HC Deb 18 March 1908 vol 186 cc708-31

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Expenses of the Board of Education, including a Grant in Aid of the Imperial College of Science and Technology."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he wished to take the opportunity of asking the Postmaster-General what decision he had come to in reference to the matter of political associations in the Post Office. The matter had already been raised in the House of Commons, and it would be raised until some very definite principle was laid down which all postal servants must follow. Only a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman circulated with the Votes and Proceedings an Answer to a Question in which he stated that there were no regulations with regard to the organisation of political bodies by servants of the Post Office.

*MR. SPEAKER

The point which the hon. Member is seeking to raise should be raised on the salary of the Postmaster-General. That is not contained in this Vote.

SIR F. BANBURY

called attention to an item for the purchase of sites, and pointed out that while the original Estimate was £110,000 the revised estimate was £160,000, an increase of £50,000. The question of purchasing sites was not one which came up unexpectedly, and he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman why there had been such a large increase in the Estimate. He observed also that there was a Supplementary Estimate for £59,800 in connection with the telegraph service. Last year the hon. Member for Preston moved a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the telegraph and telephone services were run at a loss, and not managed in a businesslike manner. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Preston was right, for they had an increase of £59,000 which apparently had arisen from bad administration in working the telegraph and telephone services. And, therefore, he would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give him some details as to the reason why this increase had come about. Further, under Sub-head C, there was an amount to meet expenditure in consequence of the changes recommended by the Select Committee on Post Office servants being carried out. He would like to have some little explanation of that. He wanted to know what effect the increases given had had on the Post Office servants. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the expense under this head for last year came to £100,000, and he presumed that that was part of the Supplementary Estimate that was required. But the right hon. Gentleman had also said that the cost next year would be £500,000, and the year after, between £600,000 and £700,000, although he thought £700,000 would be nearer the mark than £600,000. He found in a newspaper called The Post, dated 22nd February, 1908, this remarkable statement— The year opened with the not unnatural anticipation that the Hobhouse Committee would recommend substantial improvements in the Postal Service. Our past efforts had obtained the long-desired Parliamentary Inquiry which we had fondly hoped would act as an impartial tribunal between us and those in command. We were, however, doomed to failure; instead of an Arbitration Board, we discovered a tribunal bent on resisting the claims put forward on behalf of the staff, and although certain members of the Committee appear to have done their best for the staff, the Departmental views have been given undue preference, and evidence is not wanting that the methods adopted were not above suspicion And then this article goes on to state— As soon as the recommendations of the Committee became known, it was thought advisable to call a special general meeting of members to give expression to the general disappointment and dissatisfaction. And further, the article stated that the meeting— Emphatically condemned the verdict of the Committee as being entirely against the weight of evidence, and obtained by methods that were considered very questionable. He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman thought of his Department telling him that he had obtained results by methods which were considered very questionable—results which would impose this year £100,000 on the overburdened taxpayers of the country, and next year and the year following, between £500,000 and £700,000? He did not object to this if the verdict had been properly given, because he knew that his friend the hon. Member for Hoxton had taken a very prominent part in the business, and if it had gone to satisfy the desire of the Post Office servants. But he wanted to know if they were going to vote £100,000 when the Post Office servants were not satisfied? There were other questions he would have liked to have raised, but the hour being late he would only refer to another point in this paper, The Post. The writer went on to say— The ambiguity of the language in the Report made it necessary to lay down the proper interpretation thereof, and the Postmaster-General invited representatives of the Association to discuss these interpretations with himself or the Secretariat. Here again further disappointment was experienced, for instead of discussing what the interpretation should be, the representatives had to listen to what the Departmental interpretation was, without the slightest prospect of altering it. We have no hesitation in saying that the whole business is entirely unsatisfactory from beginning to end, and the reason appears to be that the Government is bent on saving money in every possible way. He did not agree with that part of the article. He did not believe that the Government were saving any money except in the case of the Army and Navy. He hoped the Postmaster-General would give a satisfactory account of what he had done himself and would give the House an assurance that this large sum which would be taken by the Post Office servants would satisfy their claims and that they would not ask for more.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

