§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £320, 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, 1910, for the salaries and expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
Or course, if the whole of these items of increase, being £1,000 in the Department of Mr. Speaker, and the other items mentioned, less the appropriations in aid, are simply in consequence of the Session being so long last year over the period which was originally estimated for, then I presume I shall not be in order in referring to the accommodation which is given to Members of Parliament in this building. I take it that comes entirely within the purview of these Votes. These additional sums, of course, include some of the items. I desire to submit the matter to your ruling, because I do not wish in any way to refer to it if you should at the outset consider that in doing so I should be out of order.
§ The CHAIRMAN
There is certainly nothing in the Supplementary Vote and nothing in the original Vote dealing with this question. It would come up on another Vote, and not on this at all.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
If I understand these items, which are five in number, they are simply on the same scale without increasing any salaries weekly or monthly and are in consequence of the prolonged Session last year. If that is so, then, of course, I do not think there is anything to be said about them as long as we can be assured or informed that they were simply made up in that way. Of course, we passed the Estimates on the basis of the House sitting a certain period. If it simply sat for so many more days than even the Government anticipated 685 it would sit and this is the exact proportion of the increase, then, of course, there is nothing more to be said; but we should like to know whether that is the explanation.
I am not responsible for these items, which come under my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse), who will be here in a moment prepared, no doubt, to answer, but I have a sufficient acquaitance with the facts to say that I believe the whole of this excess is due to the very prolonged sitting last year. The Estimates for the House of Commons offices are prepared in December and presented in March, and it was quite impossible at either of those dates last year to imagine for a moment that the House of Commons would sit practically up to Christmas. The Estimates, therefore, were framed upon the normal scale of an ordinary although perhaps a rather prolonged sitting. Although I have no right to speak with authority, I have no reason to believe that any of the excess is due to anything but the prolongation of our sittings up to December last.
There is one question I should like to ask, and that is how this increase of £455 additional grant to the refreshment department arises? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not his experience that in nearly all catering concerns the longer the particular area of contribution is kept open the better pleased those are who have to charge their customers. I think it will be within the memory of every Member who sat in the last Parliament that we all paid for our meals and got them, no matter what the hours were, and I presume the charges were framed to cover the cost of the dinner, supper, or whatever meal you like to call that which we got in the early hours of the morning. I think there should be some explanation given to us as to how it is that under the circumstances it is necessary to give actually an increased grant over and above the very expensive grant already made towards this purpose. I am very sorry the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, to whom I presume we should address our remarks, is not here. Items are very easily put down, but surely, when Estimates come on for extra expense, it is the duty of the Government to see that the proper Minister is there to explain them to the House. The right hon. Gentleman confesses he is 686 not acquainted with the Vote, and we would respectfully ask him who he is, and who is going to answer these questions? They may be small, but the duty of the Opposition is to inquire into these things, and see there is nothing wasteful. I therefore move to reduce this vote by £100 as a protest against the action of the Government on the first day when Supplementary Estimates are taken in not having the proper Minister present to answer questions.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I will put the reduction if the hon Member wishes but the Minister is now here. Under the circumstances I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to press it.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. C. E. H. Hobhouse)
The hon. Member moved without giving me an opportunity of answering or commenting upon the eloquence with which he has favoured the House for the last ten minutes.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I shall be very happy to substitute four. The question he has asked is a very simple one to which there is a perfectly simple and brief answer. The increased provision made by the Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of catering for this House during the long and last Session of the last Parliament was due to the representations which were made to me by the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee who succeeded Sir Alfred Jacoby, whose loss, I think, both sides of the House will deplore. When that Gentleman unfortunately died, his successor came to me and represented that the natural waste which takes place in every Department was greatly and unduly enhanced by the long Session, and he asked me to make a supplementary grant to that Department in order to meet the extra wastage, and I complied with his request. If the hon. Gentleman desires further information, I am afraid he must inquire of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whose absence to-night I deplore. I was quite content—indeed I was bound, as indeed anyone standing in my place would be, to accept the word of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that these expenses had been incurred, that 687 they were inevitable, and that they were reasonably accounted for by the length of the Session, it is only for that reason that the Supplementary Estimate appears upon the Paper.
