinct understanding that a new office of profit should not be created. Now that the new President of the Board of Education had been appointed, the Government had been under the necessity of reviving an old office for which a salary had been paid, but which salary had been allowed to lapse. They opposed this because the Government, both in Parliament and out of it, had said that by the reduction of unnecessary items they were going to save money. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had suggested the withdrawal of the Motion because, as he said, it was the first offence and the present Administration was a young Government. Surely the offence was worse when it was committed by a young Government pledged deeply to the policy of retrenchment. That policy had found effect by a proposal to increase expenditure and the revival of an old office which had been abolished long ago. For these reasons they could not consent to the withdrawal of the Motion.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that in his first speech the Secretary to the Treasury gave the impression that this salary of £2,000 was paid partly for the work done as representative of the Education Department in the House of Lords, but in his last speech he gave the impression that it was paid for the noble Lord's position as a Cabinet Minister.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that if he had given that impression he was wrong. This salary was attached to the office of Lord President. He had already explained what wore the particular duties performed by the present holder of that office.
  MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he hoped this Motion would be pressed to a division. Every hon. Member who had gone through the recent general election would agree that one of the principal arguments used during the contest was that there was room for economy, and he would like to know where the Government were going to commence. So far as he was personally concerned he would go into the division lobby with any Party which was prepared to commence the work of economy in regard to the expenditure of the nation.
  LORD TURNOURasked what was the exact nature of the departmental works performed by the Lord President, and how many hours a day he gave to that work. He would also like to know how often the Lord President had

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.B.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hudson, Walter

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jenkins, J.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Ashley, W. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Liddell, Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down. S.

  Blake, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Boland, John

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Brace, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Glover, Thomas

  Mason, James E. (Windsor)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haddock, George R.

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Halpin, J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cave, George

  Harris, Dr. Frederick R.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clough, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury SEdm'ds

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff sh.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Paul, Herbert

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Houston Robert Paterson

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  been at his office during the time he had filled the appointment.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid that he had no intention whatever of taking the advice of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, and he proposed to carry this matter to a division. In his opinion the reply they had received from the Secretary of the Treasury was exceedingly unsatisfactory. It was said that Lord Crewe was to receive £2,000 a year because he was a Cabinet Minister. He wished to point out to the House that salaries were not paid because right hon. Gentlemen opposite were Cabinet Ministers but because they were heads of Departments. All Lord Crewe had to do was to give the replies to Questions put by noble Lords in the Upper Chamber upon the subject of education, and that duty could be equally well performed by a gramaphone. He should press this Motion for reduction to a division, and he hoped to receive the support of all Members who were in favour of economy.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Aves, 134; Noes, 232. (Division List No. 52.)

  Percy, Earl

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walsh, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Snowdon, P.

  Wardle, George J.

  Price, C.E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Starkey, John K.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Richardson, A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Wortley, Right Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thorne, William

  Younger, George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Turnour, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Colonel Legge and Mr.

  Scott, A.H. (Ashtonunder Lyne

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire

  Ramsay Macdonald.

  Shackleton, David James

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Levy, Maurice

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lough, Thomas

  Asquith Rt. Hn. Herb'rt Henry

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Astbury, John Meir

  Elibank, Master of

  Lynch, H. B.

  Atherley Jones, L.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  M'Crae, George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Barnard, E. B.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Bell, Richard

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Benn, John Williams (Dev'np'rt

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Benn, W.(T'w'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

  Gladstone, Rt. H Herbert John

  Massie, J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bethell, J H.(Essex, Romford)

  Grant, Corrie

  Menzies, Walter

  Bethell, T. R.(Essex, Maldon)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Billson, Alfred

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Grove, Archibald

  Mond, A.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsay)

  Gulland, John W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Branch, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Han. Lewis

  Montagu, E. S.

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bright, J. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haworth, Arthur E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholls, George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pemb'ke

  Cherry, R. R.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pollard, Dr.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Priestley, W.E.B(Bradford, E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Johnson John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grins'd

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Tones William (Carnarvonshire 1

  Rees, J. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Cox, Harold

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kitson, Sir James

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Davies, W. Howell(Bristol, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Robinson, S.

  Dickinson, W. H. St. Pancras, N

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duckworth, James

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  68

  69

  Rose, Charles Day

  Stuart, James (Sutherland)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Runciman, Walter

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Samuel, Herbert I,.(Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Whitley, J. H. Halifax)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thompson, J.W. H.(Somerset E

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Sears, J. E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Williamson, A (Elgin and Nairn

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walker, H. De H. (Leicester)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walters, Joon Tudor

  Woodhouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton, Joseph (Bamsley)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd.

  Spicer, Albert

  Ward W Dudley (Southampton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Original question again proposed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYmoved a reduction of £100, to call attention to a number of points in the Vote. There was one amount for abstracting clerks. He noticed that there were now two abstractors, instead of one, and the pay of one of them had been increased. He wished to know why there were two abstractor clerks in the Privy Council office. Had the work increased so that two men wore now required instead of one? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had not been able to toll them exactly what the duties of the Lord President were, except that he might have to represent the Education Department in the House of Lords. Upon that point he hoped they would have a little more information from the Secretary to the Treasury, so that the Committee would not be asked to vote blindly for two clerks under a Radical Government, which was pledged to economy, when under a wicked and extravagant Tory Government one clerk was considered sufficient to do exactly the same work. There was nothing to indicate that the work of the Privy Council had largely increased. Whilst upon this item he should like to point out that one of these salaries had been increased by £5. He wished to know why that increase was not £6 or £4. Personally, he thought the abstractors were an ill-paid and over-worked class of public servant. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,190, be granted for the said Service."—;(Mr. Via tide Hay.)
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the point raised by the hon. Member was a very simple matter. There wore not two clerks of the abstractor class because there was more work; the total number of clerks was the same as last year. What had happened was that where before a junior clerk was employed it had been found necessary that the work should be done by a clerk of the abstractor class. The junior clerk employed in 1905–6 was not now employed, but the work formerly done by him was undertaken by a clerk of the abstractor class. The reason why the salary was £5 a year more was because it was considered to be reasonable, and because it was the usual rise for that class of work.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it appeared from the face of the account that one of the clerks had not got his increase.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the particular abstract clerk referred to had received his full salary. He had not been appointed for a whole year, and the fact that he had received a less sum than the others was accounted for in that way.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it was a pity that did not appear on the face of the Paper. He was not imputing blame; he only wanted information.
  LORD TURNOURcalled attention to an item in the Vote for special trains, and said it seemed to him that they ought to get more information in regard to it. He understood the

  71
  charge was for the conveyance of members of the Privy Council to Windsor. He wished to know whether it was 'necessary to have special trains. He knew that some great officers of State thought it beneath their dignity to travel in anything but a special train.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it was the immemorial practice for the expenses of the Privy Council to be paid when attending at Windsor and elsewhere, with the exception of occasions when they went to Scotland. He assumed that the Treasury had taken the view in the past that the expenses were so great when they went to Scotland that the Privy Council should bear the cost themselves, but that in the case of shorter journeys it should be defrayed by the Treasury.
  LORD TURNOURsaid they should have their expenses paid by ordinary trains. It seemed to him unnecessary that they should travel short distances by special trains. He wished to know the number of occasions on which special trains were used, and whether the mem-
  bers of the Privy Council could not have travelled by ordinary trains.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the expenditure last year was undertaken by the right hon. Gentlemen whom the noble Lord was at the time supporting. No exception was taken by the noble Lord or his friends to the practice in this matter of the late Administration.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the hon. Gentleman had not replied to his observations. He wished now to ask categorically what the hon. Gentleman intended to do to improve the position of the abstractors.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that so far as he had been able to examine their work he had not been satisfied that they were underpaid. Their work was not of a very responsible character. For the class of work done they got a very fair allowance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 62; Noes, 293. (Division List No. 53.)

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Haslam, Lowis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, J.F.L (Lanes., Leigh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cairns, Thomas

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Cherry, R. R.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clough, W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, J.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Malley, William

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paul, Herbert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cox, Harold

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Pollard, Dr.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Devlin Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras N.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Radford, G. H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Duckworth, James

  Lamb, Edmuna G. (Leominster

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Farness

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lambert, George

  Rees, J. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Maurice

  Richardson, A

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Evans. Samuel T.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal E.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Russell, T. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Crae, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fuller, John Michael T.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Killop, W.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester

  Schwann, C Duncan (Hyde)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Schwann, Chas E. (Manchester)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Scott, A H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sears, J. E.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Shackleton, David James

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Grove, Archibald

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Halpin J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Mond, A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Albert

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph (Chesh.)