said that the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet for the consistent vigilance he displayed in looking after the expenditure of large sums of money which had been voted by the House. The hon. Baronet had pointed out that this Vote involved the expenditure of £100,000 on additions to the pay of Post Office servants and that that would further involve in a short time the expenditure of a still greater sum. Yet under these circumstances, his contention was that the Government had given no satisfaction whatever to their Post Office employees. The hon. Baronet had, by quotation from their newspaper, shown the views of the servants of the Post Office and why they were not satisfied with the conditions of their pay, but hon. Members who were ready to rush and vote without discrimination any amount of money were now inattentive. He wished that the vigil- ance of the hon. Baronet were more emulated by hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches. He could not help thinking that so large a sum of money as this might grow to a very much larger extent in time and ought not to be voted without some fuller and more careful explanation than had yet been given to them by the Postmaster-General. They ought to know whether these feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment among the employees of the Post Office, which had found such eloquent exposition in the magazine which had been referred to, and also been expressed by his hon. friend to some extent, would lead to very large amounts being demanded by these dissatisfied employees.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

The hon. Baronet has asked me two specific questions, and I apologise for not being in my place earlier in the evening when he was speaking. The hon. Baronet asked me why we did not anticipate spending £70,000 upon the Birmingham Post Office site this year. The reason is that when we investigated the matter, we found that we were able to complete our negotiations rather sooner than we thought, and we were able to put ourselves two months in advance. That is the explanation of the Vote appearing this year, and not next. As to the telegraph service I can disabuse his mind of the idea that there is any increased ordinary expenditure. If he will look at the Supplementary Estimate he will see that these additions which will fall on the past year are in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee. Therefore any increase of expenditure on the telegraph service has nothing to do with the matter, and it has only reference to the recommendations of the Committee in some cases in regard to increased wages, and in other cases due to improved position. The hon. Baronet will be glad to know in reference to the point he raised as to the necessity of distinguishing between the telegraphic and telephonic services that I can assure him that we have already put our Estimates on the very basis he indicated. We have initiated method of distinguishing between he telephone and telegraph services so; hat those interested will find an absolute distinction between the two. I will have a Return made as to the form of Estimate which will show that distinction. I shall be glad of any criticism on the Estimates both in the past and in the future, but in the future we shall have an absolute distinction between telephonic service and telegraphic service. The telegraphic system is a losing one, unfortunately, but the telephonic service is a paying one, and we want to keep it on a paying basis. In reply to the hon. Member I would say that I have already explained at considerable length the amounts which we were voting upon the Supplementary Estimates, and I need not go all over it again. It would be only a repetition of my speech. I explained what the Parliamentary Committee had recommended, and I explained the amount which had been spent. I cannot accept the views which have been read from a service organ and I deny the statements made there. I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Committee of this House did their very best in a very difficult position, and gave an impartial and unprejudiced judgment on the case. As far as I am concerned, I have fully accepted and endorsed the findings of that Committee and endeavoured to put them into force as far as possible, and I think we shall all agree in voting the amount which we have divided among a very zealous and very efficient branch of the public service.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

MR. BARRIE () Londonderry, N.

said that before the Vote passed he wished to ask some questions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They were informed that the Constabulary Force had been increased in the last six months by something like 800 members. They were also aware that the expense of each addition to the force was about £100 per annum. He would, therefore, ask how many extra constables were represented by the amount which they were now asked to vote. It appeared to him that the amount asked for to carry on up to 31st March was insufficient, and he would have expected the sum to be nearer £20,000 than £5,000. Would the Chief Secretary tell them what were the numbers of police in respect of which this Vote was asked for, and whether the sum was adequate? He, personally, had no objection to offer if it was. This however, was the fourth Supplementary Estimate which they had been asked to vote within the last fortnight, and that was a very serious state of affairs. He would be slow to suggest that the sum asked for was not asked for in good faith, but on the information before them it appeared to him that it was hardly sufficient to cover the necessary expense.