§ Mr. BYLES
I notice under Sub-Section B, the Department of Mr. Speaker, there is an additional sum required. The other day I came across an interesting newspaper paragraph, which enumerated several quaint privileges attaching to the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. I am seeking information whether any of these are included in the Vote on Account. Obviously some cannot be, such, for instance, as the fat buck and plump doe received by him annually from the Royal preserves. It also appears that Mr. Speaker is entitled to £1,000 equipment money and 2,000 ounces of plate immediately on his election, as well as two hogsheads of claret and £100 a year for stationery.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This Vote is explained on page 6, and, as far as I can see, there is only a question of increased charge due to the length of last Session on which a discussion can be raised.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
On looking at the explanation of the items on page 6 we find the extra cost of Official Reporting accounts for £1,000. We can quite understand that item. Not only was the Session unduly prolonged, but there were also a very large number of exceedingly late sittings, and, undoubtedly, a considerable amount of extra reporting was involved. That is fairly in proportion to the original estimate of £12, 763. But on the next item we find, for the delivery of votes and Parliamentary Papers an addition of £170, a sum which would seem to be on an altogether different scale of proportion to the other item. Then there is an item of £300 under Sub-head F. We have not been told whether that is simply an additional expense caused by the establishment of the Admission Order Office; if it is, perhaps I may be allowed, as a Member of this House of seven or eight years' standing, to say how very satisfactory it is, how great a convenience the Admission Order Office has proved, and what immense relief it has afforded to a 688 large number of Members who, under other circumstances, would have been obliged, at great personal inconvenience, to attend to the requirements of visitors. If the establishment of the office has only cost £300, I think we may say that it is a very moderate outlay for a convenience which we all very much appreciate.
The next item is a sum of £455, an additional grant for the Refreshment Department. Is it solely confined to that, or does it include other items?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
There are one or two things some of us would like to have said with regard to the Refreshment Department. We do not consider it altogether satisfactory, chiefly from the point of view of the food which, owing to the absence of any opportunity for going elsewhere, we are forced to eat in this place. If it were in order I would say more, but I will not continue this if I am out of order. I should, however, like to refer to our view that the waiters should be better paid. I do not agree with the amount of wages they receive. I think that the system of tipping in these rooms should be abolished, and the waiters should receive a fair and proper wage for their services.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I am inclined to think so, and therefore I guarded myself by saying I did not wish to be out of order. I will not pursue that point now, but I will raise it on next year's Estimates. I think the convenience of Members is a matter which ought to be studied in every respect. The last item is a sum of £144 to the police. One thing strikes me in looking at these Estimates, and that is, that of those who have been called upon to do extra work, the messengers and the police have got next to nothing. The messengers have only got £170 for the delivery of votes and Parliamentary Papers, while the police get only £144 more for all the extra hours they stopped here at night and all the extra days on which they worked. It certainly does seem as if the poorer people get nothing like a proportionate sum to that paid to other classes of officials. We have had no explanation as to how much overtime 689 was worked by the police, but certainly the amount would lead one to think that the sum paid for it was very small indeed. I think we ought to have a little more explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him just now how that item of £455 was made up, and he says he is going to answer me directly, but he also indicated by a nod of his head, at all events, that the additional money for the refreshment Department did not account for the whole of that sum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, before we pass this Vote, will tell us what it does account for, because a number of my friends, as well as myself, want to know about these items. I think when we get a number of items of this sort all lumped together, with a more or less ambiguous statement as to what they are about and with a sort of intimation that the whole truth is not disclosed by the explanation supposed to be given, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some reasonable idea of what the whole of the items are so that we can deal with them. I should be glad if my hon. Friend behind me would move the reduction of this Vote, because I think it is one that ought to be investigated, but I hope the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman will be so full and the figures he will give will be so satisfactory that we may be spared that trouble. I can assure him, however, that if there is any difficulty about it we shall have a vote upon the question.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
