Commons Sitting of 14 August 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lord Acton's Nationality Bill [lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th May; Mr. Rendall]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Northumberland, altering certain Polling Districts in the Hexham and Tyneside Parliamentary Divisions of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAY ORDERS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Tramways Act, 1870, during the Session of 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
Copy presented of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United
1526
Kingdom for the year 1910, with Comparative Tables for the years 1906 to 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, in each of the last fifteen years, from 1896 to 1910. Fifty-eighth number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND MERCHANDISE MARKS.
Copy presented of Papers and Correspondence relative to the recent Conference at Washington for the Revision of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Arrangement for the Prevention of False Indications of Origin on Goods [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Regulations to be observed by the Admirals, Masters, and Crews of Fishing Vessels and Carriers forming the Fleets belonging to the Port of Kingston-upon-Hull, made pursuant to Section 417 of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Statistics of Public Education in England and Wales. Part I. Educational Statistics, 1909-10 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS.
Copy presented of Memorandum as to Scheme (presented 7th August) in the matter of Christ's Hospital, with the Foundations of John and Frances West, and of Frances West, in London, Reading, Newbury, Twickenham, and elsewhere [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the principal statutory provisions affecting payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and (2) the

1527
amount of such payments for the financial year 1910–11 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on 31st March, 1911, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Seventy-ninth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales for the year 1909–10. Parts I., II., and V. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
FORESHORES.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 11th August, 1911, directing the application of Moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1911, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Copy presented of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1911, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical Purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to he upon the Table.
OSBORNE.
Copy presented of Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent at Osborne for the year ending 3lst March, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1910. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ESTATES IN LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd March; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PARSONAGES BILL [Lords]
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, and to be printed.

DIVORCE BILLS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Attorney-General, Colonel Bathurst, Sir Edward Carson, Marquess of Hamilton, Mr. George Gibbs, Sir David Brynmor Jones, and the Solicitor-General be nominated members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills."— [Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. BOOTH: I am rather loth to object, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask why are there so many members of the legal profession on this Committee?
Mr. GULLAND: I understand the Committee is in the nature of a court on particular cases, and it is extremely desirable to have a large proportion of legal members. This has always been the custom.
Mr. BOOTH: It is too large a proportion.

TEA AND COFFEE, 1910.
Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables Showing the Consumption of Tea and Coffee in the principal Countries of Europe, in the United States, and in the principal British Self - Governing Dominions, and also showing the principal sources of supply, in the years 1909 and 1910, so far as the particulars can be stated (supplementing the tables in Parliamentary Paper, No. 378, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Declaration of London, a fortified place includes a port protected only by a harbour boom; whether the fortifications existing on either side of the Solent channels render the ports of Southampton and Lymington fortified places; and whether the naval powder magazine at Marchwood, on Southampton Water, renders Southampton a base of supply?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): In the opinion of His Majesty's Government these questions must be answered in the negative.
  Mr. LEE: Will His Majesty's Government do their best to Bee that the view expressed is accepted by the foreign Powers who are signatories to the Treaty?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That matter is being considered.

  Russian Naturalisation.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Government accept the claim of the Russian Government that naturalisation of a Russian subject in Great Britain without the permission of the Russian authorities is ineffective, in the sense that the British Government in such circumstances will not claim for the person so naturalised or for his child the same rights and protection in Russia as they would claim for a British subject in Russia about whose nationality there was no dispute?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The governing principle is that no State is entitled to afford diplomatic protection to one of its
  1530
  subjects in another State if that person is also a subject of such other State. His Majesty's Government would not be entitled to afford a person naturalised in this country, under the Act of 1844, or his child, protection when within the limits of the Russian Empire. A similar principle is laid down in Section 7, Paragraph 3, of the Naturalisation Act of 1870, which provides that an alien naturalised in this country shall not, when within the limits of the foreign State of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of naturalisation, be deemed to be a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that State in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect. There is no such treaty between this country and Russia.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any difference in the case of a person born or naturalised before 1870?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That question is dealt with in my answer.

  Reported Arrest of Priest (Lisbon).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information showing that a priest, who had taken passage in a British mail steamer from Vigo to Brazil, had been arrested at Lisbon?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received no information on the subject. If the hon. and learned Member has any, and will communicate it to me, I will make inquiries.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It was contained in a telegram in the "Daily News" on Monday last, but the Clerk at the Table struck it out of the question.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not gather that information.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It was struck out by the Clerk at the Table.

  Mahdist Prisoners.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the Mahdist prisoners incarcerated at Wady Haifa after the Soudan War are still at that place, and how many remain; whether there is yet any prospect of their ever being released; whether Osman Digna is still among them; and, if so, whether the British authorities in Egypt will now allow an independent medical examination with a view to ascertaining his mental condition?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The only information which I have received in regard to the Mahdist prisoners at Wady Haifa subsequent to that which I gave to the hon. Member in reply to the question which he addressed to me on the 27th of April, 1909, is to the effect that these Dervish prisoners appear to be satisfied with their lot, and that they are well cared for, in excellent health, and give no trouble. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I can only repeat what I stated in answer to a question which he addressed to me on the 20th of May, 1909, that it must be left to the Egyptian Government to decide whether such an examination into the mental condition of Osman Digna is necessary or desirable.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Will the Foreign Office again draw the attention of the Egyptian Government to this matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I can promise to do that, but I will consider it.
  Mr. BAIRD: Has not Osman Digna been dead for some years?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not that T am aware of.
  Mr. BAIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inquire?

  Cairo Sanitary System.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the right hon Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that the sanitary system of Cairo is still extremely imperfect, in respect that masses of refuse are daily deposited in the neighbourhood of the city whence the dust is blown back in large quantities; whether he is aware that the lighting system of the city is still extremely backward; and whether, in view of these and other deficiencies in the management of the city's affairs, he will recommend the British Consul-General to consider the expediency of establishing a municipality in Cairo?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first portion of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to the last paragraph of part 29 of Sir Eldon Gorst's Report for 1910. As regards the second, the answer is in the negative. As regards the establishment of a municipality in Cairo, Sir Eldon Gorst's Report for 1908 stated that a committee had been formed with a view to
  1532
  studying the question of the creation of a central body, on which the different public departments interested, as well as the inhabitants of the city, would be represented, for the management and contral of the municipal affairs of Cairo; but I do not know whether this committee has yet presented its report. I will inquire as to this.

  Native Civil Courts and Mixed Courts (Egypt).
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has recently been called to the costliness of procedure in both the Native Civil Courts and the Mixed Courts of Egypt; whether he will recommend a systematic investigation with a view to making such procedure less cumbersome, costly, and dilatory; and whether he will inquire as to the expediency of a revision of the civil and commercial codes?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first portion of the question is in the negative. I will inquire of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt whether he considered that an investigation into the procedure of the-Native Civil Courts and the Mixed Courts is called for on the grounds alleged by the hon. Member, and also whether he is of opinion that a further revision of the existing civil and commercial codes would be expedient.

  Unstamped Envelopes and Postal Packets.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster General whether the General Post Office has received claims for refundment of charges in respect of unstamped envelopes or postal packets, on the ground that stamps were duly affixed but came off in transit owing to the inferior adhesive quality of the gum used by the new contractors; and whether such claims have been recognised and satisfied?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Such claims are complied with where they are well-founded.

  Telegraphists (York).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether three telegraphists at York have for some time been removed from the instrument room and placed on postal duties; whether they have been replaced by a learner fresh from the telegraph school, a female half-time learner, and a soldier, withdrawn

  1533
  from his regiment, receiving military and Post Office pay; and whether he will make inquiries as to the necessity for the displacement of the telegraphists, with a view to their return to their proper duties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Three sorting clerks and telegraphists at York who have both postal and telegraph qualifications have recently been withdrawn temporarily from the instrument room to reduce overtime in the sorting office, because the only competent temporary assistants available had no knowledge of postal work but were qualified to do telegraph work. Sorting clerks and telegraphists are liable to be called upon to do any work, whether postal or telegraph, which the exigencies of the service may require. The three officers in question will return to the instrument room when their services are no longer needed in the sorting office. It is a recognised practice to employ qualified learners and military telegraphists as temporary assistants. With respect to the latter class I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Black friars Division of Glasgow on 23rd November, 1910.

  Postal Facilities (Clouncagh, County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General if he received a memorial from the priests and people of Clouncagh, in the county of Limerick, setting out the need for a post office there, and pointing out that there is a large creamery in the locality which is greatly handicapped for want of it; that a much larger trade would be done with its customers in England if there were a post office near; further, that they would give a guarantee to pay any loss sustained by the postal authorities if the post office were placed there; and, having regard to these facts, will he, in the public interest, accede to the request contained in the memorial?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received the memorial, and I regret to say that the establishment of a post office at Clouncagh wholly at the public cost would not be warranted, but it can be established upon a guarantee for one-third of the cost.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Might I ask, having regard to the fact that all the people in the district are willing to give a guarantee against any loss that may arise to the postal authorities, what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman could make?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If a formal guarantee is entered into, I shall be willing to establish a post office.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What kind of guarantee does the right hon. Gentleman want?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will communicate with the local authorities. A guarantee of a third of the cost.