MR. BIRRELL

I can assure the hon. Member that the Supplementary Estimate is perfectly accurate, and that it covers all the services detailed. This is a substantial advance, as we ask for an increase of £2,000. The original Estimate, as the Paper shows, was £18,500, and now the revised Estimate is £20,500. In 1906–07, the grant was £19,000, and the expenditure only £17,311. In 1905–06, the original Estimate was £18,000, and the expenditure only £17,867. In the year 1904–05,. the original Estimate was £20,000, and the actual expenditure £16,724, so that there has been a considerable saving in the past, but now I am sorry to say that there is a considerable increase, the Estimate being £18,500, and the expenditure £20,500. It does not bear any definite ratio to the number of the force. It depends on the extent and nature of the duties involving the absence of these men from their stations, and the circumstances under which they were employed. The hon. Member will see that although it is quite true the number of the force has been obliged to be increased this has no ratio to that.

MR. BARBIE

said he understood the Vote now under consideration was not the subsistence Vote.

MR. BIRRELL

The Vote is for an extra amount required in order to provide the subsistence money and travelling expenses. What I was pointing out was that this allowance does not depend on the number of men, but upon the number of times that a certain number of the men might be required to undertake extra duties away from their stations. Therefore, it is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that because the numbers of the force have been increased the subsistence amount should be larger.

SIE F. BANBURY

said the right hon. Gentleman had made the situation 'absolutely clear. This Vote was not required in consequence of the increase in the force, but because when men were moved from their barracks they had to be paid their travelling expenses and subsistence money in the places to which they had been moved. That meant that there was great disorder in Ireland, which caused these men to be moved from place to place. To make the matter quite clear the right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that in previous years the subsistence allowance was much smaller than at present. It was much smaller because in other years the police having been appointed to a barrack remained there and did their duty there. There were no outrages at the houses of peers or anybody else, no firing into houses or outrages of that kind, and the police did not require to be moved. The right hon. Gentleman had made an admission that he could not get out of, and he had to come down and ask for this increase of £5,000 because of the disturbed condition of the country. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry for having elicited this important statement. The only doubt in his mind was whether the House ought not to oppose this grant on the ground that it was not sufficient and if his hon. friend would tell with him he would be pleased to divide the House.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether the increase under this Vote was not 10 per cent. or more. The Chief Secretary in reply to his hon. friend the Member for Londonderry had not given any indication as to whether this Supplementary Estimate would not occur in future years if he and his colleagues remained responsible for the government of Ireland. When they saw an increase of 10 per cent. in a Vote surely they should have some statement from the Member in charge as to whether it would be recurrent. If what appeared in the Press was correct it looked as if this Vote in the future would be increased by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., because it must be remembered that when men were removed from their ordinary abode they were subjected to great discomfort and living was made more difficult for them. Therefore it was only due to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them whether this Vote would be increased in future.

MR. BIRRELL

I am not a prophet, but in this case I venture to prophesy that when I leave my office the Vote will increase.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

expressed the hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for London would not divide the House on this Vote. At the same time it seemed to him a curious thing that while they were told Ireland was in a peaceful condition the House should be asked to sanction this very large additional Vote. Eight hundred and two more men had been enrolled, and he thought it was absolutely necessary that this amount should be voted. The right hon. Gentleman was now finding it necessary, at all events, largely and properly to increase the number of police. If he would only give the police the thought that they had behind them a Government prepared to support them and back them up in doing their duty, they would vote this money even more readily. The Government was constantly reiterating that Ireland was in a peaceful condition, and yet they asked them for a largely increased expenditure on police. He hoped his hon. friend would not insist upon dividing the House. He hoped he would accept the assurance of the Ulster Members that there was not a single member of the Force who was not absolutely required to maintain law and order in Ireland. Although the disturbances were hushed up by the Government, they knew the real need for these men, and to do them justice, they had engaged a large extra force.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON () Oxford University