  74

  75

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Vivian, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Summerbell, T.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk Mid)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thompson, J.W.H (Somerset, E

  Watt, H. Anderson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;

  Thorne,-William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Tomkinson, James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Torrance, A. M.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Verney, F. W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Original Question again proposed.
  LORD TURNOURsaid that he wished to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £60, for the purpose of calling attention to the item of £60, included in incidental expenses for washing.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it was not usual to move a reduction of £60. The hon. Member should move a reduction of £200.
  LORD TURNOURthen moved that the vote be reduced by the sum of £200. Were they to understand that this washing, for which £60 was charged, only took place in certain cases? And what was the reason for the washing? [AN HON. MEMBER, "The noble Lord is very funny."] Yes, to put down washing among incidental expenses was very funny indeed, and he wanted to know more about it. Was the washing connected with the Privy Council Office? If so, it seemed to him to be rather a large sum for that object. There ought to be more details in regard to these incidental expenses. Then there was an item of £45 for newspapers for the Privy Council Office. That seemed to be rather a large sum. He did not know whether the members of the Privy Council belonged to The Times and Standard Book Clubs. What newspapers were taken in? [Ax HON. MEMBER, "The Daily Mail."] He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give the Committee further information on these two points.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,090, be
  76
  granted for the said Service.:—;(Viscoun Turnour).
  MR. H. H. MARKSasked whether the Financial Secretary of the Treasury would give the Committee some information in regard to the item on page 212, with regard to extra coal porters and charwomen. In the case of all the other charges, the number of people were inserted, such as five messengers, one office porter, one fireman, and so on, but in the case of the coal porters and charwomen, no numbers were given, and only the total sum was inserted. It would, he thought, be of advantage if the particulars could be given.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he wished to call attention to the expenditure upon special trains, used for the purpose of conveying Privy Councillors to Windsor. There was a very effective express train service from Paddington to Windsor, which performed the journey in twenty-live minutes, and these trains ran every hour. He could not therefore see the necessity for providing Privy Councilors with special trains. If the Privy Council was held at Balmoral, the ordinary express trains were also very good.
  MR. HARVEYwished to call attention to an item of £8 for postage, and asked whether the stamps wore half-penny or penny stamps?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he congratulated his hon. friend upon the Question he had put. It was of as

  77
  great importance as, or at all events of equal importance to, those which had preceded it from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. If hon. Members who had asked questions had taken the trouble to write to him, he would have ascertained the details which they wished to know about. But he could not carry in his memory details as to washing or the number of towels or other articles washed, or the number of porters and charwomen employed and their wages, the newspapers which were taken in and various other particulars as to which he had been asked for information. It was absolutely impossible to give hon. Members the information now, but upon a subsequent occasion he would do what he could to secure it for them. He thought the question in regard to special trains was a very reasonable one, and he had already promised to inquire. He believed that no special trains were run to Scotland.
  LORD TURNOURsaid he was prepared to withdraw his Motion for reduction, but he might point out that he did not ask for full details, but only for some details. He did not want particulars as to towels or anything of that kind. They appreciated very much the implied compliment which the Financial Secretary had paid them as to their criticism, and he would like to say that he had tried to emulate the industry which the hon. Gentleman himself showed last session.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid that in regard to the question of notice which had been raised, he might remind hon. Members that it was not till a quarter past eleven o'clock last night that they were told what Votes were to be taken.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he was much surprised at the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, because if he desired to know what the business of the House on the following day was to be he could always ascertain it at Question time. The Members of the Government
  78
  were present at that time to answer any Question as to the business of the House, and if the hon. and gallant Member hail asked for information as to the Votes to be taken it would have been supplied.
  MR. BRIDGEMANmoved the reduction of the vote by £150 in order to obtain some information from the Financial Secretary of the Treasury in regard to the increased salary of the Lord President's secretary. He was sorry not to have been able to give him notice of this point, but, as had been pointed out, they did not know until last night what Votes were going to be taken. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to have some longer notice, perhaps he would devise some means of letting them know a little sooner when the Votes were coming on. They did not wish to embarrass the Financial Secretary in any way in the discharge of his duties, but in the course of debate on the salary of the Lord President they had heard that the office was not attended with any great amount of work, and one would have thought that out of a salary of £2,000 a year the noble Lord might have paid whatever was necessary for the salary of a private secretary. He could not see that any case whatever had been made out for the payment out of public funds to the secretary of the present Lord President of the Council of a larger salary than was paid to the private secretary of the last Lord President. He knew that there were a great many hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Second Bench on the Ministerial side of the House who, although quite capable to fill the post of Lord President, filled the posts of private secretaries to Ministers—;a most important post—;without any salary at all. He did not know whether it was in order to rise to the trade union rate of wages among private secretaries, which had advanced in the last two months, or whether it was contended that this particular gentleman had move work to do, that this proposal was made. No doubt the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary of the Treasury would tell the Committee, but he should not have thought that, judging by the salaries of other private secretaries, who had a great deal more work to do, that £200 was a bit too low for the private secretary of the

  79
  Lord President of the Council. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £150.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,140, be granted for the said Service."—;[Mr. Bridgeman.)
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not in the least complain of receiving no notice of questions of the kind which the hon. Member had put to him. He had only asked for details about the washing of towels and the supply of newspapers and matters of that kind, the particulars of which he could not be expected to know off-hand. In regard to the point which he had raised, he thought the hon. Gentleman was under a misunderstanding. The private secretary of every Cabinet Minister—;although he believed there were exceptions in regard to chief private secretaries—;received a salary of £300 a year. In most cases Ministers had two private secretaries, and £400 a year was divided between them. In the present case it concerned the salary of the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister who had only one private secretary, and therefore he received £300 a year. In the case of Cabinet Ministers at the head of Departments, the private secretary was not the private secretary of his chief as a Cabinet Minister, but his private secretary in regard to the affairs of the Department as a whole, and he was usually taken from that Department. In the present case the Lord President of the Council as a member of the Council had a private secretary. That private secretary had, in fact, the usual additional salary paid to all other private secretaries, and he could see no reason why this private secretary should be mulcted in his salary, and should be paid at the same rate which applied to any other private secretary. For many years past hon. Members now on the Opposition side of the House had voted for a private secretary receiving additional remuneration for any additional duties he had to perform. The private secretary of a Cabinet Minister was fully entitled to the additional salary of £300 which he received. The hon. Gentleman had called attention to the fact that last year the private secretary of the Lord President of the Council received only £200, but in that year the Lord President had another private secretary. The President of the
  80
  Board of Education, who was also Lord President, had last year two private secretaries for whom £400 was provided, and they received £200 each. The present private secretary of the Lord. President would, however, receive £300 a year as the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister.
  MR. MORTON: What does he do?
  MR. MCKENNAdid, not think it was desirable that he should be obliged to define the duties of the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister. He might say, however, that he had to assist the minister in every detail of his work, to get up information for him from Blue-books and other sources. He was the recipient of a great many confidential communications, and was in a position of trust, and if hon. Gentlemen would look at the great names of private secretaries to Prime Minister's in the past, he was sure he would agree that £300 a year was not too much to pay.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYthought that his hon. friend was fully justified in raising this question, and although no one wanted to be hard upon the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, he must point out that the explanation which the hon. Gentleman had now given was not the explanation which he gave earlier in the evening. Probably he was wrong in his explanation given in the earlier stage of the debate and was now right. He now seemed to say that the Cabinet Minister had one private secretary at the higher rate of salary instead of two secretaries at the lower rate, as was the case when the head of this Department had two sets of departmental duties to attend to. From un-familiarity with the subject, no doubt, a different and probably incorrect explanation was given earlier in the evening.
  MR. MCKENNAPointed out that Lord Crowe had only one private secretary although as a Cabinet Minister he was entitled to two.
  MR. MORTONsaid that the Duke of Devonshire, who held this office, also held the office of the President of the Board of Education, and he possibly had a great deal to do. He did not think his hon. friend had put the matter quite fairly.

  81
  This private secretary not only got £300 a year hut probably a large salary in another department. They could not fairly judge this question of salaries without further information. The real point in this case was that there was no necessity for a private secretary at all, because the Lord President had practically nothing at all to do, and therefore the private secretary, could not have much to do either.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: said that this matter disclosed two anomalies. The first was the gift of a salary of £2,000 a year to a man who admittedly had nothing

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gill, A. H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Snowden, P.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Dr. Frederick R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Summerbell, T.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey, F.W.F. (Bury S. Edm'd

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor CW

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Liddell, Henry

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Younger, George

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—;

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Burnycat, J. D. W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bertram, Julius

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Billson, Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boland, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cherry, R. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barlow, Percy(Bedford)

  Branch, James

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brigg, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brodie, H. C.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.;

  Bell, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, William Randal

  to do, and the second was the giving of £300 a year to a gentleman as a secretary to help him to do nothing. In the old days the Lord President of the Council had a great deal to do, and he had two private secretaries at £400 a year. In those days they received £2,400 a year for doing a great deal of work. Now the Lord President and his secretary got £2,300 for doing nothing.
  Question put.
  The Committee Divided:—;Ayes, 73;. Noes, 294. (Division List, No. 54.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Price, C. E.(EdinburghCentral)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Radford, G. H.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rees, J. D.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duckworth, James

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lambert, George

  Richardson, A.