  Parcel Post.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General what is the computed financial saving by substituting the use of mail bags for baskets in the conveyance of parcels; and has he considered the increased liability to breakage of goods entrusted by the public to the Post Office parcel post, and the menace to the health of the staff arising from the dirt and dust with which the bags become laden?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am unable at present to state what saving has been effected by the substitution. But it secures greater convenience in handling, economy in space, and reduction of the gross weight conveyed by mail van and motor services. Any increase of liability to breakage has, I need hardly say, been a consideration of the first importance, and experience shows that all articles packed in the manner for many years recommended by the Post Office are conveyed with safety. Dirt and dust are much less liable to lodge in sacks than in wicker receptacles, and the health of the staff is promoted in this respect by the change.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the disuse of baskets, cardboard boxes sent by parcel post are very commonly arriving at the destination in a battered and crushed condition?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I believe there has been a small increase in the proportion of cases of damage, but it is not an appreciable proportion.
  Mr. T. O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been several complaints from merchants of Ireland owing to their property being destroyed, and that some of them have ceased to send their goods by parcel post?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There were several complaints from Ireland which came to my notice, and we made special

  1535
  arrangements, but I am not aware of any case in which a merchant has ceased to send his goods by parcel post.

  Post Office (Provincial Women, Supervisors).
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has fully considered the claim of the provincial women supervisors to a seven hours' day; and whether he can now state the decision which has been arrived at?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have decided to allow the female assistant supervisors employed upon postal and telegraph work at the six largest provincial post offices as well as in London to revert to a forty-two hours week and to receive the higher scale of pay sanctioned in 1908 for officers performing a forty-eight hours' week. The concession will date from the 1st October next.

  Glasgow Exhibition.
  Mr. BARNESasked whether the post office in the Glasgow Exhibition of 1901 was staffed by established male officers under the control of an overseer; and, if so, what special circumstances warrant the staffing of the post office in the present Glasgow Exhibition with unestablished labour under the control of a female supervisor?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The staff of the temporary branch office in the Glasgow Exhibition of 1901 was as. stated. For the reasons given on the. 1st instant to the hon. Member, in answer to a question on this subject, the arrangements made for the present exhibition are to be preferred.

  H.M.S. "King Alfred."
  Mr. FRED HALL(Dulwich) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of officers and crew retained on board and the number discharged from the "King Alfred" whilst undergoing repairs from 20th August to 11th September last, which were reported to have been received in consequence of collision with the steamship "Cheapside" off Start Point on 18th June, 1910?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The numbers borne during the whole period referred to were thirty-two officers and 590 men. Thirteen men were discharged.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Am I to understand, although the battleship was laid up three weeks undergoing repairs, it was only found possible to dispense with the services of thirteen men during that time?
  Mr. McKENNA: I explained the circumstances fully in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question last week. I have nothing to add in explanation.

  Naval Store and Expense Accounts Departments.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked how many promotions have been made since 1879 from the writing to the directing staffs in the Naval Store and Expense Accounts Departments; and when is it contemplated to make further similar promotions?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is one in the Naval Store Department and four in the Expense Accounts Department. There are no such promotions at present in contemplation, but the merits of any members of the writing staff who are recommended will be carefully considered in connection with any suitable vacancies that may arise.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the result of the inquiries into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the Coventry Ordnance, Limited, in not paying the labourers for overtime worked?
  Mr. McKENNA: Overtime is not reckoned for payment at the Coventry Ordnance Works until after 9 p.m. on all days except Saturdays. After 9 p.m. overtime is paid for. I am informed that the conditions for overtime are more favourable at the Coventry Ordnance Works than the customary practice in the district.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of adopting the practice of informing firms of contractors who are (bad employers as respects their workmen not engaged on Admiralty work that if they continue to obey the letter only and not the spirit of the Fair-Wages Clause they will not secure another contract?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will investigate any case brought to my notice, but I cannot go

  1537
  beyond the assurance given to the hon. Member in reply to his question of Tuesday last.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the result of the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by Messrs. A. and J. Inglis, Pointhouse, in the payment of their labourers?
  Mr. McKENNA: The whole of the information necessary to enable the Admiralty to come to a decision has not yet been received.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether, before a firm is admitted to the list of contractors to the Admiralty, inquiry is made as to their standing as employers; and whether any such inquiry was made with respect to the firm of Messrs. Henderson and Wilson before they secured the present contract?
  Mr. McKENNA: Before a firm is admitted to the list of contractors to the Admiralty inquiries are made of the "References" as to its general standing and capabilities for executing work. An undertaking to abide by the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clauses of the Resolutions of this House is also required before deciding on admission to the list. Messrs. Henderson and Wilson are not on the authorised list, but the contractors for the Crombie magazines, Messrs. Bruce and Son, applied that this, firm might be allowed to act as sub-contractors. It is usual to grant such permission if nothing is known against the firm, and on the understanding that the Fair-Wages Clauses are adhered to. This procedure was followed in this instance, Messrs. Henderson and Wilson giving the required assurance.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me what benefit the workmen will get from the Fair-Wage Clause, seeing the Clause, as interpreted by the Admiralty, allows the lowest wage in the locality to be paid?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is not justified in making that statement.
  Mr. BARNESasked whether the Edinburgh Ropery and Sailcloth Company are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether 150 girls employed there are out on strike against a wage of 8s. 5d. per week paid for very laborious work, and whether the Fair-Wage Clause is being complied with?
  Mr. McKENNA: The firm in question, have no Admiralty contracts in hand at the present time.

  Admiralty and Naval Establishments (First-Class Writers).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as a result of A.L. 13.4.07, A. 1806, certain first-class writers at the Admiralty and naval establishments, who were appointed previous to that date, after Civil Service examination, are at present in receipt of lower salaries than first-grade writers who, as a consequence of the order quoted, received their appointments by selection; and will he take early steps to remedy this state of affairs by arranging for first-class writers to receive annual increments, and thus place them, in this respect, on a footing with all other grades of the writing staff?
  Mr. McKENNA: The facts are as stated in the question, but as the first-class writers have the advantage of being established, it is not considered that any remedy is required.

  Royal Dockyards (Petitions).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked what steps have been taken to acquaint men in His Majesty's dockyards of the reply to their petitions as recently given by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: The replies to the workmen's petitions were issued on 18th July, and instructions were given that the decisions were to be communicated to the workmen and others concerned by the posting of copies of the statements in the workshops and at other places where notices are exhibited.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Trade Returns place Devonport and Plymouth next to London in the matter of cost of living, rent, etc.; and whether, in view of the recent rise in the minimum wage paid at Deptford, he will consider the advisability of raising the minimum wage paid at Devonport dockyard for work similar to that done at Deptford, so that the minimum wage in the two districts may be placed more on an equality than is the case in the present circumstances?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member may be assured that

  1539
  the Admiralty have constantly in view all the conditions of labour at the ports in order that their intention to act as good employers may be strictly carried out.

  Imperial Service Medal.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether hired men leaving the Royal dockyards after twenty-five years' service with good characters are eligible for the Imperial service medal; if not, what constitutes eligibility in the case of hired men; is there any period of service and any conditions entitling a hired man to receive the medal on vacating employment when reaching the age limit?
  Mr. McKENNA: Only members of the established Civil Service of the State are eligible for the medal. A man who is on the hired list at the time of his retirement cannot, therefore, be granted the medal, whatever his length of service.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not be possible to consider the matter with regard to the hired men?
  Mr. McKENNA: The regulations are not made by the Admiralty.

  Housing Problem (West Mailing).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board how many tenants in West Mailing were served with eviction orders so that the landlord could obtain possession of houses needing repairs and structural alterations; in how many cases the tenants moved, and how many orders have been extended and for what period; whether he has sent an inspector to inquire if all the tenants compelled to move have obtained satisfactory accommodation, within reasonable distances of their work and at reasonable rents; and what prospect of being properly housed have any tenants now under notice?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I am informed that four tenants in West Mailing have been served with eviction orders by the landlord of property, known as Gammons Yard, to obtain possession of houses needing repair and structural alterations; that three tenants moved, and that one order was not executed owing to children having measles; but that in the latter case the tenant had an offer of a cottage in the
  1540
  parish nearer his work; and that the tenants who have received notice will in all probability go into the adjoining cottages at present under repair. On the information at present before me the circumstances do not appear to call for a special visit by one of my inspectors.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that some of the tenants have had to go two or three miles from their work to find accommodation, and whether in some cases notices which had been given have since the question has been asked been withdrawn?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not aware of those two facts. I will make further inquiries.

  Emigration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the figures quoted by him at the last Imperial Conference, as representing the volume of emigration from this country, may be taken as representing the actual number of persons who during the periods named changed their domicile, or whether the figures included the ordinary travelling public other than those paying first-class fares?
  Mr. BURNS: The figures which I quoted give the excess of passengers of British nationality who left the United Kingdom for countries outside Europe, over the passengers of British nationality who arrived from such countries, and must be taken as representing as nearly as practicable the number of persons who changed their domicile.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board on what data he bases the statement that the quality of emigrants to all parts of the British Empire has been better in the last two or three years than it has been in any two or three years in the last fifteen or twenty years; and whether it is intended to imply that during the last two or three years His Majesty's Government have taken any special steps to bring about this state of affairs, and, if so, what steps?
  Mr. BURNS: It is perhaps only necessary to refer the hon. Member to such a statement as appears in the Report of the Commissioner of Immigration at Winnipeg for the year ended 31st March, 1910. He says: "The ordinary observer cannot fail to be struck by the obvious improvement in the physique and general character of

  1541
  the immigrants who are coming to Canada not only this year, but during the year before. … I have been very much struck with the greatly improved quality of the immigration from Great Britain and Ireland, and more particularly from England."
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the Commissioner of Emigration at Winnipeg to whom he refers?
  Mr. BURNS: I believe the name of the gentleman was Mr. Bruce Walker. But whether that be his name or not the statement made can be confirmed by everybody in this country who sees the class of emigrants going from either Euston, Liverpool or Glasgow.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he not the gentleman who occupied the position now held by Mr. Obed Smith, namely, that of Assistant - Superintendent of Emigration for Canada in London? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Bruce Walker, after he had vacated that position here, wrote a pamphlet adversely affecting the emigration work of the voluntary societies in this country, which pamphlet was officially circulated by the Dominion Government?
  Mr. BURNS: That does not arise out of the question, but I should be sorry to believe everything that appeared in pamphlets.
  Mr. CROFT: Is it not a matter of grave concern that people should be leaving this country in increasing numbers?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes; and a matter of equally grave concern are the reasons for their going outside this country. Those reasons are wider opportunities and better access to the land on favourable terms.