The Vote which accompanies this Supplementary Estimate is somewhat puzzling, the object for which the money is to be voted is a new one. I am glad to see that this Imperial College has at last taken a permanent position, and I am sure everyone who is interested in the technological education of the country will heartily wish it success. I should like, however, to have some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how this particular sum of £6,000 is arrived at. I have no doubt it can be given, but it is not supplied in the Vote added to the Supplementary Estimate. As I understand the matter, the Government are proposing to grant £20,000 a year to this Royal College of Science and Technology, and that £20,000 is to include the money hitherto paid to the Royal College of Science and School of Mines. One must, therefore, look to the Estimates of last year and the Estimates of this year to see what is appropriated to the Royal College of Science and School of Mines to ascertain how this £6,000 is arrived at. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain this: In the Estimate for last year there was £15,762 for salaries and expenses; £1,225 for exhibitions and scholarships; £3,750 for the laboratory; £900 for heating; £1,800 for collections; and £150 for furniture, the whole amounting to £26,587. If the College of Science and the School of Mines required £26,587 last year, and if the Royal College of Science and Technology is to receive £20,000 a year from the Government, I do not understand how it is there is still £6,000 due to this institution. Why, having received £26,000, are you asking for more? Then there is an estimate this year for the Royal College of Science of £18,551, sot down as a charge which will no longer be made. There are still in the Estimates for the year charges for studentships, heating, collections, and lighting. If these charges continue, what is this charge of £18,000 odd which is set aside as being no longer due to the Royal College of Science? If that is to be subtracted from the £20,000 which the Government pay to the Royal College, how is it that £6,000 is due still on this financial year? I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary these questions: why, having had so much during the present financial year, are you asking for £6,000 more? Supposing you get this £6,000, how do you explain the difference between £26,000 odd, the charge last year, and £18,000 odd which you say will not be charged this year? Lastly, why is this sum to be withdrawn from the 'cognizance of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? I do not understand the position. Here is money granted by Parliament for a definite purpose. Surely the Comptroller-General has first of all to consider whether the money is properly appropriated to that purpose, and next, whether it has been properly applied. What on earth is the reason why this particular sum has been withdrawn from the cognizance of the Comptroller-General on whom we rely for securing that the money vote is applied to the purpose for which we vote it? I have no doubt that there is an explanation of these complications which have bewildered my unmathematical mind, but I venture to think they would be found perplexing to anyone who pays attention to the grants made by the Government to science in its various departments. I do not grudge a single penny which the Government is prepared to spend on this Royal College. I believe the money will be well spent and that the institution is one from which good will result. It is in no grudging spirit that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how he gets at this £6,000.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.

The hon. Baronet is not unreasonable in asking for an explanation. I am sorry he does not find the note at the foot of the Estimate quite full enough to satisfy him, but I will be glad to give him what he wants. The arrangement is that a grant had to be paid to this new college of £20,000 a year, and I may here dispose of one difficulty that was raised at the end of the hon. Member's remarks. This £20,000 will appear in the Estimates of the Board of Education, so that it will not be withdrawn from the cognisance of the high authorities to whom he alluded, and there will still be an opportunity of raising any questions connected with it in Parliament. Now I come to this particular grant-in-aid for this year. The hon. Member quite rightly asked how the amount was made up. It is made up in this way. The Treasury directed that from the day, which was 8th July, 1907, when the Royal College was incorporated, a grant in proportion to the £20,000 a year should be allocated to the Royal College, and that sum came to something like £14,000. But on 8th July the Royal College was not in a position to take up the actual administration of those moneys, and so it asked the Board of Education to go on with the expenditure provided in the Estimates until 31st December. Therefore the grant of £14,000 which it should receive was reduced by £8,000, which was expended by the Board on behalf of the College, thus leaving this amount of £6,000 which is the present grant-in-aid. If the explanation is clear the hon. Member will see that one of his difficult Questions is rather easy to answer. He says: "Why, when this amount was provided in the Estimates last year do you want £6,000 extra? We do not want £6,000 extra. The proportion of our Estimates for three months from 1st January to 31st March, this year will not be paid over. There will be an appropriation-in-aid of £5,000 set off against the grant-in-aid which we ask for now. That, I think, makes one difficulty that has occurred to the mind of my hon. friend disappear. The hon. Gentleman then asked why some part of the Estimate which appeared before for the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines will still appear on the Estimates next year. There are certain expenses which we cannot escape, although there will be a reduction of £18,000 or £19,000 approximately. For instance, we have not only to pay £20,000 to the new College, but also fees for students, which will come to a few thousands a year more. All this was part of the bargain, for which I think the hon. Member himself was responsible with the Royal College of Science, and that explains why there will be a certain amount of money in our Estimates still for this purpose on the one hand, and why we ask for £6,000 for this year on the other hand, and why it is not quite an additional expenditure, because there will be an appropriation-in-aid against it. I hope I have answered now the various questions that the hon. Member has put, and that the House will let the Resolution be taken.