I quite agree with the great value for the convenience of Members of this House of the Admission Office, but I think that its usefulness can be still further enhanced if the right hon. Gentleman will take some steps to have the fact of the Admission Office being in existence notified to the public at large, because I have reason to believe that a great many of the outside public are unaware that such an office exists. The consequence is that a great many Members get applications for admission to this House, which are really quite unnecessary, if the applicants themselves knew that there was this Admission Office to which they could go. I hope for the convenience of the House the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to have it further advertised.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I cordially agree with the statement which has just been made, and I should like to go a little further and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not extend the powers of the 690 Admission Office. At the present moment a large number of the public evidently do not know of the existence of this office, and they are still under the impression that in order to obtain admission to the Gallery they must write to a Member or go to a Member. On one occasion when I pointed out to a gentleman who called me out that there was an Admission Office I could see that he still thought that I could obtain the order, and that I was desirous of putting him off on to the office instead of getting it myself. I think in view of the great desire there is on the part of the public to go into the Gallery, and the great difficulty which arises on the part of Members getting orders, that the right hon. Gentleman should take steps to make the public understand what the object of the Admission Office is, so that they could go there and not go to Members, to be informed that it is impossible for them to gratify their desires. I do not know whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make any alteration in that direction, but I beleve if he could, a vast number of Members would be pleased at such an alteration. At the present moment all that a member of the public can do is to obtain an order from that office if the House is sitting, but would it not be possible to arrange that a member of the public could go to the office and ask for an order three or four days in advance? This would save Members of this House an infinite amount of trouble.
Those who have their constituencies near this House receive many letters which they are bound to answer, and this takes up the time which ought to be spent in this House. [Laughter.] I am surprised that that remark should be received with laughter by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, because I always thought they held that it was the duty of Members to be in the House, and it was only the old-fashioned Tory party who went away to enjoy themselves. As an old-fashioned Tory, however, I wish to be present in this House as much as possible, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the suggestion I have made, which I am sure will be for the convenience not only of the public, but of Members. I want to ask another question about a sum of £300. I see that every item in this list has a footnote, which says that the additional expenditure has been caused by increased charges owing to the long Session, except this one particular item. It is therefore evident that this particular item of £300 has not been 691 caused by increased charge owing to the prolonged Session, and I should like to know by what it has been caused. Is it due to bad estimating of the Department in question, or is it found that the work is greater than was expected?
I should like also to say one or two words upon the whole Vote, because we unfortunately on this side of the House do not regard a prolonged Session with anything like favour, and now we come down and find that as taxpayers we have to put our hands in our pockets for a long Session which we did not want. That is a very serious thing, and I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear that in mind as they are now entering upon a fresh lease of power, although that power will not be extended indefinitely or renewed from time to time as Treasury Bonds are. But in the interests of the taxpayers and of the Members we do not want any more prolonged Sessions, and if the right hon. Gentlemen will accede to my two requests and give more power to the Admission Order Office and have no more prolonged Sessions, then I think he will earn the gratitude not only of Members on this side of the House sitting behind me, but of Members on the opposite side.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
What is meant by an Appropriation in Aid, and what is the reason for the increase in them? The second point I should like to put is on what principle this increase was given to the Refreshment Department? Was it on the same principle that grants are given to make up a deficit? That is a principle I object to altogether, because it means that there is indirectly payment of Members, owing to food being supplied below cost price. I object to an additional grant being given for that purpose, and to the extension of a thoroughly vicious system. Was the grant proportionate to the extra time of the Session, or was it to make up the actual loss and deficiency that occurred? No doubt it was asked for by the head of the Kitchen Committee, but it does not follow that the Treasury ought to have granted it.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) raised a question with regard to the Admission Office and the general rules which govern the admission of strangers. The hon. Baronet followed the same line, and it was a very reasonable line, which would commend itself to hon. Members, who often get demands from constituents for admission which we 692 are not always able to comply with. Admission to the Strangers' Gallery is under the control of Mr. Speaker. My recollection of the Rules is that it is wholly within the control of Mr. Speaker to grant, withhold, or regulate the admission of strangers in any way which seems good to him, no doubt consulting the convenience and the desires of the House at large.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think there was a Committee of the House appointed by Mr. Speaker to go into the matter.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