  Scottish Heritable Property Deeds.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate if he has received a memorial from the Faculty of Procurators in Paisley, supported by the committee of the Society of Solicitors in Perthshire, requesting him to introduce legislation for the purpose of compelling town clerks of boroughs to make certain intimations with regard to the borough registers of sasines, in order to prevent forgeries of deeds relating to heritable property; and if he will favourably consider the request?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): A memorial has been received from the Faculty of Procurators in Paisley requesting that arrangements should be made whereby the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines shall, on receipt of deeds for registration, send notice to the granters and grantees, the object being to protect against forgeries in connection with deeds affecting heritable property. The memorial is at present receiving consideration.

  Loch Lomond.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Campbell's Trustees v. Sweeney, on 23rd July, and in view of the importance. to the people of Scotland as a whole of maintaining free access to the greatest fresh-water loch in, the country, and in view of the desirability of providing access to Loch Lomond from Balloch by means of public roads on either side of the River Leven, a distance of about half a mile, the Secretary for Scotland will consider whether he will provide State assistance towards this end?
  Mr. URE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire on this subject on 10th August. As regards the latter part of the question, the Secretary for Scotland has no power to grant State assistance of the character suggested.

  Prison Commissioners (Scotland).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether, in view of the impending vacancy amongst the Prison Commissioners in Scotland, steps will be taken to carry into effect the recommendations of various committees, including the Scottish Departmental Committee in 1902, that there should be a medical member on the Board of the Prison Commissioners.
  Mr. URE: It would be premature to make any statement on the subject. I am aware of the recommendation referred to by the hon. Member, which was made by the Departmental Committee on Scottish Prisons in 1900.

  Income Tax (Scotland).
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that by the practice now prevailing of assessing part-

  1543
  ners for Income and Super-tax on an average of three years' profits of the firm, such average being divided in the manner provided by the partnership deed for dividing the profits of each 5'ear, the taxpayer has in certain cases to pay tax on a larger income than he ever receives; and will he consider the advisability of remedying the grievance?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am acquainted with the facts of the particular case which I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind in raising this question, but I am unable to agree that the statutory system of assessment is inequitable in its general operation, and I should not feel justified in suggesting a fundamental alteration of the law on account of the possible existence in rare cases of exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit that in special cases the law acts unfairly?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. I do not admit that at all, more particularly as there is a case under appeal.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the practice of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax is to refuse any deduction for interest on loans obtained for the purpose of purchasing securities unless the loans are kept up for approximately twelve months; and will he consider the expediency of altering the law so as to prevent a person who pays off such loans in less than twelve months from being taxed more heavily than a person who keeps the loan for twelve months?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am aware of the practice referred to, but I am not prepared to propose an alteration of the existing law under which interest to be deductible must be annual interest.

  Contempt of Court (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the Four Courts, Dublin, on an application for attachment for contempt of court against William Hastings, of Ballinasloe, for a gross attack, in a newspaper called the "Western News," on the court itself for its judg-
  1544
  ment in a case in which Hastings' daughter and son-in-law were plaintiffs; whether the Master of the Rolls stated that the article complained of was so grossly contemptuous that he, the judge, would not undertake to deal with the case himself but would direct that the papers in the case be sent to the Attorney-General, with a view to action being taken by the Law Officers of the Crown to protect and uphold the administration of the Law in His Majesty's courts in Ireland; whether these papers have, as a matter of fact, been yet submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, what action is being taken to give effect to the condemnation of Hastings' conduct?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I have seen a newspaper report of the motion for attachment made before the Master of the Rolls, on the charge of contempt of court by William Hastings. No papers in connection with this matter have been submitted to the Law Officers.

  Strikes in London and Liverpool.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in Liverpool with regard to the recent formation there of the Trade Boards Act Committee; and whether he can state why persons who have an intimate knowledge of the occupations concerned and whose nominations were supported by the Liverpool Trades, and Labour Council and representatives of the sweated trades were not appointed?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have received communications on the subject from the local branches of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors and from the Liverpool Trades Council. As regards the second part of the question, I can only say that the number of local workers' representatives to be appointed was very limited, namely, eight; and the area affected was extensive, comprising Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales. The nominations received from various sources within this large area were very carefully considered before the representatives of local workers were chosen.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed in the papers that there is general dissatisfaction in Liverpool at the present moment?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have heard that, unfortunately, there is a good deal of unrest in Liverpool.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the increased risks to the food supply of the people owing to dock strikes and other causes; and whether he proposes to take any steps to safeguard a regular supply?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The whole question of the improvement of the means available for preventing or shortening industrial warfare is at present engaging the earnest attention of the Prime Minister in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that many of these strikes are due to a shortage of food among the wives and children of the men who strike for more money with which to buy it?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that during the strike last week conveyers of food were compelled to obtain permits from the strike leaders to use certain streets in the Metropolis, and whether it is a fact, as stated in the Press, that an actual permit was granted to the Postmaster-General for the mails?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That clearly is a question which requires notice.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in any arrangement come to the rights of the British workman to strike remains untouched?
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. H. Gosling was appointed a member of the Port of London Authority by the Board of Trade; whether he is paid any salary, and, if so, how much; and whether, seeing that he is taking a leading part in the promotion of the present strike, the Board of Trade propose to take any steps with regard to this action as being inconsistent with his position as a member of the Port of London Authority?
  Mr. BUXTON: Mr. Gosling was appointed a member of the Port of London Authority by the Board of Trade under the provisions of Section 1 (7) of the Port of London Act, which prescribes that, with a view to the representation of labour on the Port Authority,
  1546
  one of the members appointed by the Board of Trade shall be appointed after consultation with such organisations representative of labour as the Board think best qualified to advise them upon the matter. Mr. Gosling is unpaid. The Board of Trade have no control over the actions of the members of the Authority nominated by them. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: Has 1he right hon. Gentleman had any application previously to this for the removal of Mr. Gosling from his position, and, if so, what answer did he give.
  Mr. BUXTON: Nothing has come before me on that matter.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking, or will take, in London, to insure the maintenance of order and thus permit a continuance of the supply of goods in the usual channels, so as to prevent unemployment arising in the retail trades?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I trust that, in view of the settlement reached last Friday, no special steps will now be necessary for the maintenance of order; but, if the necessity should arise, all the forces at the disposal of the Government will be employed to preserve peace and secure the observance of the law and the free working of the food supply of the people.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are any of the Metropolitan police absent from London on duty at present, or is it intended to send any of them away?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all the transport workers became passive resisters he has not got enough troops to supply food?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it necessary to answer either of these hypothetical questions.
  Mr. REMNANTasked how many members of the Metropolitan Police Force are at present employed outside the Metropolitan Police area?
  Mr. CHURCHIUL: The dockyard police and certain other officers are permanently employed outside the Metropolitan police district; but at present no members of the force are specially employed outside the district.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is there any truth in the statement that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are being brought over to Liverpool?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have heard nothing of it.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him very brief notice, whether he can give us any information with reference to the course of events in Liverpool, and as to what has occurred?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, of which I have given him private notice—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Questions should be put one at a time.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have a question supplementary to that of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) on the same subject which I wish to ask, as I understand an. answer has been prepared on certain points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wishes to ask a question on the same point as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: My question is whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to the state of Liverpool to-day, and whether he can in any way supplement the statement published this morning as to how and why rioting commenced yesterday, and whether, in view of the practically unanimous condemnation of the action of the police for having provoked the riot, he will have a special inquiry made, and accept evidence from others than members of the police force?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be convenient for me to give an answer to the question of which I have received private notice. Reports received this morning from Liverpool are to the effect that there is no improvement in the situation. The dockers have not returned to work, and the shipowners have declared a general lock-out from this afternoon. There is a good deal of rioting and disturbance, and though it proceeds mostly from the hooligan class, who began the riot last night, it is serious in character, and throughout the town attacks are being made on warehouses and factories, and even private houses. The police are
  1548
  being assailed in the performance of their ordinary duties. The responsibility for maintaining order rests with the local authorities, but in these circumstances it is, in the opinion of the Government, essential that the police should have effective military aid, and that all necessary measures should be taken to secure the restoration of public order and the observance of the law. Orders have been therefore given for the movement of further troops, which will raise the force in Liverpool to a complete brigade of Infantry and two regiments of Cavalry. It is believed that this force will be sufficient for all emergencies. With regard to the second part of the question of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I would say that disorder appears to have been begun by some hooligans, but there is, I fear, no reason to doubt that many of the strikers joined them. With regard to the third part of the question as to the conduct of the police, I would observe that at the present time, when the police have so many difficulties to contend with, they require all the support which the Government and the public can give them, and that nothing will be done which would even have the appearance of weakening their authority. No facts have yet been submitted to me that call for any inquiry, and in any event no inquiry will be ordered until there is a complete cessation of all disturbance. I take advantage of this opportunity to repeat an earnest warning to all law-abiding and peaceable citizens not to mix themselves up with crowds on any occasion when disorder is prevalent, as they may easily involve themselves in serious trouble. The proper course for all peaceably disposed persons, when any riot arises, is to go back quietly to their own homes, unless specially called upon to aid the civil power.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has received a telegram from an hon. Member of this House, dated 12.54 p.m. to-day, in which he states that all business of delivering goods is at a standstill owing to threats of strikers to injure persons and premises; and what steps he intends to take to restore order?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is covered by my answer.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many police have been injured in this strike during the last two days?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No statistics on either side have yet been furnished to me.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the presence of the military in Liverpool has not already caused provocation and exasperation to the people in some respects?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe that to be altogether untrue. I believe that the presence of the military has averted even more serious trouble than there has been.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department are taking such steps as are within their power to restore good relations between employers and employés?
  Mr. BUXTON: In response to an appeal by the Lord Mayor, we sent one of our officers (Mr. Cummings) to Liverpool, on Saturday, and he has been in consultation with the Lord Mayor of that City. I have not received his report, but the Board will be glad in this case as in others, to give their good offices as far as they are able.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is it not a fact that nearly the whole of the newspaper correspondents who have described what occurred, testify to the fact that the demonstration yesterday was terminating peacefully when the police took action which provoked the conflict?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot possibly attempt to judge the merits of the evidence either for or against the action of the police or of the strikers, or of the crowd in Liverpool. When order has been completely re-established, if there is a primâ facie case for investigation, that will be the time for that matter to be inquired into. At present, I can only say that I am confident that the authorities have taken the proper steps.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that similar military precautions will be taken with regard to the disorder threatened by the Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford Univeristy (Lord Hugh Cecil).
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think they would need it.