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robinson, S.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macdonald J. R. (Leicester)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Rose, Charles Day

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Russell, T. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Crae, George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Killop, W.

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyn

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mansfield, H. Randall (Lincoln)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Grove, Archibald

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

  Menzies, Walter

  Spicer, Albert

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Halpin, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (C'hesh.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mond, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sullivan, Donal

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.]

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doneaster

  Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset E

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tomkinson, James

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  O'Grady, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  wallace, Robert

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Paul, Herbert

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, William (Limebouse)

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearson, W H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Wardle, George J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  84

  85

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersfd

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Williams W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Williamson A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Winfrey R.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to move a reduction in regard to the item of £598 for messengers in the office of the Privy Council. It had become apparent after what had been said by the Secretary of the Treasury that the work of this Department practically did not exist, and that the only duty that fell upon the Lord President of the Council was that of representing the Board of Education in the House of Lords when required. It must be clear that the duties of the Lord President were so insignificant that the office could not require this sum of money spent on messengers. What did the five messengers do during the whole of their official hours? In order that the hon. Gentlemen might afford an explanation, he begged to move that the estimate be reduced by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,790, be granted for the said Service."—;(Mr. Claude Hay.)
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentlemen had entirely misunderstood the purport of the previous discussion. It must not be assumed that because the Lord President had little to do the work of the Department was not going on. There were the Orders in Council to be dealt with, and there was the judicial department of the Privy Council. The salaries of the messengers were not at all in excess of the requirements of the office. While it might be perfectly true that the titular head of the office had not very much to do, the office itself was a hard-worked office, and he did not wish it to go out as a result of this debate that the work was not serious and onerous. It was a serious and onerous work, and there were not any more men in the Department than were absolutely necessary.
  MR. J. WARDsaid that while there was reason in the previous
  86
  two Votes for an expression of hostile opinion there was no reason whatever why the Committee should be called upon to object to the salaries of these five messengers, the salaries of whom in no case exceeded £150. Consequently he thought the Committee would be well advised to allow such moderate salaries to pass without criticism.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that if there was an office there must be a door-keeper. He had had occasion to call at the Colonial Office that afternoon on business, and he would not have been able to find the gentleman he wanted had there been no messenger. He could understand the attack that had been made upon the salary of the Lord President, and even upon that of his secretary, but when it came to attacking messengers, who were mostly Army pensioners, that was a different thing altogether. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side were not at all artistic in the work of obstruction, and though they would no doubt improve as time wont on, they had shown clearly this afternoon that they knew nothing about the business.
  LORD R. CECIL. said they had listened to two very remarkable speeches. They had been told by members of the Labour Party that the Opposition did not understand their business as a Tory Party, and then they wore told by the hon. Member for South Tyrone with much greater authority that they did not understand their business as obstructionists. He did not understand that anybody with whom he was associated had been guilty of obstruction. Hon. Members, calling themselves Labour Members, were getting into the habit of dictating, not only to the Government, but to the whole House, telling them what ought to be done, and expecting it to be done instantly. So far as he was concerned, he should have been content to advise his hon. friend to withdraw

  87
  his Amendment, but after the speeches to which they had just listened he did not propose to offer that advice.
  MR. MADDISONdid not believe that the discussions this afternoon had been at all un-instructive, because they had revealed the great Tory Party in their lowest depths. After having practically the expenses of the Army and Navy doubled in twelve years they were now occupying the attention of the Committee first by an abortive Motion about an item for washing, and now the hon. Member for Hoxton, who was a great social reformer, had chosen five poor messengers for attack. This was Tory social reform! The hon. Member first of all called them lazy, and said they had nothing to do.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I absolutely repudiate the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MADDISONsaid he was going on to say that the hon. Gentleman said that in effect. He did not wish to do injustice to the hon. Member, but he had pointed out that this was an office in which there was nothing to do. If so, then there could be nothing for messengers to do. The noble Lord had said Toryism and obstruction were not the same thing. They were constantly hearing what Toryism was not, but never what it was. Perhaps the noble Lord would enlighten them as to what it was.
  LORD R. CECIL: Economy.
  MR. MADDISONasked what economy was. [An HON. MEMBER: Toryism.] If Toryism was economy, and Tories were really seeking after economy, why did they not support those who some time ago wanted to take a million or two off the Army? It was not until it was a matter of a few messengers that Toryism rose to the occasion.
  MR. SLOANsaid that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was not justified in asserting that those who supported the reduction of the Vote were unsympathetic towards a deserving class of men, who wore, perhaps, not too well paid. They simply asked for information. There was a Lord President, with £2,000 a year, who was said to have
  88
  nothing to do, and there were five messengers who were supposed to assist him.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The effect of the reduction would be to take away the whole pay of the messengers.
  MR. SLOANsaid that the reduction of £500 was moved simply to raise the question. When Members asked questions with regard to the Estimates, they should, at least, be treated with ordinary courtesy. If there was obstruction it came from the Government side of the House.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked the Financial Secretary of the Treasury to explain what were the duties of the coal porters, and why they were paid only 10s. per week.
  MR. REESsaid he did not know whether the hon. Member for Hoxton had ever seen the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting, but anyone who did so could not fail to be struck by the exceedingly inexpensive manner in which they conducted their operations. The complete absence of pomp and circumstance in that august tribunal was extraordinary. It performed functions of vast importance over a great part of the world in the simplest possible form and without any Imperial accessories.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that apparently the doctrine below the gangway was that if salaries wore under a certain point they must not object to them, but the policy of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches was to find out if there were any unnecessary expenses. Their economy was all-round economy, and they were doing their best to show their impartiality. The point was not whether the messengers were overpaid or underpaid. They all wanted to see them paid a proper rate of wages. The question was whether there were too many messengers. In the office in question there were twenty-seven persons, including firemen, coal porters, and a superintending charwoman, for whom it was fair to assume the messengers did not work. Excluding those persons there were twenty-four officials, and five of them were messengers. Besides these

  89
  messengers there were extra messengers whose numbers were not shewn in the return The point was whether the number of messengers was not excessive.
  MR. SEDDONasked how many coal porters there were working at the salary of 10s. a week, and what number of hours they worked. He did not think the Party to which he belonged desired to receive any advice from Members above the gangway as to the particular way in which they should conduct their business. While not prepared to quibble they wore prepared to raise questions which affected workingmen employed by various Departments of the State, as well as to raise questions affecting high salaries.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked what were the duties of the Nautical Assessor and what they had to do with the Privy Council.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the Nautical Assessor assisted the Judicial Tribunal in Admiralty cases, and received two guineas a day for his services. He regretted that he was unable to give the number of coal porters. Their duty was to deliver coals at stated hours, and at other times these men, who were often pensioners, were free to earn money at other occupations. They were very glad to get this additional work. The messengers were needed to do work for the Judicial Council.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether he was to understand that some of the coal porters were pensioners, and therefore were paid a lower rate of wages.
  MR. MCKENNA: I said no such thing.
  COLONEL LOCKWODsaid the hon. Gentleman stated that they were pensioners able to earn money in other ways. What he wanted to know was whether these men, being pensioners, were paid a lower rate of wages.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he made no such assertion. What he said was that these men received 10s. a week because the work only occupied a very little time, and
  90
  they had leisure to do some other occupation. They wore men who were very glad to get this additional work, but did not wish to be employed all their time at it; and, indeed, they could not be so employed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was perfectly sure the messengers of the Privy Council would know that he was not against them, and if it were in his power he would move an increase in their wages, even at the expense of the Lord President. What he had been anxious to find out was why five messengers were wanted in an office when the head of the office, receiving £ a year, was declared to have no work to do. He was not in the least desirous of troubling the Committee to divide, and after the discussion, which had been very instructive, he would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,243, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
  COLONEL LEGGEasked for an explanation of the item for postage.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the Commissioners were responsible for the examinations as to the educational qualifications of entrants into the Civil Service and also for the medical examinations of candidates. In some Departments the proportion of retirements from pulmonary and other diseases had been rather high. As to the fitness of candidates for admission to the Civil Service, all depended on the methods which the Commissioners adopted in connection with the examinations. It was the practice to depend in past times on the reports of the medical practitioners employed by the entrants themselves. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee the assurance that the medical examinations were now conducted by men employed by the Commissioners.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Civil Service Commission was practically an independent body. That being so, when the Commission wanted anything the Treasury had little power to resist the demand made. Those who had had any experience of the Civil Service Commissioners were aware that they treated the public in a very arbitrary manner. It was difficult to get any information from them. If the Civil Service Commission made a demand on the Treasury for more clerks, the Treasury had practically to give in without being able to satisfy themselves that the demand was justified. The Estimates for the coming year were in excess of those for the year 1905–6, and he hoped the representative of the Treasury would be able to state to the Committee the reason for the increase. There was nothing to show that the lower grade Civil servants, or the second division clerks, had received any increase of pay beyond what they were entitled to and, therefore, there was all the more reason to inquire why the Estimates should now be given at a larger figure. He wanted fuller information in regard to assistant examiners, for whom a larger amount was put down. There was also an increase under the head of advertisements of examinations. He asked the Financial Secretary to give some information as to the methods adopted by the Department in the selection of the newspapers in which these advertisements appeared. Personally he had heard complaints as to the unsatisfactory manner in which the distribution of advertisements was carried out by the Commissioners. He wished to know also whether the relationship between the Commissioners and the Treasury was satisfactory or whether something might not be done to give the Treasury more effective control over their operations so as to ensure that the services of the Commissioners would be more advantageous to the public, and above all, that the expense of the Department should not be increased. The work of the Commissioners had a far reaching effect indirectly upon the education of the country in consequence of the method in which they framed their demands in the matter of examinations for the Civil Service. In that way they were able to influence a great deal of the public school life and the university life of the country. He hoped the present Financial Secretary would be able to declare to the Committee
  92
  that he proposed to carry out very definite and drastic reforms in connection with the Department.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman had raised a very wide question. His own experience at the Treasury was far too short to enable him to express any strong opinion at the moment. He frankly admitted that the Question raised deserved most careful consideration, and he could assure the hon. Member that it would receive that consideration. The relations with the Treasury were similar to those of other Departments, and upon points of detail it was often difficult for the Secretary to the Treasury to reply. The postage item represented a convenient book-keeping arrangement with the Post Office in relation to the conveyance of parcels, and for correspondence the Commission had the power of franking with other Departments. The doctors conducting the medical examinations were appointed by the Commission, they were paid fees, and their reports were independent and free from suspicion.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he was not sure whether the Civil Service Commission was independent of the Treasury by Act of Parliament. The Financial Secretary was necessarily placed in a position of difficulty in speaking for a Department which had to do with a number of other Departments. It was not always possible to give a complete answer in regard to questions raised, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would always receive from the the House the same fair treatment which he himself had received during the two years he hold the office of Financial Secretary of the Treasury. In regard to the work of the Civil Service Commission, he thought there were one or two small matters to which attention might be called with a view to an improvement in their methods. He hoped the Committee would keep these points in view, but that they would not unduly press the Financial Secretary who had been but a very short time in office. He was sure that any representations which might be brought before the hon. Gentleman would be considered by him, and that they would be brought to the notice of the Departments for which he had to answer. It had been suggested that the Civil Service Commission should be placed