No doubt there was a Committee, but my recollection is that it was an advisory, and not a mandatory Committee. It was to enable Mr. Speaker to ascertain the wishes of the House, and would have had no power to compel him to do anything which he thought was not desirable or generally desired by Members. Any suggestion which I should accept from the hon. Gentleman, or which I might make on my own initiative to Mr. Speaker, would have to be made with the reserve that it would only be accepted by him if he thought fit to take it into consideration and to accept the suggestions which have been made. I shall be very happy to convey to him those wishes and desires if it seems to be the general wish. The Supplementary Grant for the Admission Order Office is given not only in respect of additions to expenditure already incurred, but that a Supplementary Estimate may be presented in order to provide for some new service, and this new service has appeared in connection with this Admission Office. Old Members will recollect the disturbances which occurred in connection with the admission of strangers. For a very long time the Galleries were shut, and it was not until Mr. Speaker and the House both thought it was fitting that they should remain shut no longer, that, after consideration by a Committee of the House, the Galleries were thrown open. It was then felt that the time had come when a complete change might be made in the conditions under which they were thrown open to strangers, and, amongst other alterations which were made with the concurrence of the Whole House, was the opening of offices in the outer Lobby for the admission of strangers under regulations which were approved. That necessitated both the erection of places in which the officers appointed to superintend the admission of these strangers should be located and necessitated the appointment 693 of two gentlemen to these places, the printing of forms, and so forth. That is the explanation of this item of £300. It is not a Supplementary Estimate in the ordinary use of the term supplementary to that which was provided when the original Estimate was presented for a particular service. It was a new expenditure required by the new regulations, and, therefore, we have to present an Estimate for it after the event, instead of as in the usual case an Estimate of Expenditure which is to take place in the future. That is an explanation which I hope will satisfy the Noble Lord.
Coming to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig), who asked what was the principle on which contributions to the Kitchen Committee are made, I understood that the hon. Member objected to these payments being made at all. Well, he is in a very small minority on that point. I have been some time in this House longer than the hon. Member, and I do not remember any other hon. Gentleman at any time objecting to a contribution from the funds of the House to the Kitchen Committee. I have no doubt he will find himself in a state of splendid isolation on this point. The principle on which a contribution is made, if I may use the expression, is no principle at all. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee came and represented to me that serious expense had been incurred by the prolongation of last Session, and that he desired to replace the stock of china and linen. He stated further that the revenue of the Kitchen Committee had fallen off in respect of the sale of food to strangers. He also represented that it was necessary to make up deficiencies caused by breakages, and so forth, and to make good that profit which had not in reality accrued. That is the explanation of the principle on which contributions are made, and I think it is a reasonable explanation.
§ Mr. SEDDON
May I ask whether the £300 is for salaries, and if so what are the salaries which are paid? I wish to know whether the men selected were ex-army officers?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
That I know nothing about. It does not come under my control. I understand that the men are appointed by Mr. Speaker, and I have neither the right nor the wish to interfere in the matter.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The question asked by the hon. Member below the Gangway has not been answered. The question really is how much a year is the Admission Office going to cost? Is this item in respect of a year or six months? Does it consist of the expense for structural alterations? I think we are entitled to have a little more information from the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the Admission Office there is not the slightest suggestion of any way interfering with the privileges of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has got absolute control over the admission to the Galleries, but what we are asking the right hon. Gentleman is that he should spend a little money if necessary, and take a little trouble to enable the advantages of the Admission Office to be made known generally to the public, and to enable the Members to communicate with all the people who approach us for orders to all the Galleries. We are asked to find seats in the Ladies' Galleries, for instance, which we cannot do now.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I wish to refer strictly to this Admission Order Office, which, by the way, does deal with the Ladies' Gallery. It is there that Members who draw tickets for ladies in the Gallery are able to exchange them with other hon. Members who can make use of them on other dates. It is very important at the opening of this Session that we should have some facilities given to us, which could be easily done by a printed card that could be sent to persons who write for seats. Such a card would explain exactly what can be done to obtain orders, and what cannot be obtained either from us or anywhere else. Members of the House of Commons are troubled day after day by being asked to provide strangers, male and female, with seats in the House, which we cannot do unless we happen to be successful in the ballot. If a little explanatory card were printed and available, it would save us a great deal of letter writing.