  Empire Trade Development (Royal Commission).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission to inquire
  1550
  into the resources and trade development of the Empire has yet been appointed; and, if so, whether he can supply the names of its members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Royal Commission has not yet been appointed, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is in correspondence with the Dominions' Governments as to its composition.
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the reference to the Royal Commission been decided on? Will there be an opportunity for the House to consider it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Obviously I cannot answer the last part of the question without consulting my right hon. Friend. The whole matter is still the subject of correspondence with the Dominion Governments.
  Mr. LOUGH: Then I take it the reference has not yet been decided.

  Settled Land Acts.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to put a premium upon the sale by a tenant for life of portions of a largo settled estate and so encourage the creation of small freeholds, he will consider the advisability of an. amendment of the Settled Land Acts on the lines of the Danish Land Law of 21st June, 1854, whereby the limited owner of certain classes of settled land is permitted on its sale, and notwithstanding the terms of the settlement, to retain from 8 to 12 per cent. of the proceeds of sale and apply the same for his own purposes?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): This proposal would involve drastic interference with existing settlements enabling the tenant for life, who is a trustee for all parties entitled under the settlement, to retain for his own purposes 8 to 12 per cent. of the proceeds of sale. A proposal which certainly would not be welcomed by remaindermen or by incumbrancers. The suggestion does not commend itself to the Government.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider alternatively some method of modifying the existing Settled Lands Acts, so as to restrict the undue entailment under exist-conditions of agricultural land?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, Sir.

  Londonderry Pilot's Suspension.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the suspension of Pilot Charles M'Carron from duty for an indefinite period so far as certain classes of vessels are concerned; whether the pilot was suspended by the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners (acting as the local pilotage authority) without his being given an opportunity of being heard in his own defence; whether the Londonderry pilots are without representation upon the local pilotage authority; whether the chairman of that authority was also broker for the steamer which Pilot M'Carron was alleged to have put aground; and whether the Board of Trade will communicate with the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners regarding the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has been called to this matter by the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, and I am communicating with the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners in the matter. I will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this man's case in mind when he is framing his Pilotage Bill?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes.

  Hon. Galbraith Cole.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to state the purport and the result of his telegraphic communications with the Governor with regard to the trial, at the Nakuru High Court, of the Honourable Galbraith Cole for shooting and killing a native suspected of sheep-stealing?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am unable to make any statement at the present moment, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter is being carefully considered.

  Emigrants' Information Office.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked, in view of a statement made at the recent Imperial Conference that since 1907 the work of the Emigrants' Information Office has more than doubled, what amounts were voted for the cost of that office for the years 1905–6, 1906–7, 1907–8, 1908–9, 1909–10, and 1911–12; in what way
  1552
  the information supplied by the Emigrants' Information Office differs from that supplied by the official representatives of the overseas Dominions resident in this country; and whether the officer or officers of the Emigrants' Information Office, giving information other than by means of printed matter, give that information voluntarily or are acting under instructions from the Colonial Office?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The grant-in-aid of the Emigrants' Information Office was £1,500 in each of the first three years mentioned, and £l,700 in each of the last three years. The information supplied by the office is designed for the guidance and protection of British subjects contemplating emigration from the United Kingdom, and for this purpose the office relies not only upon the information which is liberally placed at its disposal by the Dominion Governments, but also upon the Press and reports of private correspondents in the Dominions, and upon visits paid by Members of the office to the Dominions. The office also supplies information about British Crown Colonies and Protectorates and certain foreign countries. It is part of the recognised duties of the office to give verbal information to inquirers at the office as well as by means of printed matter. The office is under the general supervision of the Secretary of State.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May information given verbally be considered as official information?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know whether it should be considered official, but I am quite certain from my knowledge of the people who give it that it is reliable.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to the view that buildings cannot increase in value apart from a rise in the cost of material and labour; and whether calculations, for the purpose of arriving at site value on an occasion for collection of Increment Duty, proceed on that footing?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the method of arriving at the site value on an occasion is that prescribed by Section 2 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and is fully explained in the Instruction to Valuers, dated 21st January, 1911.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the instructions should instruct the valuers to proceed on the footing indicated in the question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without notice. I really do not like to answer these highly technical questions without notice.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time look into the information supplied to the Secretary to the Treasury by the valuation officials to the effect that a rise in site value may be caused by an improvement in the buildings put on the site. You are breaking the law all round?
  Mr. CASSELasked how many valuations of the original site values of lands under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have hitherto resulted in minus quantities; and what is the largest minus quantity yet arrived at?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that it will not be possible to collect and compile the information asked for by the hon. Member before the date on which the House rises.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the instructions to valuers dated the 21st January, 1911, it is intended to make any and, if so, what distinction between a calculation and a valuation; and whether he will assent to the substitution of the word valuation for calculation in such instructions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The term calculation is used in the instructions to indicate what is in effect a process in a valuation, and it does not appear to me that any advantage would be gained by the substitution of the word "valuation" for "calculation" in those instructions.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be more appropriate to use the word "valuation" in dealing with the value of land than the word calculation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The word valuation is used. Calculation is used as indicating a process in arriving at the valuation.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state or give any sort of indication of the circumstances under which valuers ought, and under which they ought not, to consider themselves bound by the actual consideration
  1554
  in arriving at gross value and site value on an occasion for the collection of increment duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Generally speaking the valuers would consider themselves bound by the actual consideration, but they would clearly not be justified in so considering themselves in cases where the consideration obviously does not represent the market value.
  Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate at all the circumstances under which the valuers ought to consider themselves bound and the conditions under which they ought not to consider themselves bound?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it would be possible to give that indication without notice. It is obviously a case in which full notice ought to be given, and it would be a very great mistake to give indications of that kind, because circumstances must vary.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that is precisely the question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not quite the question. At any rate, I still say it would be a great mistake to attempt to give an exhaustive interpretation of these cases, because there is such a variety of them.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the question does not ask for an exhaustive interpretation, but any kind of indication?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am replying not to the question itself but to the supplementary question.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the unit of valuation referred to in Clause 2 (b) of the Instructions to Valuers, dated 21st January, 1911, includes both land and buildings?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises that, under the joint operation of Section 2 (2) and Section 25 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, whereby it is provided that in arriving at the original site value of land a deduction shall be made of the difference between its gross value and its value when divested of buildings, growing timber, fruit trees, and other things growing thereon, and that on

  1555
  the occasion upon which Increment Value Duty becomes payable the actual price paid shall be taken as the total value, and that the like deduction shall be made as in calculating the original site value, in all cases where the character of the land, and therefore the object for which it was valuable has changed, such like deduction will often prove to be a minus quantity, leaving no sum to be deducted under Section 25 (4) (a), and thus exaggerate the apparent increment by the amount originally deducted in connection with the farm buildings and other agricultural improvements, thereby resulting in a direct tax of 20 per cent. upon such improvements; and, if so, whether he will introduce a new Clause into the present Finance Bill in order to avoid possible injustice and the discouragement of agricultural enterprise?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The value of buildings, etc., is eliminated in arriving at both the original site value and the Bite value on the occasion of a sale. Accordingly, the Sections to which the hon. Member refers do not operate in the manner suggested, and I am not satisfied that amending legislation is called for.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: As the matter is considered one of very great doubt amongst the surveyors, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the Surveyors' Institution, as requested on 21st July last?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I shall be very happy to. I met them before and discussed these things with very good results.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are still waiting for a reply to their letter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very sorry. I shall be very glad to see that letters are written.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the market value of land for agricultural purposes under Section 7 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is interpreted by the Treasury to mean the valuation of a holding as it stands subject only to the usual tenant's rates and taxes, or whether, alternatively, in estimating such value tithe, fee farm rents, copyhold dues, and other like outgoings, in no way affecting the agricultural value of such land are taken into account; and, if the latter is the case, whether he realises that land
  1556
  subject to such outgoings will become sooner liable to Increment Value Duty under Section 7, and to more Undeveloped Land Duty under Section 17, than land of exactly the same character and agricultural value which is not subject to such outgoings; and whether, if this is the true-interpretation of the existing law, he will amend the Act accordingly?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The interpretation of the Board of Inland Revenue is in accordance with the latter alternative put forward by the hon. Member, but it is not held that the adoption of that alternative will render land subject to outgoings sooner liable to Increment Value Duty or to more Undeveloped Land Duty than land not so subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that his interpretation of the expression "agricultural purposes" is likely to stand the test of judicial proceedings?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not possibly answer that. I shall do my very best to see that my interpretation is placed before the court.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed of the case of the workmen in the employ of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, some 6,000 in number, who gain all the benefits afforded by the National Insurance Bill, except maternity benefit, at considerably less expense under the fund which they have established with the assistance of their company, their contribution being 3d. per week as against 4d. per week under the Bill; and their sick benefit being 12s. per week as against 10s. per week under the Bill, this benefit including workmen up to the age of sixty-five years as against 10s. per week up to the age of fifty years, 7s. per week for over fifty and under sixty years, and 5s. per week for over sixty years under the Bill, the benefits also covering the first three days of sickness which the Bill excludes; and whether he would be willing to exclude them and any other similar body who provide not less favourable terms than those offered by the Bill from the compulsory clauses of the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Baronet. As every penny con-