  93
  more under the Board of Education. That would involve a considerable amount of administrative reform, and he hoped that the question would not be approached without careful and serious consideration.
  MR. REESsaid he had been associated with the Civil Service Commissioners for about thirty years as an examinee and an examiner, and he had always found them an exceedingly polite and courteous body discharging their functions efficiently and well. As to the medical examinations, so far from there being the danger indicated by the lion. Member opposite, if there was any danger at all it was that the doctors were too ready to "spin" candidates, and find them unfit for the public service. As the hon. Member for Hoxton had called the Commissioners arbitrary, and had said it was difficult to get information out of them, he thought it right to get up and say so much, for the important and extensive functions performed by the Commissioners were indifferently appreciated by their critics.
  MR. F. E. SMITHasked whether, if a candidate were rejected by the medical officer, his fee was returned.
  MR. MCKENNAwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid there did not appear to be any attempt on the part of the Government to carry out in this Department their promises of retrenchment and reform. If he understood the matter aright, the Treasury appeared to have practically no control over the expenditure of this Department. He was glad to hear that the Treasury was responsible, and he hoped that next year, when the Committee came to consider this Vote, they would be able to judge whether the promises of retrenchment and reform had the slightest chance of being carried out by the present Government. He found in the Vote no less a sum than £912 for temporary men and temporary boy messengers, compared with £840 last year. That meant that under the present régime the system of temporary messengers was not only not to be diminished, but actually to be increased. He contended that if any
  94
  Department was to be efficient it should not employ temporary assistance, but have a permanent staff to deal with the work. There was nothing worse than casual labour. Then he found charges for overtime in two divisions of the assistant clerks. Any man of practical experience would agree that the system of overtime should be done away with. If a proper staff was employed and a push of work arose on occasion, the staff would be willing to do it; but the system of paying for overtime was most objectionable and led to abuses. Then he noticed an item of £1,500 for copying. He presumed what was meant by that was that certain work which could not be adequately done in the office was sent out and paid for. [AN HON. MEMBER: That was done by your Government.] Yes, but they had to look to the new Government to adopt more progressive measures; and he suggested that appliances for copying, which had now been brought to great perfection, should be used, and that would lead to less expense. Then there was the important item of £18,130 for assistant examiners. He noticed that their fees ranged from 12s. 6d. to £3 3s. per day. Could the Financial Secretary of the Treasury say how many examiners there were, and what was the average fee paid to them? He did not know whether the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs received the three guinea fee. There wore many other items which one might comment upon if there were time, but he thought that sufficient had been said to demonstrate that this Department would do very well with an overhauling. He agreed that it was a most useful and painstaking Department, but he was not satisfied that it was conducted on the best lines, and there was ample room for drastic changes which would make it more effective.
  MR. REESsaid he wished to state that he never was in the Department, and had no connection with it, except as one who had examined for it, and had been examined by it, and had some knowledge of its functions end character, which was, he thought, wanting in some of its critics.
  MR. J. WARDsaid that at the end of the accounts of the Department, there was a sum of nearly £1,000 for incidental

  95
  expenses, of which there was no explanation. He could not help thinking that if a trade union secretary brought up his accounts with a lump sum of £1,000 for incidental expenses, with no explanation, he would get a very warm half hour at the annual meeting of the trade union. He wanted some details as to what these incidental expenses were.
  MR. WEIRcomplained that naval cadets now, instead of being examined by the Civil Service Commission, had to pass the Admiralty Board and then undergo a written examination by Oxford University. He thought that this fact pointed towards the possibility of a vast amount of favouritism. The Civil Service Commission was above suspicion, and there should be no hole-and-corner business in examinations for the public services. But the surprising fact was that although the work of the Commission had diminished in the way he had indicated, and in other ways, the expenditure had not diminished. The whole system of examination for naval cadetships was extremely unsatisfactory, and yet we wore spending as much upon this Commission as we did in the past. He supposed the hon. Gentleman and not had enough time to acquaint himself with these matters, but he hoped he would do so. If these examinations were going to be conducted by an Admiralty board and universities, then the Civil Service Commission Vote would have to be diminished. The Civil Service Commission had done its work well, and he had no desire to diminish the Vote, but he hoped the Government would insist on all examinations for the public service being conducted by that body as in former years.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was sorry that he differed slightly from his hon. friend for the West Derby Division of Liverpool as to the remarks he made about the men and boy messengers, because he thought that in all these Departments which held examinations, it was absolutely necessary occasionally to employ temporary clerks or boy messengers at reasonable rates. Therefore he thought the hon. Member's objection was very easily disposed of when applied to a Department such as this, which was fitful in its operations, and was active or
  96
  otherwise at different periods of the year, when there were or were not examinations being held. It seemed to him that the hon. Member's energy might have been directed to a much more serious and important point, and that was the fees which were charged in connection with the Civil Service examinations. The age in which we lived was one in which we were desirous of bringing into line the many classes who could not go to the various universities to be trained for particular examinations. But they had an estimate of extra receipts for fees of no less than £16,620. He would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take into consideration how those who wore poor, so far as the pocket was concerned, wore debarred by this means from entering the Civil Service. If the foes were reduced by one-half it would give much relief and satisfaction to the working classes, who, although they might be poor in pocket, were rich in brains. All they asked was that their sons should be given an opportunity, and that the Department might try and ascertain if they were suitable. Generally looking through the Estimate, although there might be an increase here or a decrease there, the whole thing turned upon this £16,620, and it was a question whether the Department would not be better served if there were introduced into the Civil Service men who would be drawn from the poorer class schools, which were producing boys perhaps better provided with qualifications for the work than boys who went to large schools or universities. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give them some little hope that the poorer classes in pocket, although they might be rich in brains, should have a chance of being appointed to the higher grades of the Civil Service. He and his hon. friends would feel satisfied if the hon. Gentleman would give them some little hope that the fees would be reduced in order to enable the poorer class of labourers' sons and daughters to compete for these posts with offspring of the wealthier classes.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTwas sure the Committee would be very grate ful to the hon. Member for bringing before it so sympathetically the claims of those who wore now barred from an