*SIR HENRY CRAIK () Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities

said he hoped the House had found a clear understanding of the position from the words of the hon. Member, but he was afraid that with considerable experience of the Estimates he could not say that that was the case in his own mind. He had known Estimates for a good while, but he was bound to say that he had never seen a more obscure note than that appended to this Estimate. He was accustomed, perhaps, in other days not always to give quite as clear an explanation of the Votes of the Estimates he had prepared as he ought to have done, but anything more obscure than this he had never seen. The note said— The Imperial College of Science and Technology was incorporated by Charter of 8th July, 1907, but the administration of the Royal College of Science and School of Mines was left to the Board of Education until 31st December, 1907. That meant, put in plain language, that from 8th July a new body was established to carry on the Imperial College but that the two other colleges, which were to be absorbed in the larger Imperial College were to be carried on by the Board of Education to the end of last year, after which the new body was to assume financial responsibility. As against this expenditure by the Board of Education there was to be set off a proportion of the grant-in-aid which was fixed, he understood at the time the charter was drawn up—a grant-in-aid of £20,000. But no part of that grant-in-aid was ever voted till they were now asked to vote a portion of it to the amount of £6,000. They had no right to spend that £20,000 out of the Vote obtained last session. How much did they defray? They deducted from the Estimates for this year £18,550 which was hereafter to be saved and to be replaced by the £20,000 which was in future to be given. But they asked for £6,000 to defray the expenses of three months, from 1st January to 31st March, 1908. If three months required £6,000, how were they to carry on a much bigger, and a growing institution for twelve months for £20,000, which was all that was to be given. According to his best arithmetic the grant ought to be, not £20,000, but four times £6,000—£24,000. That was a very simple rule of arithmetic. Surely the hon. Gentleman would explain why it was necessary to ask for £6,000 for the last three months of the financial year when they were going to give to the new governors who would now be responsible for carrying on the work, only £20,000 for twelve months. That was a question which surely the hon. Member would answer. Next, with regard to the question of control. The hon. Gentleman very airily passed it over by saying the money would be in the Vote for the Board of Education, and, therefore, would not be withdrawn from the knowledge of the House. They all knew that, but the House had decided by Act of Parliament that it could not properly carry out the functions of control without the help of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The mere fact of an item appearing in the Vote so that it might be talked of at twelve or one o'clock in the morning was so inadequate a check upon the expenditure of money that they had established an officer—the Comptroller and Auditor-General—to make that examination. But they were expressly told that this special Vote would not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He could quite understand why they should prevent this money, which would go to so good a purpose as the Technical College being surrendered at the close of the financial year—why they should allow them to carry on any sum which they might save to the next year. That was quite legitimate, but it by no means followed that they ought to withdraw this sum, which they were paying to a body which would not be represented in that House, from the investigation and control of the officer appointed for the purpose. They were asked on a former occasion to vote £100,000 for the purposes of the Small Holding Act, but although it was expressly laid down that the money saved from one year should not be surrendered at the end of the year, it was also stipulated that the expenditure of £100,000 should be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

MR. LOUGH

But that is not a parallel case.

*SIR HENRY CRAIK

But it ought to be. The note at the top of the page told them that the Vote would be accounted for by the Board of Education, whilst the note at the foot of the page said it would not be accounted for by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. They were practically repealing the Act of Parliament by having an arbitrary note of that kind which was directly opposed to the provisions of the Statute appointing the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose services they were dispensing with by this note. He did not understand how £6,000 represented one quarter of the £20,000 they were about to devote to the Technical College, and the explanation given by the hon. Member did not in any way justify the suspension of the ordinary rule provided by the Statute he had referred to.