    1557
    tributed by the employers and workmen under the National Health Insurance will be applied exclusively for the benefit of the workmen under their own administration, it follows that they cannot lose through being brought under the Bill, and since they will have the State grant in addition to their own contributions it further follows that they must gain. If they can so manage the fund as to provide larger benefits than the minimum indicated in the Bill they will be in a position to enjoy those larger benefits. I am not prepared to penalise all the best-managed provident funds by withdrawing State aid from them.
    Mr. FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put the Treasury in the position now occupied by the employer, and guarantee the benefits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member would be the very last who would support that suggestion, because the only guarantee of good management is that those who manage should suffer if they are doing badly.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman' aware that the company in question subsidises a sick fund at a cost of £2,000 or £3,000 a year, and that it has a bonus system in operation, and the men have to work twelve hours instead of eight?
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Will the society to which these gasmen belong be considered an approved society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to' answer a question of that kind without seeing the conditions under which they work. I should not have thought there was the slightest difficulty under the Bill in adapting themselves in such a way as to become an approved society.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION (EXPENSES).
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked whether an approved society will receive any allowance for the expenses of medical examination of persons applying for admission as insured persons; and, if so, whether such an allowance will be in addition to the proportion of contributions placed to the credit of each society for management expenses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An approved society will not receive any allowance expressly for this purpose.

    PAYMENT OF MEDICAL BENEFITS.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked how is it intended that an assured person while away from home for change of air, otherwise than in a convalescent home or similar institution, shall receive medical benefits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a matter which may safely be left to the local health committees and other organisations responsible for the administration of medical benefit to arrange?

    RESERVE VALUES (INVESTMENTS).
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked whether an approved society will be allowed to invest the reserve values placed to its credit by the Insurance Commissioners in respect of insured persons joining such society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative. I may say, however, that I have under consideration the question of whether a society shall be enabled to invest a portion of the Sinking Fund by the accumulation of which these reserve values will ultimately be provided.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT (SYPHILIS).
    Sir H. KIMBERasked whether, under Section 13, Sub-section 4, of the National Insurance Bill an approved society will be allowed to refuse sickness benefit to insured persons suffering from tertiary syphilis which appears twenty or even forty years after infection, e.g., a gumma of cheek appearing after a lapse of forty years, and tabes or locomotor ataxy appearing after a lapse of twenty years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Matters of this kind will be dealt with in the rules of the society, which will, of course, be framed by the society with the consent of its members and will have to be approved by the Insurance Commissioners.

    AMALGAMATION OF SOCIETIES.
    Sir H. KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposal outlined by him will in any way interfere with the liberty of a small society consisting of 300 or 400 members or less transferring its engagements to a society that has more than 10,000 members between the date of the passing of the National Insurance Bill and 1st May, 1912, or such other date on which the insurance scheme will come into operation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.

    APPROVED SOCIETY FOR SOLDIERS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether steps are being taken or will be taken to give effect to the proposal that has been submitted to the War Office to create an organisation, such as an Army benefit society, to be acknowledged as an approved society under the meaning of the Insurance Bill, which soldiers may join on leaving the Service to secure for themselves employment and provision against sickness, etc., on their return to civil life?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It is not proposed to create an organisation on the lines suggested in the question.

  Government of India (Civil Servants).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Undersecretary of State for India what principle guides the India Office in regard to telegraphic communication with India; and whether the Office declines to obtain information on an important matter desired by an honourable Member of this House which could be obtained by a telegram of a few words at a cost of a few shillings?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The urgency of any particular request for information is a matter which the Secretary of State must decide in every case as it arises.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does not the Secretary of State consider that complaints made by members of the Civil Service are matters of urgency when they have reference to grievances of long standing?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That question is quite unwarranted by the circumstances.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the grievances have been the subject of correspondence for more than two years?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Gentleman has other questions on the Paper on the same subject, and I think the answers to them will meet the question he now asks.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office looks with indifference upon grievances felt by a large body of Civil servants in India, and is not prepared to take prompt steps to ascertain who is responsible for the failure to represent these grievances to the proper authority?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is emphatically in the
  1560
  negative; to the second part, definite and adequate rules for the submission of representations have been laid down and there is no reason to believe that these are not observed.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office is aware that a widespread belief exists that the grievances of members of the Civil Service in the Punjab Commission have not been submitted by the Punjab Government for the judgment of the Government of India; and, failing such submission, what course is open in order to have such grievances considered by the Government of India and by the Secretary of State?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the rest of the question, local governments are bound to submit to the, Government of India memorials addressed to that Government by persons within their jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions, and must report each quarter as to any memorials which they have withheld as falling within those exceptions. If a memorial raises an important question of policy, the local government transmit it with a reasoned statement of their own views, and this often necessitates some delay.
  Sir H. CRAIK: When will the grievances be considered by the Local Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know. They will be considered by the Local Government in the first instance, and then they will be transmitted here in due course.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Can that not be ascertained by cablegram?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The India Office spends £3,000 a year on telegrams to India, and a corresponding sum is spent by the Government of India in answering. My hon. Friend asks that assistance should be given in keeping down the cost of cablegrams.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is a small addition to the £3,000 a matter for consideration when grievances are being investigated?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think I have already answered the hon. Gentleman. There is another consideration in addition to that of cost. It is that certain functions have been expressly delegated to the Government of India, and it would be a dangerous thing to send a telegram which would be taken

  1561
  as a precedent, as meaning that we desire to express an opinion before the Government of India have expressed their own.

  Crown Property (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Department of the Attorney General in Ireland or that of the Woods and Forests has the duty of defending Crown property or asserting Crown rights in that country; has his attention been called to the fact that in the litigation respecting Lough Neagh, the grant of Charles I. to Lord Chichester of 1640, in consideration of which the lough was surrendered to the Crown, was not put in evidence by the plaintiff; does this grant show that the Crown bestowed property worth over a million sterling on Lord Chichester in consideration of the surrender of Lough Neagh; is it, notwithstanding, the fact that in 1661 Lord Chichester obtained a re-grant from the Crown of Lough Neagh on the pretence that he got nothing in return for its surrender, and alleged that Charles I. promised him a pension of £40 a year which has not been paid; will the Law Officers be instructed to investigate whether the recitals on this subject in the Patent of 1661 as to the considerations which moved the Crown to re-grant the lough show that the King was deceived in his grant; and, if so, will any steps be taken to quash or recall the patent by those who have the duty of protecting the Crown revenues or maintaining public right, if they come to the conclusion that the recitals therein show that it was obtained by false pretences?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Commissioners of Woods and Forests appear to be the persons entrusted with the protection and defence of Crown property in lands in Ireland. I am not aware of the particulars of the recent trial in the case referred to by the hon. Member, nor have I the materials to deal with the suggestions put forward in the hon. Gentleman's question. When the judgment of the House of Lords is published, it will be carefully considered.

  Estates Commissioners' Report.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state when the Estates Commissioners' Report will fee laid upon the Table?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their Re-
  1562
  port is with the printer, and will be circulated during the present month.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be laid on the Table of the House?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That I cannot say, but it will certainly be ready in the course of the present month.

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in. view of the fact that the civil Government charges taken into account against Ireland in Mr. Gladstone's Budget under the Home Rule Bill of 1886 (£4,210,000) and in his Budget under the Home Rule Bill of 1893 (£4,096,000) have now increased to £9,642,000 for 1910–11, he will give a Return showing in detail how much of the increased expenditure is due to the creation of new offices or the additional cost of existing offices, so that the House may be-in a position to estimate how far the economies contemplated in Mr. Gladstone's Irish Budgets are now practicable?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The particulars for which the hon. Member asks will be found conveniently summarised at Page 16 of H. of C. Paper No. 221 of this year, the particulars of voted expenditure being given in detail in the Estimates for the years in question. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to give a special Return.
  Mr. O'BRIEN: Would it not be worth while to see that the particulars are presented in the same way as in a return which was given last week showing the new offices created in England since 1906? What trouble would there be about giving a similar return for Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the return to which I have referred him, I think he will be satisfied.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that John Dorgan with his father were evicted from their holding at Graigbeg, county Limerick, some years ago; that for sixteen years after their eviction they had to live in a timber hut built for them by the people adjacent to the evicted farm; and that the Croom District Council passed a resolution recently calling on the Estates

  1563
  Commissioners to deal with this case without further delay; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, he will say whether they propose to do so?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on this subject on 15th May last. The Estates Commissioners are making inquiries as to the possibility of providing Dorgan with a holding.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state whether any steps have recently been taken in reference to the reinstatement of the evicted tenant James Shiels, county Cavan; and will he say when and what was the name of the last evicted tenant reinstated in that county?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have informed the owners of Shiels former holding of the price which they are prepared to advance for its purchase, and await their reply. The last entry on the list of evicted tenants reinstated in county Cavan as purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts is that of John Smith, who was reinstated on 17th January last.