  97
  honourable career by the extraordinary exaction of £16,000 or £17,000 as fees for examinations. [A laugh.] The Financial Secretary laughed, but he would not laugh if he were the father of some of those poor boys with a future barred to them by class legislation of the very worst kind.
  MR. MCKENNA: Has the hon. Member ever heard of a single case of the kind which he is now stating?
  MR. T. L. CORBETTreplied that he did not see why he should be submitted to that kind of cross examination. It stood to reason that if they exacted enormous fees of the character summarised in the Estimates there would be many who had been unable to provide the fees. What struck him most forcibly in these Estimates was that this Government of economy and retrenchment was in every case considerably increasing the expenditure of the country. Gibes had been flung at the Tory Party in the past as the Party of extravagance. The best test was to take the two columns of the Estimates page by page and they would find the amounts repeatedly augmented. The Civil Service Commission was not directly under the control of any Department, and he thought it was due to the new Members of the House that some short sketch should be given by the Financial Secretary of the work which really came under the control of the Commission.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  MR. MORTONsaid he desired to move the clause of which he had given notice.†
  †The Clause was as follows:—;The Company shall, upon all their trains carrying first and third-class passengers upon which sleeping accommodation is provided, provide such accommodation for the use of third-class passengers.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that new clause would not be in order, but the hon. Member could raise such discussion as he desired upon the first Motion that stood in his name on the Paper.
  MR. MORTONsaid in that case he was inclined to move that the debate should be adjourned in order that he might have an opportunity of framing a clause that would be in order. He had no desire to destroy this Bill, and therefore he would move that its consideration should be adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid if he might advise the hon. Member he would respectfully advise him not to take that course, because he very much doubted whether any clause which the hon. Gentleman could frame would be in order. On the Second Reading he had ruled that the Instruction of which the hon. Member had given notice was not in order, and that being so it was impossible that the clause which the hon. Member desired to carry out that Instruction could be in order. Therefore, any clause which had that object in view would not be in order, but the hon. Member was entitled to raise a discussion on the point he desired to raise on the Motion that the Bill be considered this day six months.
  MR. MORTONsaid in that case he would take the advice of Mr. Speaker. He did not know whether anyone was present to answer for the Midland Railway Company, but he wished to know whether that Railway Company meant to do anything to meet the demands made by the third - class passengers for sleeping accommodation similar to that given to first-class passengers. The only answer he had obtained up to the present was that it would not pay. But every one knew that no first-class passenger traffic paid, and the company, therefore, paid the losses on the first-class passenger traffic out of the profits made on the third-class. It was not right to continue to take the money of the third-class passengers to pay the loss made on the sleeping accommodation given to the first-class without giving the third-class passengers the same facilities. Although he did not to-night wish to go the length of throwing out the Bill he warned the Midland and other railway companies that unless they dealt fairly with all

  99
  classes of passengers that the time would come when the House would tell them that it was no use to come asking favours, unless they were prepared to deal fairly with all classes of passengers using their lines. He gladly admitted that the Midland was one of the most respectable railways in the United Kingdom, and he did not want to damage their interests. Therefore he would, as a matter of form only, move that this Bill be considered this day six months.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTin seconding the Motion, said that on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House he called attention to a series of matters affecting the city of Sheffield in regard to its railway connections. His right hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex on that occasion said, although he was not connected with the railway company in any way, that he was informed by the Midland Railway Company that the matters to which he (Sir Howard Vincent) had referred were engaging the earnest attention of the company. But he had received only this afternoon a letter from the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures, in reply to a letter he had sent, stating that they had heard nothing from the railway company, and there had been no change in the railway arrangements. It was a serious matter with which they were dealing, and concerned the comfort and convenience of a city of nearly 400,000 inhabitants. The suggestions which they made to the railway companies were not to increase the accommodation or the number of trains, but the people of Sheffield claimed that they were entitled to return tickets at reduced fares, and to week-end tickets in the same way as other towns which were further off. They also thought it would be advantageous if the return tickets and season tickets were made interchangeable and available on the three lines which ran into Sheffield. They had brought this matter before the Midland and other companies, but could get no further. They were unable to get any response from these three great companies, because it was not a question for the Midland Company alone. The propositions which they had made were of quite as much advantage to the railway companies as they
  100
  were to the people of Sheffield. It was a matter of great importance to the commercial interests of Sheffield that they should have these passenger facilites connected with that great city. Because Sheffield could not get any answer in accordance with the assurance given to his hon. and gallant friend, who was not in any way to blame, because, on the last occasion, he had only given the answer he was asked to give, he was compelled for form's sake to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Suther-landshire.
  Amendment proposed—;
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six mouths."—;(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had very little to add to what he said on the last occasion. When this Bill was before the House on the 20th of March last, the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire brought forward practically the same Motion as he had brought to-night, and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield made practically the same speech. He himself gave the answer he was instructed to give, and he confessed that he was disappointed that his hon. friend should have been able to reproach him to-night with his not having received an answer from the company. He hoped his hon. friend, after this debate, would receive an authentic answer from the company. He was very far from saying that the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was not an important one, but he maintained that a General Powers Bill of this sort was not the occasion on which to raise it. If the railway company could see their way to do anything without loss of income, they would so so. But this was a question of internal management, and unless the House was prepared to take away all the management of their affairs from the Company it was rather unfair to try and postpone a Bill of this kind by introducing a question which had nothing to do with it.
  MR. MORTONasked what occasion, if not this, should be taken for bringing this matter forward.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid it was not his business to give advice to hon. Members as to the proper occasion on which to raise questions. He merely said that this was not the proper occasion. After having been defeated on this question on previous occasions, was it fair to the railway company to raise it again?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport)agreed that as a decision had been arrived at, the matter ought not to have been again raised, but he thought it his duty to say that the opinions he had been able to collect showed that there was a growing feeling in the House that something should be done to afford facilities in the direction named. The Midland Railway Company had been one of the most enterprising of the railway companies in affording facilities for third class traffic, but he thought if the right hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division would convey to this company and other railway companies with which he had opportunities of contact the growing feeling in the House, it might serve a useful purpose.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid perhaps he might be allowed to interrupt to say that there were hon. Members who knew that he had already taken up this question with the railway companies.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Board of Trade had also taken the matter up, but probably an expression of opinion from the right hon. and gallant Member, such as he had indicated, might tend to secure progress in the direction required. He was sure the Board of Trade would assist in every way they could. Of course he could not arbitrarily dictate to the railway companies what they should do. He hoped the hon. Member would not press this matter to a division, but would allow the Bill to proceed, and rely upon the right hon. and gallant Member to represent to the railway companies the feeling that was growing in the House in favour of such accommodation.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Certainly.
  MR. KEARLEY: And we at the Board of Trade will do our best also.
  MR. WEIRsaid it was very kind of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consent to make representations to the railway companies, and he should look for results. He had said that they could not interfere with the internal arrangements of the railway companies. He (Mr. Weir) should like to know why. This was a general powers Bill and was a most opportune time. A dozen years ago he raised the question of a purer atmosphere in the underground railways of London, and he had the satisfaction to-day of knowing that there was a better atmosphere in the tunnels. They ought to use every occasion in this House to get railway reforms. It was not fair that a week-end or return ticket could not be used at any station on the return journey if the holder did not wish to go back the whole way. He asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to bring the matter to the notice of the railway companies. Surely an enterprising railway company like the Midland Railway Company could devise some means of accommodating the large and important body of commercial men by providing third class sleeping accommodation.
  MR. BARRIEsupported the Motion. At the same time he wished to associate himself with everything that had been said as to the indebtedness of the British public to the Midland Railway Company. He thought third class passengers owed every advantage they had received in recent years to the pioneering of the Midland Company. Therefore, if he was apparently supporting a vote of censure on the company, it was because that was the only method open to impress upon railway companies the desire for improvements in the direction referred to. The commercial travellers on this great system had long suffered a great privation which they should no longer suffer. Reference had been made to the fact that progress in this direction was comparatively easy, and he would point out that the railway company with which they were specially dealing had quite recently taken a step forward, which he thought would convince them of the desirability of granting this further concession. He referred to the sleeping accommodation for a nominal fee on the Midland Railway Company's