MR. LANE-FOX () Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash

said the explanation which had been given by the hon. Member was anything but satisfactory. The first impression given to the House was that this was' an extra sum acquired for some particular purpose, but his hon. friend the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities had shown that it was simply an unexpended balance. Where was that money going to? Was it going to be spent in some other way than that for which it was originally voted? They had been told that the £20,000 would come under the Education. Vote, but he hoped the hon. Member would make that point more clear, and reply to the questions which had been put to him by his hon. friend. Why was £6,000 required to maintain this college for three months and £20,000 for twelve months? This seemed to him to be a very slovenly state of finance and one in regard to which they had a perfect right to demand some further explanation.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he had listened carefully to the questions which had been put by his hon. friends, and what had been said by the hon. Member representing the Government was in no sense a reply to the arguments which had been put forward. The hon. Member for the Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities had clearly shown that this Vote was open to some very grave objection. First of all there was the question of the audit. It was a very serious matter to ask the House of Commons to vote a sum of money in regard to the expenditure of which it would afterwards retain no control whatever. To vote money without any subsequent control over its expenditure was contrary to the practice and the traditions of the House. He well remembered, in years gone by, the hon. Member now representing the Government was very active indeed in criticising Estimates, and insisting upon a careful audit of all public expenditure. It was not a mere matter of £6,000 which was involved but a matter of principle, for they had to decide whether they were to give a Government Department power to get hold of money in order to tuck it away out of public sight, the House of Commons having no control over it thereafter. They knew how perfunctory the control of Parliament was becoming in regard to Estimates generally. The hon. Member had stated that this item would appear on the Estimates year by year, but what check would that give to the House over its expenditure? When the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities was putting forward his case the hon. Member representing the Board of Education did not even trouble to listen to him, for he was busy talking to another hon. Member at the time. That was the measure of Parliamentary control which Ministers were obliged to give to the House of Commons. What was being done was a scandal. If the public knew the way the Estimates were forced through Parliament by the support of a docile majority, they would make short shrift with the Ministry.

*MR. CARLILE

said he wished to enter a protest against the indifferent manner in which Questions addressed to the Government by hon. Members on that side of the House had been received by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. This was the second time within the last few days he had felt it his duty to draw attention to the absence of the Minister for Education when the Education Vote had been under discussion. He defied anyone to understand the note to which reference had been made. Hon. Members on that side of the House recognised the value of technological instruction, and they hoped the time might come when it would be really adequately supported. There never was a time when it was more necessary than at present that our colleges and schools should be properly equipped for the giving of technological instruction. It was little less than a slight upon the House that the Minister for Education should fail to attend in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing with him the various questions on which they required enlightment. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote had said £6,000 had been withdrawn from the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Why had that been done?

MR. LOUGH

was understood to say that the grant-in-aid itself had not been withdrawn from the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but the details which hon. Members were pressing for.

SIR F. BANBURY

protested against the President of the Board of Education not being in his place when this Vote was being discussed. What was the use of the Comptroller and Auditor-General unless he saw the details? In order that an audit might be effective it was necessary that the Auditor should know how money was spent. If the Comptroller and Auditor-General did not get the details showing how the £6,000 had been spent, the control of the House of Commons over finance was more of a shadow than it had ever been before. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was a great purist in finance when in Opposition, and he would have protested against the slightest deviation from rule. Now he was the poacher become gamekeeper.

MR. BRIDGEMAN () Shropshire, Oswestry

did not see how the House could be expected to agree to this Vote when the Minister in charge refused to give any reason why the £6,000 was withdrawn from the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD () Liverpool, West Derby

said he did not join in the protest made by hon. Members against the absence of the Minister for Education. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's able representative would be able to deal with any question which arose in relation to the Vote. They

were entitled to ask a few particulars. This sum was supposed to represent a proportion from 8th July, 1907, till 31st March, 1908, of the sum of £20,000. A very elementary knowledge of arithmetic would at once show that the proportion was—

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

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 23. (Division List, No. 47.)