I beg also to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I asked him to inform me, and he was good enough to say he would, but did not, whether this item G, £445, consists 695 entirely of a grant to the Refreshment Department, or whether it includes other items; and, if so, what other items are included, because the statement made here is "increase in cost by the prolonged Session and by the additional grant to the Refreshment Department." What is the other increase that has been caused by the prolonged Session, if there is any other? Unless we can get from the right hon. Gentleman explanations upon these points it would be our duty to move a reduction of this Vote, because we intend to persevere either to a Division, or until we can get the right hon. Gentleman to give us a civil reply.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the regulations in reference to the admission of strangers to the Galleries. The hon. Gentleman can obtain from the Vote Office as many copies as he wishes of the regulations under which strangers are admitted to the Galleries in this House by applying to the Vote Office for these regulations, which are already in print, notice of which, as I am informed, has been sent to every Member of this House. I shall be very happy to give the hon. Gentleman the copy which is now before me if my hon. Friend wishes it, I am sorry I did not answer the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Sheffield with regard to the Appropriations in Aid. The Appropriations in Aid have been increased by the amount received from private Bills and Provisional Orders in excess of the Estimate. It is impossible to go into details. No amount of research or time would enable me to do that. With regard to the £455, to which reference has been made, part of it goes to the payment of messengers of the House who are under the control of the Serjeant-at-Arms. That was the other part of the expenses which are shown in this £455 under the Subhead G.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Under Sub-head D there is £1,000 additional expenditure caused by increased charges for official reporting. Is that £1,000 simply owing to the fact that the Session was prolonged over and above the ordinary time or is it due to the alteration in the system adopted last Session? If any part of that expenditure is due to the altered system of reporting I should like to draw attention to the fact, which I remember some of us mentioned at the time this system was introduced, that we do not get the reports 696 of the other House, a circumstance which a great many of us much regret. At all events, from the fact that the reports of the Debates in the other House are not-included, the additional expenditure should have been equalised. I ask whether the extra expense is due entirely to the long Session or in any way due to the altered system of reporting?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The increased expenditure, with the exception of £250, is entirely due to the increased cost of reporting the Debates, consequent upon the length of the Session. The Noble Lord will remember that we had a contract based on the new system which came into operation at the beginning of last Session. That contract was in one particular not entirely satisfactory, I think, to the contractors. The contractors had reason in one particular to ask for, and they obtained from us, an increased payment on the contract. The rest of the payment, which is represented by a sum of £750 due to the increased cost of reporting, and in the speech which I made upon the occasion of the change taking place I indicated to the Committee of the House that if there was a long Autumn Session it would necessitate some increased pay. But part of that £1,000–I think the actual sum was £234–is due to the fact that it was impossible to obtain delivery of the copy to the contractors as early as it was anticipated. The consequence was that the contractors had to pay almost entirely for night shifts, instead of day shifts, to compositors, printers, and so forth. The expense to them was greater than was anticipated, and we, I think, very reasonably met the increased expenditure falling upon them. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and Ministers as well, were not, from one cause or another, able to deliver answers to questions as early as was anticipated they would have been to the printers. That caused a later setting up of material, and the employment of night shifts instead of day shifts, and increased expenses and increased payments to the contractors. That is a full explanation of this particular Vote. With regard to the House of Lords Debates, this question was raised, I think by the Noble Lord or some other Member, in the course of last Session, and I think I then gave an undertaking, subsequently carried out, that Members would be able to obtain copies of the House of Lords Reports, which are not issued by the House of Lords, over 697 whom we have no control, until two or three days after a Debate has actually taken place. They would not join with us in reporting the Debates of this House. They stood outside our arrangement. We of course have no control over them, and it is therefore impossible to deliver to hon. Gentlemen in this House reports of Debates in the House of Lords on the same day as we deliver the reports of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Certainly, but application has to be made to the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "We never heard of it."] It has been stated in this House. You can obtain them from the Vote Office. A certain number of copies of the Debates in the House of Lords are placed in the Vote Office as they are received. More than that I cannot do. We shall be glad to make any representations, but the House of Lords have complete control over the reporting of their own Debates.