  103
  steamers to Belfast. The opening of this service had brought about a remarkable improvement in the services of the other companies, and more especially in the service managed and controlled by the Board which the right hon. Member for the Epping Division of Essex represented in this House. They had long been under the dominion of the London and North Western Railway Companies, and they had never received a concession from that company which had not been dragged out of them by competition. He thought the public had a right to demand still more concessions from the London and North Western Railway Company.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! We are now discussing the affairs of the Midland Railway Company.
  MR. BARRIEsaid that the railway companies acted together in these matters, and it was only in that connection he was referring to the London and North Western Railway. Whenever the Midland Railway Company had full powers they granted these week-end concessions without any great pressure of public opinion being brought to bear upon them. Apparently the hon. Member opposite was not aware how much they were indebted to the Scotch railway companies in regard to these reforms. The position was, as regarded Edinburgh and Glasgow, that if they wanted to get down on Friday evenings to the great cities, first class passengers were offered special privileges while third class passengers received no such privileges. This was a monstrous injustice to the third class passenger, who contributed 88 per cent, of the returns of the company. Speaking with a considerable knowledge of railway matters on the other side of the Atlantic, he could assure the House that in America no railway company ever thought of charging more than 8s. for a comfortable sleeping berth upon a third class fare. It had been found profitable in America, and he urged this reform upon the railway companies of Great Britain, being fully persuaded that it would be in the best interests of the shareholders. At present there was no concession on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday to the poor unfortunate commercial traveller, who was charged full fare. Unless there happened
  104
  to be a strong competition by water service no concession was made to third class passengers. He hoped the result of a free expression of opinion on this question would be that the railway companies would reconsider this matter.
  MR. EVERETTsaid he had been communicated with by commercial travellers in the East of England, who stated how great a boon it would be if this third class sleeping accommodation was provided. He hoped this proposal would bring about the reform which these commercial travellers so very earnestly desired.
  MR. R. J. PRICEsaid he had made it his business to inquire of the different railway companies as to the feasibility of carrying out this proposal, and the officials informed him that they had recommended this policy for the last thirty years. They had been asked why they were raising this point now. His reply was that this was the only way in which they could raise it. Railway companies had been granted a monopoly, and therefore Parliament had a right to some control in regard to the way in which they carried on their business. It was essential that nowadays they should give every facility to commercial men to carry on their business as quickly, easily and cheaply as possible. He was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had expressed an opinion in favour of this proposal.
  MR. MORTONsaid that after the sympathetic way in which the representative of the Board of Trade had spoken upon this question, and the promise of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment. He wished to state that he had made no attack whatever upon any particular railway company. It happened that the Midland Railway Company was the first that came to hand, and he expected his right hon. and gallant friend opposite to do something in this matter. He wished to intimate that he should have another shot upon this subject when the Great Northern Railway Bill came forward, and that the matter would not be allowed to drop.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,243, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
  MR. ASHLEYsaid there was one item put down as "other incidental expenses," which he did not think had been sufficiently considered. For the years 1905–6 this item amounted to £820, but this year it was £920, or an increase of £100. He thought they should have some explanation of the sums which appeared under that heading. It seemed to him to be like what happened in foreign countries when they were asked to vote sums for the Secret Service without knowing who received the money or for what service it was required. He hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would give them some intimation, and in order to get an explanation he begged formally to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,143, be granted for the said Service."—;(Mr. Ashley.)
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it was quite reasonable that the hon. Member opposite should ask this question. When they had a vast number of small expenses of this kind it was impossible to give a detailed account of them. He could, if necessary, give a detailed account of last year's items, but he could not give the items for this year. These examinations were held locally, and he should think the number of persons examined would total 10,000 in the course of the year. There-
  106
  fore the hon. Member would see that in dealing with such a great mass it was impossible to give a detailed account of what the isolated expenditure was going to be in regard to these small items.
  MR. WARDLEdrew attention to the item for assistant examiners amounting to the enormous sum of £18,130. It appeared to him that these assistant Commissioners were paid in addition to what they received from other appointments up and down the country. When they were paying so large a sum for assistant examiners, that sum would provide permanent officials to do this work—;men employed solely in the work and put in various centres. Probably a considerable saving might be achieved in that way.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the suggestion made appeared reasonable on the face of it, but he thought the hon. Member would agree with him, seeing that the examinations took place at different places and at different periods of the year, that it would be impossible to have a permanent staff. The examinations covered a vast number of subjects. They included every sort of examination from that which the Post Office sorter was required to pass up to the examinations for the Indian Civil Service. Consequently they had to draw on a large number of outside examiners. A permanent staff could not be employed the whole year, and it was believed that it was cheaper for the State to employ examiners from time to time to undertake the work of the particular examinations. The question of examination fees had been raised earlier in another quarter. He regretted that the hon. Member who raised the question was not in his place, for he wished to show that he was under a misapprehension on this matter. The examination fees varied from 1s. to £6, the latter fee being charged for entrance to the Indian Civil Service examination. There had been no occasion found to change the scale of fees in the last seventeen years. It would be inadvisable to reduce the remuneration of the sub-examiners, as it was necessary that the services of the most competent men should be retained.
  MR. MORTONsaid it was estimated this year that the receipts from fees

  107
  would be £4,000 less than last year. In regard to the item of £750 for the salary of the assistant secretary, it was said that this salary would be reconsidered when a vacancy occurred. Was the salary to be increased or reduced? He wished also to know what were the hours of labour in this particular office. If the hon. Gentleman did not know, would he kindly take this as notice that the Question would be repeated on the Report stage?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it was impossible to give any exact Answer as to the number of candidates who would come forward for admission to the various departments of the Civil Service. The Commissioners believed that there would not be as many applicants for examination this year as in past years, and that was why they had estimated that the receipts from fees would be less.
  MR. MORTONasked whether there was anything to account for the falling off in the number of applicants.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the number of vacancies in the various departments varied from year to year. As to the salary which was to be reconsidered when a vacancy occurred, he should like to say that whenever they reconsidered a salary they endeavoured to reduce it. He would endeavour to ascertain what the office hours were, but he warned the hon. Member in advance that he might have considerable difficulty in finding out.
  MR. MORTONsaid there could surely be no difficulty in the master going into the office and insisting on seeing the attendance books. The Answer given by the hon. Gentleman was not quite good enough. It was not what he was sent here from Sutherland-shire to accept.
  MR. BRIGGasked whether the examinations for the Civil Service in Egypt came under the Civil Service Commissioners.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid the Committee had just been informed that the fees for candidates were sometimes as high as £6. He wished to know whether it would not be possible to make a re-
  108
  duction in favour of the sons of officers who had lost their lives in the Indian Civil Service or in the Army. They all knew that the payment of £2 or £3 in such cases was a very serious matter.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he was under the impression that the Egyptian examinations did not come under the Civil Service Commissioners. He did not think the fees for the Indian Civil Service examinations were excessive. It was a question whether the cost of the examinations should be borne by the country generally or by those who were to get the benefit of them. He was bound to say that he did not see any reason for altering the scale at this moment.
  MR. WARDLEasked whether it was not possible to reduce the fees of the assistant examiners, seeing that it was estimated that the fees from candidates would be less. Surely it could not cost so much for the examinations this year as last, if there were to be fewer condidates.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the fees for assistant examiners varied according to the nature of the work they did. These men had to be skilled examiners, and if their fees were reduced, probably they would not obtain such competent men. He did not think it would be wise to alter the scale of fees.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  5. £39,699, to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
  6. £5,589, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Registry.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he noticed that there was a slight reduction in the sum I for the employment of assistance and a new sum for the salary of an assistant registrar. He knew that the work of this Department was increasing year by I year, and that with the present staff, it was almost impossible to cope with that increase. He presumed that the reduction in the cost of the clerical staff of the office was made up for by the appointment of the new assistant registrar.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the allowance for the clerical staff was lower on account of the appointment of the new assistant registrar.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £65, to complete the sum for the Mint, including the Coinage.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he wished for more information under Sub-head K as to the withdrawal of silver coinage from circulation. Last year the amount of silver withdrawn from circulation was £40,000, and this year it was to be £60,000, or an increase of 50 per cent. The Committee were entitled to have some explanation of such a large increase.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the only answer he could give was that old and worn silver coinage had to be withdrawn from year to year, and that the Department had to be guided by their skilled officers as to the amount of coinage withdrawn from circulation.
  Vote agreed to.
  8. £7,348, to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
  9. £14,430, to complete the sum for Public Record Office.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he wished to call attention to the salaries paid to the charwomen employed in the Public Record Office. This was really a very serious matter, for these charwomen only got 10s. per week, whereas the charwomen employed at all the other offices received 13s. and 14s. per week.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that these women were not employed the whole day, and the view of the Department was that 10s. was a fair wage for the work they had to do. A certain amount of freedom must be allowed in this regard to the heads of Departments, and he had never heard that the women had made any complaints.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he thought 2s. a day and 1s. for a half day a very low wage indeed. It might be true that they could get plenty of women in London to
  110
  do the work for that wage, and they were often compelled to accept such a wage without complaining. But it was not fair for a Government Department to ask them to accept such a low wage.
  MR. SLOANhoped that the hon. Gentleman would pay special attention to this matter, and try if possible to increase the salary of these women. It was not right to say that because no direct complaint had been made there was no feeling about the matter.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the charwomen were paid for only a part of the day's work, and they went from one place to another the whole day long, so that in the main they earned a very fair living indeed. There was no evidence whatever that these women were sweated or underpaid.
  MR. SLOANwished to know whether the Financial Secretary would make inquiries and find out exactly what the wages of the charwomen were, and if he found them inadequate, would he make proper arrangements.
  MR. MCKENNA: Certainly.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he had felt it his duty to point out the extravagance of the Government in many directions, but in regard to this item of expenditure he did not think they had been extravagant. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that charwomen who had ten shillings a week made no complaint and seemed to think that that was a satisfactory answer to the allegation that a small wage was paid. At the same time it must be admitted that ten shillings a week was a miserable wage to offer to any poor woman, and he was stirred that evening as he had not been stirred in the past, as his attention had not been called to this case. Passing from that item for the moment, he wanted to point out a most remarkable and significant pronouncement which appeared at the foot of the Paper dealing with this Vote. Speaking of messengers and porters the note said—;
  "These men belong to the new class of the pensioner messengers and vacancies are filled from that class."
  Did that note mean that this new class of pensioner messengers were paid less