AYES.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Edwards, Enoch (Hartley) Middlebrook, William
Ainsworth, John Stirling Elibank, Master of Mond, A.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Erskine, David C. Montagu, E. S.
Armitage, R. Essex, R. W. Montgomery, H. G.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Everett, R. Lacey Morgan, C. Hay (Cornwall)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Fenwick, Charles Morrell, Philip
Barnes, G. N. Ferens, T. R. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Barran, Rowland Hirst Findlay, Alexander Murray, James
Beale, W. P. Fuller, John Michael F. Nicholls, George
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Fullerton, Hugh Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Beck, A. Cecil Gill, A. H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Bennett, E. N. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Nussey, Thomas Willans
Black, Arthur W. Glover, Thomas Nuttall, Harry
Bowerman, C. W. Gulland, John W. Parker, James (Halifax)
Bramsdon, T. A. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Pearce, Robert (Staff's, Leek)
Brigg, John Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Pirie, Duncan V.
Bright, J. A. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Pollard, Dr.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Haworth, Arthur A. Price, C E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) Hazel, Dr. A. E. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Helms, Norval Watson Radford, G. H.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Kuight Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Raphael, Herbert H.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Higham, John Sharp Rendall, Athelstan
Cleland, J. W. Holland, Sir William Henry Richards, I. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Clough, William Holt, Richard Dinning Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hudson, Walter Robinson, S.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Jardine, Sir J. Roe, Sir Thomas
Cooper, G. J. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rowlands, J.
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Runciman, Walter
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kelley, George D. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Cory, Sir Clifford John Kincaid-Smith, Captain Seaverns, J. H.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Seddon, J.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Laidlaw, Robert Seely, Colonel
Crean, Eugene Lambert, Robert Shackleton, David James
Crosfield, A. H. Lewis, John Herbert Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Crossley, William J. Lough, Thomas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co Lyell, Charles Henry Silcock, Thomas Ball
Davies Ellis William (Eifion) M'Callum, John M. Simon, John Allsebrook
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) M'Crae, George Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) M'Micking, Major G. Soares, Ernest J.
Duckworth, James Maddison, Frederick Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Marnham, F. J. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Micklem, Nathaniel Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Summerbell, T. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Waterlow, D. S. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Sir George (Norfolk) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoushton)
Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Winfrey, R.
Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E Whitehead, Rowland
Tomkinson, James Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Toulmin, George Williamson, A.
Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
NOES.
Anson, Sir Hilliam Reynell Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Morpeth, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord Craik, Sir Henry Rutherford, H. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Gretton, John Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hamilton, Marquess of Winterton, Earl
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Cave, George Hay, Hon. Claude George TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hunt, Rowland
Clive, Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 22. (Division List, No. 48.)

AYES.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) M'Micking, Major G.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Maddison, Frederick
Armitage, R. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Elibank, Matser of Marnham, F. J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Erskine, David C. Micklem, Nathaniel
Barnes, G. N. Essex, R. W. Middlebrook, William
Barran, Rowland Hirst Everett, R. Lacey Mond, A.
Beale, W. P. Fenwick, Charles Montagu, E. S.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Ferens, T. R. Montgomery, H. G.
Beck, A. Cecil Findlay, Alexander Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Bennett, E. N. Fuller, John Michael F. Morrell, Philip
Black, Arthur W. Fullerton, Hugh Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bowerman, C. W. Gill, A. H. Murray, James
Bramsdon, T. A. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Nicholls, George
Brigg, John Glover, Thomas Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)
Bright, J. A. Gulland, John W. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Brocklehurst, W. B. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E Nuttall, Harry
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Parker, James (Halifax)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Haworth, Arthur A Pearce, Robert (Staff's, Leek)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Pirie, Duncan V.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Helme, Norval Watson Pollard, Dr.
Cleland, J. W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Clough, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Higham, John Sharp Radford, G. H.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Holland, Sir William Henry Raphael, Herbert H.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Holt, Richard Durning Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Cooper, G. J. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rendall, Athelstan
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Hudson, Walter Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jardine, Sir J. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Johnson, John (Gateshead) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Robinson, S.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Kelley, George D. Roe, Sir Thomas
Crean, Eugene Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rowlands, J.
Crosfield, A. H. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Runciman, Walter
Crossley, William J. Laidlaw, Robert Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Lambert, George Seaverns, J. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lewis, John Herbert Seddon, J.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lough, Thomas Seely, Colonel
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lyell, Charles Henry Shackleton, David James
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) M'Callum, John M. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Duckworth, James M'Crae, George Shipman, Dr. John G
Silcock, Thomas Ball Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Simon, John Allsebrook Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Williamson, A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Tomkinson, James Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Soares, Ernest J. Toulmin, George Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Winfrey, R.
Straus, E. S. (Mile End) Waterlow, D. S. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Summerbell, T. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, Luke (York, E. R.) m
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Whitehead, Rowland
NOES.
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Valentia, Viscount
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry. W.) Gretton, John Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hamilton, Marquess of Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Winterton, Earl
Cave, George Hay, Hon. Claude George
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hunt, Rowland TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Frederick Banbury and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Clive, Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Morpeth, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

First Resolution agreed to.