§ Mr. W. REDMOND
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that from the commencement of this new arrangement with reference to Debates the bound volumes of the Debates in the House of Lords were always available to every Member of this House, and always delivered to them. As a matter of fact, from the very commencement of this new arrangement I have regularly received the bound volumes of the Debates in the House of Lords, and, needless to say, I have never read a word of them.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
If the hon. Gentleman had read them he would probably have added to the vast fund of information which he already possesses. In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to draw his attention to this fact, that the following is the foot-note:—"Additional expense caused by increased charges for the Official Reporting of Debates, owing to the prolonged Session, £1,000." That is incorrect, as the right hon. Gentleman has just told us that that was only £750, and that £250 is owing to the fact that they made a bad contract. I
§ should like to know on whose authority a statement was put in the note circulated to Members, that is incorrect. The proper foot-note would be, "£750 owing to the prolonged Session, and £250 owing to the bad contract made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury." Under those circumstances, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5, because I think a full explanation has not been given to the House.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
In looking through D E F G and II it is curious to note that in each of the explanations given there is an error or misstatement of some kind or description. If the Treasury in furnishing these Estimates to the House cannot give honest, complete, and true statements as to what the items are for, it will be better to discontinue footnotes altogether and leave us to elicit the information in the regular way. It is not right that we should be—I do not say purposely deceived—but, at any rate, taken in by the statement that this money is due to additional cost for reporting, owing to the length of the Session. It now turns out that 25 per cent. of the sum is due to another matter altogether. With regard to the delivery of Votes and Parliamentary Papers, the right hon. Gentleman has let fall that a portion of the amount asked for was paid to messengers, in addition to the £170. In spite of my questions, the right hon. Gentleman has not told us how much was given to the Refreshment Department. The footnote says that the amount is due to the prolonged Session, incidental expenses in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and an additional grant to the Refreshment Department. What has the Serjeant-at-Arms to do with the Refreshment Department? When asked for particulars the right hon. Gentleman plays with the question in his usual eloquent manner, and ends by giving no information whatever. I am very glad my hon. Friend has at last mustered up courage to move a reduction, and I shall, with pleasure, support him in the Lobby.
§ Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £315 be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 197.701
|Division No. 4.]||AYES.||[10.45 p.m.|
|Acland-Hood. Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Balcarres, Lord||Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)|
|Adam, Major William A.||Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor||Beckett, Hon. William Gervase|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Barnston, Harry||Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)||Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-|
|Bird, Alfred||Gordon, John||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Boyton, James||Grant, James Augustus||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Brackonbury, Henry Langton||Greene, Walter Raymond||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Proby, Col. Douglas James|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Carlile, Edward Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Heaton, John Henniker||Renaldshay, Earl of|
|Cator, John||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Royds, Edmund|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Rutherford, William Watson|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)||Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Strauss, Arthur|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Horner, Andrew Long||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Tryon, Capt. George Clement|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford||Valentia, Viscount|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Llewelyn, Major Venables||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||White, Major G. D. (Lanc. Southport)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Fell, Arthur||Macmaster, Donald||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Fleming, Valentine||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Forster, Henry William||Mitchell, William Foot|
|Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)||Morpeth, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Lord Helmsley.|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Morrison, Captain James A.|
|Goldman, Charles Sydney||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Agnew, George William||Evans, Sir S. T. (Glamorgan, M.)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fenwick, Charles||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Alden, Percy||Ferens, Thomas Robinson||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Allen, Charles Peter||France, Gerald Ashburner||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||M'Curdy, Charles Albert|
|Armitage, Robert||Gibson, James Puckering||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Gill, Alfred Henry||Manfield, Harry|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Glanville, Harold James||Marks, George Croydon|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Glover, Thomas||Martin, Joseph|
|Barnes, George N.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)||Greig, Colonel James William||Middlebrook, William|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Grentell, Cecil Alfred||Mond, Alfred Moritz|