  Vandeleur Demesne, West Clare (Cricket Field).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the urban council of Kilrush, West Clare, on 7th August last, stating that the cricket field in the Vandeleur Demesne, which had been time after time promised to the urban council of Kilrush, has not been so given to them but has been given to five other gentlemen outside the council,; whether he would inquire into the action of the Estates Commissioners in so passing over an elected public body and temporarily or otherwise vesting this land in private individuals, especially when the urban council made an offer to the Estates Commissioners for the full amount £925, and if he will enter into communication with the Estates Commissioners with a view to have them vest this plot of land in the urban council forthwith; whether he is aware that various other local bodies in Kilrush have passed similar resolutions; and whether steps will be taken to carry out the desire of the townspeople of Kilrush?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The resolution in question seem to be based on a mis-
  1564
  apprehension. The Estates Commissioners wish to sell the lands to the urban district council, but they do not appear to have any power under the Land Purchase Acts to make the council an advance to purchase the lands for the purposes for which they require them. The Commissioners are, however, prepared to sell the lands to the council for cash, in the manner provided by Section 36 of the Local Government Act of 1898, and are so informing the council. In the meantime they have made a temporary letting of the lands.
  Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that lands intended for public purposes ought to be vested in a public body?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: They are prepared to sell the lands under the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1898, in which a provision was specially introduced for that kind of sale.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the estate of Mr. M'Namara, of Ennistymon, West Clare, will be dealt with according to the last Land Act; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Namara has refused to sell, and has done nothing to develop the industry of the localities; and whether he will consider that this' is a case when the compulsory powers of the Act should be applied without delay?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board are unable to identify the particular estate to which the hon. Member refers. If the hon. Member will be so good as to give me fuller particulars, I will have further inquiry made.

  National School Buildings (Ireland).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Commissioners of National Education in giving notice to managers to proceed with the building of schools already sanctioned by them; and how many schools now await erection under the building grant voted by Parliament?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The delay which has occurred in certain cases is due to the fact that the Commissioners are still in correspondence with the Treasury and the Irish Government as to the application of the revised scale of building grants adopted in January last to those cases, 130 in number, in which

  1565
  the Commissioners had, prior to its adoption, provisionally sanctioned the building of new schools, but had not formally sanctioned grants. In addition to these 130 cases the Commissioners have 291 applications before them, and have sanctioned grants on the new scale in twenty-seven cases. The remainder are under consideration, but the funds available will only enable the Commissioners to deal with cases of extreme urgency.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is under discussion between the Commissioners and the Treasury?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I understand that the Treasury are anxious that the cases which have been provisionally sanctioned should be carried out under the new scale, and then those on the new scale could be provided for.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: If Parliament makes a grant for an Irish purpose, can the British Treasury still claim the right to control the distribution of the grant and interfere with an Irish Department?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The hon. and learned Member should ask the representative of the Treasury.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then, I suppose, I may ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I want notice of the particular subject. I have no doubt that the action of the Treasury could be justified.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland If he is aware that Bernard M'Gourty, of Tullyinchaknock, East Bars, county Leitrim, the clerk to the pensions committee at Manorhamilton, is also secretary of the Cloonclare branch of the United Irish League, and in the latter capacity has published over his signature in the Sligo Champion resolutions with the object of boycotting Charles Burns, of Stranacully, Kiltyclogher, county Fermanagh; and if he proposes to take any action in this case?
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHAN: Before this question is answered, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is asked with the object of discrediting a man who is discharging his duties with great satisfaction to the Old Age Pensions Committee, and may I further ask whether he is aware that the leaders of the Irish
  1566
  Unionist party in this House have publicly expressed their intention of boycotting not only every Member of the Government, but every peer and bishop who voted in favour of the Parliament Bill?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have seen a newspaper report of April 8th, 1911, of a resolution purporting to have been supplied to the newspaper by Bernard M'Gourty, but there is no further information or evidence on the subject. The Irish Government have no control over clerks to Pension Committees in relation to their offices as such.

  Veterinary Surgeon, Mountbellow District (Galway).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will cause the veterinary surgeon appointed for the Mountbellew district, county Gal-way, to live within the district for the convenience of the ratepayers of the district?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I understand that the veterinary inspector referred to is an officer of the Galway County Council, to whom any communication regarding the performance of the inspector's duties should be addressed.

  St. Stephen's Green Park Workers (Wages).
  Mr. BRADYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will explain why the Irish Board of Works only pays the St. Stephen's Green park workers an average weekly wage of 17s., whilst men in similar employment in the London parks receive 28s., and whether he is prepared to place the Dublin men on terms of equality in the matter of wages with the London park workers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The average weekly wage of workers in St. Stephen's Green is 17s. 10d., allowing 6d for the value of special privileges of Government workers. These wages should be compared not with those paid in London, but with those paid to men doing similar work for private employers in the Dublin district. The average wage of the latter is 15s. per week. I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to questions on this subject by the hon Member for Dublin City and others in the 1910 Session.

  Ballinasloe Urban District Council (Case of William Hastings).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that William Hastings, of Ballinasloe, was convicted early this year of acting as an urban district councillor of Ballinasloe when disqualified, and fined £5 for the offence, which was confirmed on appeal by the Recorder of Gal-way; whether, on 8th April last, he was again prosecuted and fined £5 or in default two months' imprisonment for a similar offence, which conviction the King's Bench refused on quo warranto to quash; whether the warrants in each case were placed in the hands of the police for execution months ago and no return has yet been made to either warrant; and will he now direct the execution of these warrants forthwith with a view to the due administration of the law by the police in this case?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Mr. William Hastings was fined one guinea on 18th February last for acting as district councillor while disqualified. The conviction was confirmed by the county court judge, and the amount of the fine, with costs, was paid by Mr. Hastings. On 8th April he was again prosecuted for two similar offences, and fined in sums of 10s. 6d. and £5 respectively. He appealed to Quarter Sessions against the latter conviction, but did not prosecute the appeal. When the warrant for levying the fine was received by the police, Mr. Hastings was proceeding in the King's Bench Division to have all the convictions against him quashed. In these proceedings he failed, and he then forwarded a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant praying for a remission of the fine. This memorial is at present under consideration, and the execution of the warrant is suspended until His Excellency's decision is announced.

  Fethard Fishermen (County Wexford).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a number of Fethard fishermen are away at sea owing to the want of accommodation for their boats at Fethard; whether there are only seventeen boats and forty-four men remaining; and whether the Development Commissioners will use all possible despatch with the promised Grant for Fethard, and thus help to keep the remaining fishermen at home and induce those who have left to return?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No promise has been made of a Grant for Fethard. The Development Commissioners are carefully considering the general scheme submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, for expenditure on fishing harbours on the east and south-east coasts of that country, and will come to a decision on it as soon as possible.

  Coronation (Red Cross and Ambulance Detachments).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many members of voluntary aid detachments of the British Red Cross Society did duty at the Coronation and how many members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no figures available in the War Office to enable me to reply to this question.

  Russian Oats.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Undersecretary for War whether a large consignment of Russian oats is being loaded at St. Petersburg for the use of British Cavalry regiments in Great Britain; and, if so, has he taken into consideration the fact that foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent in Russia and the importation of oats is therefore a danger to the live stock of this country?
  Colonel SEELY: Nothing is known in the War Office of any such consignment of oats.

  Territorial Force (Frozen Meat).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary for War whether 3,500 Territorials in camp at Minehead are supplied with frozen meat only, and, if so, will he explain why men who are giving much time in the service of the country should be fed with this kind of meat; and is he aware that a number of these men are farmers' sons and agricultural labourers whose circumstances are depressed by the low price of British mutton, and who claim that when serving their country they are entitled to be supplied with home-fed meat?
  Colonel SEELY: It appears on inquiry that the units applied for frozen meat only, and in accordance with the terms of the specification of contract, which permits such issues if the units so demand, they were supplied with frozen meat only.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Seeing that there is a large number of agriculturists serving in

  1569
  the Territorials, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unjust, and an outrage on sentiment that these men who are serving their country at great personal loss should be fed with foreign meat?
  Colonel SEELY: I am informed fey the general officer commanding that these units applied for frozen meat themselves. I suppose that anything frozen seemed attractive in this hot weather.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Have the wives of the men serving in the Territorial regiments applied for frozen meat?
  Colonel SEELY: We do not feed their wives. We do not feed anybody except the soldiers. In this case they applied for frozen meat. For what reason I do not know.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in all future contracts for meat supplies for the Army at least three days' supply will be home-killed and home fed?
  Colonel SEELY: That does not arise out of this particular question. I was asked whether frozen meat was supplied to these men, and I answered that it was because they asked for it.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Were the terms of the contract under which this frozen meat was supplied the same as those of the contracts under which the large camps both in this country and Ireland are supplied, which prescribe three days' fresh meat?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question. I think he will find that the answer which I have given is a correct statement of the position.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the officers who asked for fresh meat?
  Colonel SEELY: I shall be most happy to tell the Noble Lord the names of the officers. I had the information which I have given the House direct from the general officer commanding.