  111
  than the market value of their services because they were pensioners? He wanted the Financial Secretary to answer "yes" or "no" to this question. If that was not the meaning of the note, he did not know what its meaning was. This was a very important point, to which he should have thought the Labour Members below the gangway, who had been criticising the expenditure of the Department, would have called attention. It seemed to him a very serious matter indeed that men, because they were pensioners, should be put into a special new class of messengers with less salary than their services would command upon the market.
  MR. ASHLEYwished to know if the Financial Secretary could see his way next year, if the Government was in office, to put down in the schedule that the charwomen were paid 10s. for part of a week's work. If that were done a great deal of time would be saved.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he found, upon looking at the details of the Vote, that £3,750 was spent upon investigations of documents and so on at Rome, Venice, and Simancas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell them whether this work was approaching completion and for how many more years this £3,750 was to be spent. He knew whore Rome was very well and also where Venice was, but perhaps the hon. Member would tell them where this other place, Simancas, was. He had no doubt that there were most important matters to be investigated at Simancas which warranted this country in paying £120 a year, but it would be desirable to know whether it was in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, and whether, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, it was desirable to spend this sum of money.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that Simancas was in Spain. The investigations as to calendars and historical documents were now being brought to an end, and he did not think they could last very much longer.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the hon. Gentleman had not answered as to the special class of pensioners.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the answer was as brief as the hon. Member could desire. It was "No."
  COLONEL LEGGEthought they ought to have some more information about this place in Spain. Spain was a very large country, and he really thought the Minister in charge of the Vote should be able to inform them where the place was more exactly. They were spending £120 a year for the investigation of documents and archives at Simancas and they wanted to know where the place was; what the investigations consisted of; who was investigating and who was translating the Report of the investigators. Ministers on the Treasury Bench were expected to come down armed with all sorts of remarkable knowledge.
  MR. BYLESrose to a point of order, and asked if the Deputy-Chairman had not power to stop this vain repetition.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he was only informing new Members who did not know the ways of the House that Ministers in charge of Estimates came down armed with a marvellous amount of information which they were ready to give to any Member who wished to know anything.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,): I must ask the hon. Member to come a little closer to the subject. He is making general observations which have no reference to the Vote.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he desired to have further information about Simancas and the investigations of the documents and archives there.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid a good deal of the discussion which was going on was being carried on by his hon. friends above the gangway, many of whom were new to the proceedings of this House. He would point out to them that if they thought they were injuring or embarrassing the Government by raising those utterly trivial points, they were making a great mistake, because under the Supply rule all that the Government had got to do was to provide

  113
  a certain number of days for Supply—;twenty or twenty-three—;and it made absolutely no difference to the Government whether the whole of the twenty or twenty-three days were occupied in the discussions upon one Vote or whether it was spread out over a number. Therefore he would respectfully suggest to the new Members above the gangway, who were raising these points which—;he did not put it disrespectfully —;by comparison were small points, that they were not hurting the Government, but destroying their own chance of raising serious discussions upon serious points upon other estimates. He would suggest that instead of occupying the House for a considerable time in discussing questions such as they had been listening to for some little time, it would be better if hon. Members would concentrate their criticisms upon the many important points which required serious consideration and examination.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that hon. Members were very much indebted to the last speaker for the advice he had given them and which he was going to take. He would call attention to what he considered was a matter of great importance. He referred to the item dealing with calendars and historic documents and the preparation of indices, for which a sum of £500 was put down. He should like the Financial Secretary to explain to the House how any Government, whether it was an extravagant Government, such as the last Government was supposed to be, or an economical Government such as this was supposed to be, could possibly spend £500 on the preparation of indices of documents in the archives of Venice, Simancas and Rome. With regard to the amount of £500 for indexing he would be glad to know from the hon. Gentleman where these indices were to be found; what hon. Members were supposed to learn from them, and whether they applied only to the three items which appeared above them in the estimate or whether they applied to the four or five below as well.
  MR. THORNTONasked whether the researches into the documentary evidence which were conducted by Mr. Froude at Simancas wore being continued, and, secondly, whether any
  114
  one had followed Mr. Brown, the great investigator, in his work at Venice. These, it should be remembered, were matters of great historic research and an answer ought to be given to these questions by some one on the Treasury Bench, in order that the Committee might know whether the money it voted was being properly spent.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the work at Venice was being continued by a very proper person. It had been conducted by Mr. Rawdon Brown, and was now being conducted by Mr. Horatio Brown. Mr. Froude was at Simancas. As to the indices, with regard to which a question had been asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim, they were indices to each volume and were a general indication of what each volume contained.
  Vote agreed to.
  10. £1,000 to complete the sum for Public Works Loan Commission.
  MR. MORTONasked whether this was not a Department which could be abolished altogether, and the little work they did transferred to the Local Government Board or some other Department. The Department cost altogether very nearly £18,000 a year, but he did not know that it was of much use now-a-days because loans wore obtained by local authorities and others without the assistance of the Department. Those who had pledged themselves to reduce the bloated expenditure of the country had to remember that the only way in which that could be done was to show that there was a great deal of unnecessary expenditure which should not be allowed.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid this was one of those Votes which ought not to be passed without some criticism. They were asked to vote a sum of £11,700 for this particular Department, and they were entitled, therefore, to give their views upon the way it was conducted and as to whether it could not be conducted more economically. £7,860 had to be paid for salaries, in addition to which there were salaries for legal assistance amounting to £2,891. There was a solicitor at a salary of £1,200 with annual increments of £50,

  115
  with a chief clerk at £400, and other allowances amounting to £1,000 had to be paid to the solicitor for salaries of clerks. In his opinion there was quite enough legal assistance in other Departments, some of which might be made available for any possible purposes for which the Public Works Loans Department might require it, and thus render unnecessary the maintenance of this expensive solicitors' Department. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire that this was one of those Departments the working of which should be closely inquired into to see whether a considerable economy could not be made. There was not sufficient work going on in the Department to warrant such an expenditure as was proposed under this Vote, and it appeared to him to be a reasonable thing to suggest that this was one of those smaller branches of administration which might with advantage be combined with another Department.
  MR. J. WARDcalled attention to the fact that the solicitor started at a salary of £1,200 and rose to £1,500, and his chief clerk commenced at a salary of £400 and rose to £700, his present salary being £506 per annum. Though these exorbitant salaries were being paid there was an allowance of £1,000 to the solicitor for clerical assistance, he supposed as a sort of Christmas-box, or something of the kind. It was an astonishing way of conducting business. If clerical assistance were required it was better that it should be paid for directly by the Department itself.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked how it was that the salary of the chief clerk this year was £506.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it was because the appointment was not made at the begining of a year. The solicitor was appointed in 1900 by the late Government and had done his work very well. He did not suppose it was suggested by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool that he should be deprived of his office.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Oh, no.
  MR. MCKENNA: Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that his salary should be abolished?
  Mr. MACVEAGH: No; he wants you to suggest more, as he was appointed by the Tories.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the official in question was appointed by the late Government, which the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool supported, and if he desired his discharge he should be glad if he would make a statement to that effect. With regard to the allowance of £1,000 for clerical assistance, he might state that it was only an estimated allowance which would be audited in the ordinary course by the Auditor and Comptroller-General, and, if in excess, the sum that remained would be returned to the Treasury. It depended on the amount of work to be done. In the course of last year £3,000,000 was issued by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who were the sole judges of the security of the loans. They were not paid themselves, and the staff which they engaged was not at all in excess of the requirements.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDexplained that his point was that the money issued by the Commissioners was borrowed by local authorities, and there was very little difficulty in ascertaining whether the authorities were entitled to borrow it. He should not think there was any legal point in reference to the work of the Department that one of the junior solicitors to the Treasury could not dispose of in a few minutes.
  MR. MCKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the solicitor appointed by the late Government should now be discharged?
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid they were not discussing the conduct of the late Government. Had he been a Member of the House in 1900 he probably would have protested strongly against this expenditure. They were now dealing with the matter as they found it in 1906. He failed to see that there was anything in connection with the legal