|Beale, William Phipson||Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Gulland, John William||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hancock, John George||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.|
|Brace, William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Muspratt, Max|
|Brigg, Sir John||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Neilson, Francis|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Ogden, Fred|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Grady, James|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hayden, John Patrick||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hayward. Evan||Pointer, Joseph|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Helme, Norval Watson||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Higham, John Sharp||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Clough, William||Hindle, Frederick George||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Clynes, John R.||Hophouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Hodge, John||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Holt, Richard Durning||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Compton-Ricket, Sir J.||Hooper, Arthur George||Radford, George Heynes|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rea, Waiter Russell|
|Crosfield, Arthur H.||Hudson, Walter||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Crossley, William J.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davits, David (Montgomery Co.)||Johnson, William||Richards, Thomas|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lambert, George||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Robinson, Sidney|
|Edwards, Enoch||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Elverston, Harold||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Tomkinson, James||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Toulmin, George||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Schwann, Sir Charles E.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)|
|Seddon, James A.||Twist, Henry||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Shackleton, David James||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Shaw, Sir Charles Edward||Verney, Frederick William||Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Shortt, Edward||Wadsworth, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)|
|Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Wardle, George J.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wing, Thomas Henry|
|Summers, James Woolley||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Sutherland, John E.||Waterlow, David Sydney||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Sutton, John E.||Watt, Henry A.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—The Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.|
|Tennant, Harold John||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)|
Original Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§ Motion made and Question put, "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £42,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1910, for stationery and books for the public service, for the expenses of the Stationery Office, and for the cost of Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, and I assure him I ask him in all good faith, how much of this expenditure is in connection with the Stationery Office, how much of it has been incurred by the Labour Exchanges, how much by the Army, how much by the Admiralty, by the Post Office, the Inland Revenue, by Royal Commissions, and public services generally, he will be doing a great deal towards satisfying the curiosity of those of us upon this side of the House. We do not think it is reasonable to lump all these Departments together, and to ask for a sum of £42,000 without, at all events, telling us how much is on account of each Department. We have decided, unless we get this information, to take as many Divisions as there are Departments in the Vote in respect of which we have been refused this information. I think it is only fair to mention at once the information we want, and that will satisfy us if we can get it. I submit that we are entitled to it, and we now have to press the right hon. Gentleman to give us the separate figures for each of these Departments.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us an explanation with regard to the printing of the Debates of this House, and has pointed out that the 702 extra expense arises from the prolongation of the Session, and that the amount came practically to £170 for Parliamentary Papers, and also expenditure in connection with the new issue of our Debates sent out to each Member. In this Vote for stationery and printing we find an item dealing with the publication of the Parliamentary Debates and Records again. Surely this extra £3,000 requires some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He gave us a full explanation as to the change in the Debates which showed that, owing to his want of foresight in arranging the contract for printing, the actual cost of the prolongation of the Session was £700 for the printing and publication of the Parliamentary Debates. Now he says, so far from that being the case, he still requires a sum of £3,000.
The next inquiry I would like to make is with regard to the publication of the House of Lords Debates. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had nothing to do with them, and no control over them whatever, and that therefore it was impossible for hon. Members of this House to have the old system of the Debates under which they were bound together. Surely it would be possible to have one contract to cover both Houses, so that the two Reports might be bound up in one volume. When the Votes are placed before us in this manner it is only reasonable that we should ask for this information.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The question of the Debates of the House of Lords and the House of Commons being bound together was settled in the original estimate, and it has nothing to do with this Supplementary Estimate.
§ And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday, 1st March).
§ Adjourned at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.