  Reservists' Pay.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, of the reservists emigrating since 1907 and allowed by the War Office to draw the extra pay while outside this country, 329 were given this privilege on proceeding to countries not under the British flag; and, if so, whether in view of the resolution
  1570
  passed unanimously at the Imperial Conference of 1907 pledging the Government to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries, he will explain why these exceptions were made; and whether it is the intention of the Government to continue these exceptions, in face of the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board at the Imperial Conference of 1911?
  Colonel SEELY: An Army reservist granted leave to visit a country not under the British flag does not receive reserve pay for the period of his residence in such country until he returns to a British Colony or to a station where there is a British Garrison. If absent for a period longer than twelve months he forfeits the reserve pay for the whole period of his absence.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say is it not a fact that 329 of these men have received this privilege on proceeding to countries not under the British flag?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not sure that that statement contained in the question is accurate.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the President of the Local Government Board made inaccurate statements at the Imperial Conference?
  Colonel SEELY: No; but I think that the right hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently put an inaccurate interpretation upon my right hon. Friend's statement.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the first step possible to have that inaccuracy righted?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not admit that inaccuracy.
  Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been found possible to make arrangements with the Post Office for the pay of Reservists to be paid weekly, in the same manner as old age pensions, instead of quarterly as at present?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): The matter has been fully considered, and it is not thought desirable to adopt a system of weekly payments for Reservists.
  Colonel YATE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men very much like it, and if the money were given weekly would it not go to their wives and families, whereas with large sums such as £2 8s. 6d. paid quarterly to the men themselves the money may be drank on the way home?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that an arrangement can be made in case any man is wasting the money or spending it unwisely to have the payments made weekly.

  Chisledon Marriage (Refusal by Vicar).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had under review the case of two persons wishing to be married in the parish church of Chisledon, Wilts; whether he is aware that the persons desirous of entering into the marriage contract were fully entitled under the provisions of The Marriage Act, 1836, to be married in the church at Chisledon; that this right was refused by the vicar, and that his refusal was confirmed by the bishop; and that, as a result, after some weeks of delay, the marriage was celebrated at Leicester; and whether, to preclude the scandal of persons being refused by the clergy the right of legal marriage with the rites of the Established Church, he will initiate legislation in the direction of civil marriage?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiry, and I am informed that in the case referred to neither of the parties was a parishioner and no question of strict right could arise. Special permission to have the marriage in the parish church was refused by the bishop on the ground that the bridegroom was unbaptised, and therefore not a member of the Church of Christ. I can only say that I much regret that any such reason should have been advanced by a bishop of the Church of England. I fail, however, to see how the remedy suggested by my hon. Friend would meet the case. Under the existing law civil marriage is open to every one; and, if he means to suggest that civil marriage should be made compulsory, that would not remove the grievance of those who desire as in this ease to be married with the rites of the Church.

  Ex-Inspector Syme.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can recommend the exercise of the clemency of the Crown in the case of John Syme, formerly an inspector in the Metro-
  1572
  politan Police Force, who was sentenced on 4th July, 1911, to six months' imprisonment, and secure his release, having regard to his fifteen years of faithful service and excellent character in the police, and to the facts that the threat which he was convicted of making was admittedly made for the purpose of calling attention to his grievances, and that the jury expressed the opinion that he did not intend to carry out the threat?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Full consideration appears to have been given by the judge who passed sentence on this prisoner to the pleas that may be urged in extenuation of his offence, and in particular to the plea that the threat to murder was made in order to draw attention to what the defendant believed to be his grievances and without intention to carry it into effect. I find no sufficient ground for recommending any reduction of the sentence.

  Portsmouth.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Norwich was created a city when the population was 160,000 and Cardiff was created a city when the population was 166,000; whether he is aware that Portsmouth has a population of 234,000 and is now increasing at the rate of 5,000 a year; whether he is aware that small towns were distinguished by the mayors receiving an honour, and that Portsmouth received no such attention; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction and disappointment at the position in which Portsmouth has been placed; whether ho is aware that Portsmouth is the first naval port of the Empire; and whether he can see his way to reconsider his recent decision in regard to Portsmouth not being created a city?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a question on this subject on the 20th June last. Norwich has for many centuries been a city; and the circumstances in the case of Cardiff were exceptional. I regret that I cannot treat Portsmouth differently from other towns of larger population.
  Mr. LEE: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should discriminate against a town like Portsmouth, which is of such great historic importance and has this large population?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not discriminating against a town like Portsmouth at

  1573
  all. On the contrary, I am only following out the rule which has been hitherto observed.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering Portsmouth, I hope that he will not forget Stoke-on-Trent.

  King Edward Memorial (Hyde Park Corner).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the approaching end of the Session, he will at once place in the Tea Room the plans of Professor Adshead for providing a site for the King Edward Memorial at Hyde Park Corner; and whether the King Edward Memorial Committee has yet considered the plans?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The plans of Professor Adshead are now in the Tea Room. The First Commissioner of Works has been informed that the King Edward Memorial Committee has not yet been able to consider these plans.
  Captain MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the Green Park scheme will not be proceeded with during the Recess and before the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I do not think the Green Park scheme will be proceeded with for many months to come. The plans are not out yet.

  Crimean memorial (Scutari).
  Colonel YATEasked whether steps have been taken to renovate the English inscription on the monument erected by the nation in the cemetery at Scutari in 1857 to the memory of the British officers and men who fell in the Crimea, which is reported to have become illegible?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The inscription on this monument was re-gilded in August last year.

  Glasgow Tramways Strike.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information with regard to the tramway strike in Glasgow?
  Mr. BUXTON: There was no further information when I left the office of the Hoard of Trade. I will communicate with the hon. Member in the course of the afternoon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the course of business during the present week?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To-morrow is the concluding day in Supply, and the reports of all the remaining Votes will be taken at 10 o'clock. Treasury, Inland Revenue and Office of Works Votes will be placed on the Paper to enable the House to discuss the Road Board, Stamps and Royal Parks.
On Wednesday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill and Public Works Loans Bill.
On Thursday we shall take the Committee stage of those two Bills and of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
On Friday, the Appropriation Bill, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and Public Works Loans Bill, Third Readings, to be followed by the Adjournment Motion.
We also hope in the course of the week to proceed with some of the smaller Bills on the Paper, after consultation with the Noble Lord and the various parties in the; House.
The Committee stage of the Finance Bill will not be taken this week.
It will be a convenience to Members to know that the House will reassemble for the Winter Session on Tuesday, 24th October.
Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman press forward the Cotton Cloth Factories Bill, which affects hundreds of thousands of people in Lancashire?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will consider that.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Before the House separates for the Adjournment, will the right hon. Gentleman state what business it is intended to pass during the autumn,, and what Bills are to be dropped?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is some consultation going on as to that subject, and probably a statement will be made before the Adjournment.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can spare a couple of hours for the small remnant of the Copyright Bill?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have left a loophole for what are considered small Bills. I hope it may squeeze through.
Mr. BRADY: May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Telephone Transfer Bill?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I had better not give any answer about any special Bills. I have referred to the small Bills, and I hope a good many of them may squeeze through.
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether the National Insurance Bill will be taken on the first day of the Autumn sitting?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I had better not say anything now until we come to the Motion for Adjournment.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask whether it is the intention to devote portion of the time to the consideration of the Scottish Estimates, because when the Vote was taken last time the various reports were not published, and a large portion of the time was taken up by a private Bill.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As my hon. Friend knows very well, the Government have no control or responsibility with regard to private Bills. It is no fault of the Government that time was taken up with the discussion of a private Bill.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: As the Scottish Estimates were taken before the various reports were published, and as we were unable to consider various items arising out of the Estimate at the time, will the Government see their way to put the Scottish Estimates down?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is the opportunity of raising any subject on the Second and Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer either himself to make or to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement about the business of the Autumn Session before we come to the Motion for Adjournment? The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember that it is very unusual for the House to have arrived at this period without a full statement having been already made. It is only in consequence of the usual Motion not having been made by the Government taking the time of the House.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the request, which seems to me very reasonable.
Ordered, "That, on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock." —[The Prime Minister.]
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings in Committee on Navy and Army Expenditure, 1909–10, and in Committee of Ways and Means, be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, although opposed."
The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes. 101.

Division No. 321.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood. Granville G. (Peterborough)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clancy, John Joseph

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Adamson, William

Clough, William

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, John R.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hackett, John

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hancock, J. G.

Barnes, George N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Beale, W. P.

Cotton, William Francis

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Crumley, Patrick

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cullinan, J.

Harvy, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., South)

Hayden, John Patrick

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

De Forest, Baron

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Boland, John Pius

Delany, William

Henry, Sir Charles

Booth, Frederick Handel

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Higham, John Sharp

Bowerman, Charles W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Brady, P. J.

Duffy, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Brocklehurst, William B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hudson, Walter

Brunner, John F. L.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Bryce, J. Annan

Essex, Richard Walter

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Burke, E. Haviland-

Falconer, James

Johnson, W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Jones, Edgar B. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Gill, A. H.

Jowett, Frederick William

Chancellor, Henry George

Glanville, H. J.

Joyce, Michael

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Keating, Matthew

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

O'Doherty, Philip

Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. S.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

O'Dowd, John

Shortt, Edward

Leach, Charles

Ogden, Fred

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Logan, John William

O'Malley, William

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Lundon, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Pointer, Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Macpherson, James Ian

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Pringle, William M. R.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

M'Curdy, C. A.

Radford, G. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Manfield, Harry

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Wardle, George J.

Meagher, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Reddy, Michael

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Webb, H.

Mond, Sir Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Mooney, John J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

White Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Morrell, Philip

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Robinson, Sidney

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Muldoon, John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Munro, Robert

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rowlands, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Neilson, Francis

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gardner, Ernest

Peto, Basil Edward

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gibbs, George Abraham

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gilmour, Captain J.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldsmith, Frank

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peal

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Baird, John Lawrence

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Balcarres, Lord

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton).

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Bird, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Stewart, Gershom

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Homer, Andrew Long

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Campion, W. R.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thynne, Lord A.