  117
  department of the Public Works' Loans Commissioners which necessitated big fees for a solicitor, £600 in rates for the office, messengers, office boys, and all the rest of the paraphernalia included in this Vote. This was a matter which, if the Financial Secretary of the Treasury would concentrate his great ability upon it, he would find would give him an opportunity for effecting a little economy. There was no economy whatever in these Votes. Where was the retrenchment and reform which had been so much talked about at the last election? When he ventured to suggest that this was a matter which should be looked into in order that money might be saved, he was asked by the hon. Member whether he desired the Government to discharge some official that the Tory Government had appointed. It was the duty of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury to consider whether he could not make the service efficient, and at the same time save money, instead of bandying words across the floor of the House. It would be better form on the part of the Government if, instead of scoffing when a reform was suggested, they would promise to bring their ability to bear upon the question of economy.
  MR. J. WARDsaid the principle of granting this £1,000 for clerical assistance to the solicitor was a vicious one from beginning to end, and he strongly objected to the principle of subletting the employment in any department. If it was necessary to spend £1,000 in this way, he thought that those clerks who were employed should be in the direct employment of the Department.
  MR. MORTONsaid he understood that this solicitor was only appointed last year.
  MR. McKENNA: In 1901.
  MR. MORTONsaid he agreed with his hon. friend that those clerks ought to be employed by the Government. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He could assure his young friends from the country that they were only delaying things by making such a noise. This was a very important matter. The real function of this office had gone, and they
  118
  might easily transfer to some other department what little business was left, and thus make a considerable saving.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that as the question of municipal trading was occupying public attention, he should like to know whether any change had been made, or was contemplated, in the rate of interest on loans advanced to local authoriiies.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that that matter was under the control of the Treasury, and it had been ruled that Treasury matters could not be discussed on this Vote. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke, he could only repeat that the clerical assistance referred to was an unknown quantity. He could assure the hon. Member that these persons were not sweated. They were not in the permanent employment of the Government, and no definite estimate could be made of the probable cost. Whatever was spent would be properly audited, and the conditions of employment were the same as those which applied to any other Government service. He did not think that any economy would be effected by abolishing this office. During the last year some £3,000,000 had been spent in small sums.
  MR. MORTONsaid that for London the County Council mainly managed this loan business. He knew that the local authorities in London preferred to go to the London County Council, because they got the work done more cheaply and at a lower rate of interest than by going to the Commissioners. Unpaid gentlemen very often were worth only what they got.
  LORD TURNOURsaid he understood that there was an increment here of £50. It was most unfortunate that the Committee should treat this subject in a spirit of levity. When his hon. friend the Member for Liverpool was speaking just now he was very much surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman below the gangway say. "Good God, here's another of them."
  MR. LEHMANN: The remark I made was "Oh, Lord, here's another of thorn."
  LORD TURNOURsaid inadequate answers had been given by the hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury in regard to some of the money which had been voted. He thought this was a matter on which the Committee should get an answer.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,210, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
  MR. MORTONsaid the total expenditure on the House of Lords was £42,000. He had always thought that was a great deal too much considering the work they did. He should like to move to reduce the expenditure by one half. Of what service was the House of Lords to the country? Very high salaries were paid to officials who did very little work. If they were going to economise he should think this was one of the items on which they could make a great saving without loss to the country in any way whatever. It was all very well to put friends into sinecure offices in the House of Lords, but the country could not afford that sort of thing. He did not know whether anybody was going to defend the House of Lords, but he hoped hon. Members who had pledged themselves to economy would help him to effect this reduction. He moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £5,210, be granted for the said Service." —;(Mr. Morton.)
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that there were a number of clerks and messengers who were paid partly by the House of Lords and partly by the House of Commons. He contended that it was infra dig that these clerks, who had onerous and diffi-
  120
  cult duties to discharge, should be asked to serve under conditions which were almost offensive. They were paid by odds and ends, and the total amount they received was not set forth in a straightforward manner. Let the Committee take the case of the senior clerk in the Office of the Examiner of Standing Orders. In one place they were told that he received £950 a year, and footnotes here and there described additional fees which he received; but why should they not be told that that clerk got in all £1,200 a year.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he wished to ask, on a point of order, whether the hon. Member was not infringing the rule against frivolous repetitions by repeating again and again the same points of criticism?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that there had been a good deal of repetition during a portion of the afternoon and the evening, but if he had checked hon. Members for repetition it would have probably wasted more time than was incurred by the original offence.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had again to make the remark that in the case of the other officer he had referred to it was not shown in the Estimates the actual amount of money he was paid. He trusted the Financial Secretary would endeavour to arrange that they should not have this avalanche of footnotes to the Votes put into their hands. It should be plainly stated to the Committee in regard to each individual servant of the Crown what his salary was and it should not set out that he had so much salary and so many pickings here and there. If the Financial Secretary could meet him in this matter he was satisfied that he would expedite the business of the Committee and not expose the Department of which he was the representative to the attacks to which it was exposed by the Votes being presented in a cumbersome and unbusinesslike manner.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that a largo section of the Committee were not satisfied with the rate of progress that was being made with the Estimates, but he would point out that

  121
  there were eleven separate and distinct Votes set down for discussion, and that they were now on the ninth. He did not think that was bad work, and all the criticisms he had heard from the Opposition side of the House had been most reasonable from start to finish. He desired to amplify somewhat the remarks that had fallen from his hon. friend who had just sat down. He was quite certain that the Estimates, framed as they were, with those interminable footnotes and references to other Votes must be unintelligible to Members. He objected to the footnote to the Vote on page 75. The control of the Treasury over this Estimate was confined to items which did not relate to the personal remuneration of officers of the House of Lords. The general control was vested in a Select Committee of the House of Lords and this was appointed each session. In the face of that note one might almost ask what was the object of bringing this vote before the House of Commons at all. As far as he could see the Financial Secretary could not answer for that Select Committee, and so far as they knew there was no representative upon that Bench who was entitled or empowered to speak for that Select Committee. When the Financial Secretary came to reply he hoped he would throw some light upon this subject, and that he would not think that his remarks were prompted by any frivolous intentions. He knew that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who were in the last Parliament used to raise this question, and he was sure that anything they could do to make these Estimates more plain they ought to endeavour to do. The second item on page 76 dealt with the Sergeant-at arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor, and to it an asterisk was attached, and a foot-note appeared as follows—;
  "This officer also receives emoluments as a lieutenant-colonel on the retired list."
  He should like the Financial Secretary in his reply to let them know what was the object of that foot-note. Were they to understand that the emoluments which the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Lords received as a retired lieutenant-colonel, was to be taken as part of his salary for the duties he performed in the House of Lords, or were they to under-
  122
  stand that his salary for his duties in the House of Lords, of £1,000, was made specially low because he was at the same time receiving emoluments as retired pay? It must be one or the other of these two alternatives, otherwise the foot-note was superfluous; and if it was superfluous it ought not to be there. There was plenty of matter in the Votes without having superfluous foot-notes. Turning to page 78, hon. Members would find some items which were even more mystifying than those which had gone before. He came upon an item for the preparation of indices for the Select Committees, and others for the dusting of boxes in the library, which was charged at £60. He had not had the time to discover whether there was any item down for the payment of housemaids, but it was quite clear to him that the duty of dusting boxes in the House of Lords must necessarily fall upon the housemaids or the attendants of the Librarian. If that was the case the item of £60 was unnecessary. Two items lower down were also rather strange. One dealt with stamping and arranging Parliamentary documents, and was for £30. Was that £30 expended in manual labour or on purchasing the stamps? In reference to the whole of the Votes he submitted that the manner in which they were presented was complicated and archaic to a degree. Was it intended to give them an opportunity of discussing them in a sensible manner?
  MR. MCKENNArose to a point of order and submitted that the hon. Member was not in order in discussing the form of the Estimate.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not understand that the hon. Member was discussing the form. He understood that he was discussing the items.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Member was discussing the form.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it was not in order to criticise the form of the Estimates.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsubmitted that it was competent for him to point

  123
  out that the multiplication of the footnotes rendered it impossible for him to understand the Estimate.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Get on to the refreshment department. That is the next item.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG,on attempting to continue his remarks, was greeted with laughter and ironical cheers.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose to a point of order. He said it was impossible to hear what his hon. friend was saying owing to the constant interruptions from the other side of the House.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsubmitted that the Estimates were confusing owing to the multiplicity of the footnotes, and were so complicated as to be absolutely incomprehensible to hon. Members. He thought the Financial Secretary of the Treasury would be doing a great public service if he endeavoured to simplify the Estimates another year.
  LORD TURNOUR,who spoke amidst cries of "Divide," was understood to say he was much surprised at the hurry of hon. Gentlemen opposite to get through this Vote. They were voting a sum of £17,200, and having regard to the way in which hon. Members opposite had spoken of retrenchment during last year, it seemed to him particularly inappropriate that they should desire to hurry through this Vote. There were one or two items of great importance in it. There was, in particular, the item of £60 for dusting books in the library. The Committee could not be aware of the fact that there were already provided eleven housemaids for the House of Lords. Why was this item of £60 put down for dusting books in the library when there were already eleven housemaids, any one of whom could perform the work? Was the office of dusting books at £60 a year open to public competition, because if so he would like to be a candidate for the office. It seemed to him to be a very easy way of helping to earn one's living.
  124
  He appealed to the Committee not to pass the Vote without thought.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, "but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  LORD TURNOURsaid another question which he desired to ask had reference to the Admiralty assessors. Were the assessors referred to here the same as the assessors to whom they had been referring earlier in the evening? Then on page 79 of the Estimates there was an item of eleven housemaids for the House of Lords. He had no objection to the employment of those housemaids, but—;
  MR. J. WARD: On a point of order, is there no form of the House which we can employ to prevent such a farce as this continuing?
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.

  ALIENS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS (KINGSTON UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th April; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.