Cassel, Felix

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Touche, George Alexander

Cautley, H. S.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cave, George

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Macmaster, Donald

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wolmer, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Croft, Henry Page

Mount, William Arthur

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Newdegate, F. A.

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Perkins and Mr. Grant.

Forster, Henry William

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
Order [16th June] for committing the Merchandise Marks Bill to a Standing Committee read, and discharged:—
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

BILL PRESENTED.

  LUGGAGE (BICYCLES) BILL.
  "To define luggage on railways with respect to bicycles and to provide for their registration," presented by Mr. BOWER-MAN; supported by Mr. Goldstone, Mr.

  1579
  William Thorne, and Sir James Yoxall; to be read a second time upon Monday, 30th "October, and to be printed.

SUPPLY [21st allotted day].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [21st allotted day].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

    CLASS II.—PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £252,000, 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, 1912, for the Salaries of Members of the House of Commons not in receipt of Salaries as Ministers, as Officers of the House, or as Officers of His Majesty's Household."
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, to reduce the vote by £100,000.
    I move this reduction on the understanding that we are allowed now to discuss the procedure by which, the Government have thought fit to introduce payment of Members into our Parliamentary system.
    Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order, will the discussion be confined to the question of procedure?
    Viscount WOLMER: May I explain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to allow us to take a Division on this Motion at about half-past six, after which other questions could be discussed.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that it will be for the general convenience of the Committee that the discussion at present should be confined as far as possible to this particular point.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think it would be very desirable that the Debate at the outset should as far as possible be confined to this one point.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I have a Motion on the Paper, and I should like to be assured that if I do not intervene now I shall have a chance later.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot give a definite promise; but if it is the general understanding that a Division is to be taken on a reduction moved for the purpose of raising the constitutional question about half-past six, I shall endeavour to confine the Debate to Members who wish to speak on that point.
    Viscount WOLMER: I have put down this Motion because I agreed last Thursday to remove the blocking Motion which stood in my name, and I would like to apologise to the House for having caused a certain amount of inconvenience. In order to remind the Government of a pledge which they had apparently forgotten, I took the step, which I believe was the only step one could take, and obtained permission to raise the constitutional aspect of this very important question. The discussion that took pace on Thursday last, if it did nothing else, at any rate showed the great importance of this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that England is practically the only country that does not pay her Members of Parliament. We are proud of it. This innovation at one blow-sweeps away the last distinguishing feature that remains to mark the superiority of the British Parliament over those of foreign countries. Our point is that this most important, innovation ought to have been carried out by Act of Parliament. We regard it as highly unconstitutional to have proceeded by means of Resolution and Vote. Our reasons for that opinion are as follows:—In the first place, the procedure adopted by the Government has rendered adequate discussion of this far-reaching proposal impracticable. The Speaker explained to the House last week that of the many important Amendments on the Order Paper to the Resolutions proposed by the Government only one or two were in order. The other Amendments, raising important points or making alternative proposals were not discussed or even considered by the House. We believe that such an important change in our Constitution ought to have been discussed in all its bearings before it became an actual fact, and it is because of the hopelessly inadequate discussion and consideration this proposal has received that we in the first place wish to register a protest against the procedure adopted by the Government.
    Secondly, it is obvious that in the end this purpose will have to be accomplished by Act of Parliament. Surely the Government before long, if this practice is to be

    1581
    a permanent feature of our Constitution, will be forced to establish it as part of the law of the land? I do not suggest that they will do it out of any respect for the Constitution, but merely because of the inconvenience it will be to this or to any Government to have the subject annually brought up and discussed afresh. I think everybody will agree that payment of Members will ultimately have to be passed into law if it is to be permanent, not only to remove congestion of Parliamentary business, not only to bring an important feature of our Constitution into the law of the country, but also because the arrangement instituted by the Government is very unbusiness-like and temporary. According to the procedure which has been adopted, there is no guarantee that the money we are asked to vote this afternoon will be expended in accordance with the Resolution passed on Thursday last. If any hon. Members opposite prove recalcitrant or disagreeable to the Government, there is nothing in the Resolution of Thursday to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from witholding their salaries. I do not insinuate that the right hon. Gentleman would do any such thing, but if he did hon. Members would have no redress at all. I merely bring this forward as an instance of the fact that His Majesty's Government, if they ever get a chance, invariably do a thing in a bureaucratic way instead of by means of legislation. I think it will be agreed on all hands that the procedure adopted by the Government is ephemeral, unsatisfactory, and cannot in any way be a permanent settlement. We must ask ourselves the question why, if this will ultimately have to be passed as an Act of Parliament, it was not so passed this year. We know what we shall be told. We shall be told that the Government have no time. But that is a difficulty which confronts every single Bill ever passed by this House. Every Session we see Bills postponed because there is not time to carry them. We have frequently seen such Bills as Shop Hours Bills or Women Enfranchisement Bills postponed because there has not been time to carry them. If those proposals have been postponed, why should not this proposal have been postponed also? The shop assistants may wait and the women may wait, but directly it is a question of the salaries of Members of Parliament the proposal must be hurried through without any reference to the constitution or anything else. Those measures which we have seen postponed
    1582
    for lack of time are infinitely more important to the classes concerned than this particular proposal is to us personally. Therefore I believe it to be in every way unfortunate that the Government have decided to rush this proposal through the House in the manner they have adopted.
    In considering the action of the Government, I think we can find only one other reason why they did introduce this great and far reaching innovation by an Act of Parliament, namely, that they knew perfectly well that the House of Lords would reject it, and the people would back them up. [Laughter.] Hon. Members appear to regard as a matter for amusement the very idea that the people do not desire them to have £400 a year. I am perfectly aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed a mandate for this measure. He would claim a mandate for anti-vivisection if it suited his purpose. But it is impossible to claim a mandate for any measure until a Referendum has been held on the particular point, and I would suggest that this proposal was a very fitting subject for a Referendum in this country. If a Referendum had been taken, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been so certain about his mandate. I was very much interested to notice in a White Paper circulated a few days ago that a Referendum on this subject had been recently held in South Australia In that case it was not a proposal to pay Members of Parliament, but to increase the salaries already paid. Not only would I like to see the proposal to pay Members of Parliament submitted to a Referendum, but whenever this House thinks fit to increase the salaries, which I believe it will before very long, I would like to see that proposal also submitted. The question submitted to the Referendum in South Australia was, "Are you in favour of increasing the payment of Members of Parliament to £300 per annum," and the result was: "Yes," 42,934; "No," 89,042. I think that if a Referendum were held in England on the subject the respective proportions of the electors would be much the same as they were in Australia. I am much obliged for the courtesy of the Government and of hon. Members opposite in allowing us to raise the constitutional point. I believe it is one of overwhelming importance, and I think it exceedingly unfortunate that the very first day after the passage of the Parliament Bill the House of Commons should vote

    1583
    itself a quarter of a million pounds at the expense of the electors, who sent them here for a very different purpose.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I rise to support the Motion of my Noble Friend, and I do so with no desire to obstruct the business of the House, but with a genuine wish to protest against the action of the Government in bringing forward payment of Members in the manner in which they have done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Resolution last week, said it was an important Motion, and yet, although one listened attentively to his speech, there was no explanation and no apology on the part of the Government for introducing what is really a new system of government in this country, merely by a Resolution instead of by a Bill. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain to us certain passages in that speech. He said:—
    "The Prime Minister had announced his intention before the last election to submit a Resolution to the House of Commons for the purpose of paying the Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August,1911, col. 1360.]
    I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister never did anything of the sort. If reference is made to the utterances of the Prime Minister, it will be seen that he said that he proposed, if he was returned, to make provision for the payment of Members, but he never said he was going to merely pass a Resolution to have that effected, which is a totally different thing. In the statement of the Prime Minister he gave no details, and suggested no amount, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer does he think that these few words, these few passing words, of the Prime Minister can be construed to have the effect that the Government will be entitled now to bring in a Resolution for the payment of Members and for expending £250,000 a year, on what is simply a blank cheque. Does he think that because he said, just before the House rose one evening, that if returned he would propose payment of Members, that entitled him at the end of a Session to bring forward a Resolution which will introduce an entirely different state of affairs to what has existed up to the present time. I would also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain this sentence, "At any rate it was with full notice to the constituencies." What notice was it? During the discussion which we heard last week only one hon. Member on the opposite side of the House got up and said that he had given any notice to his constituents in his election
    1584
    address. That was the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). An hon. Member on this side of the House said that he also gave some notice by suggestions that the Government were going to bring in payment of Members. I know many of us suggested that, and we argued as one of the reasons why support should not be given to the Radical party that it was the intention of the Government to bring about payment of Members, but we were always shouted at by the Liberals and Radicals present; we were told it was pure nonsense, and that if the matter did come forward, the people would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion, and that it was not really an issue at the election. I remember that shortly before the last election the Noble Lord the Secretary for War (Viscount Haldane) warned his. audience, and through them the Liberal party, that the election would come "like a thief in the night." I think that simile would be more exact if it were applied to the manner in which his own party were going to bring about payment of Members. I venture to submit that the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday and of the Postmaster-General who wound up the Debate on the same day were somewhat different. In the case of the Postmaster-General, there was a somewhat scant attendance owing to what was going on at the time in another place. He said, "the Members of this House, are, of course, in a somewhat delicate and embarrassing situation." I quite agree with the Postmaster-General. He went on, "because there is no other body that has the power to effect that payment except the Members of the House of Commons themselves." Surely that is the very reason why. if you were in a delicate and embarrassing position, the Government should have gone out of their way to take every precaution possible, so that the people of this country and the taxpayers might feel that we were not trying to vote money to ourselves in a way in which it was not intended to be done. Surely that was the more reason why further discussion should have been given by means of a Bill which should have been introduced and discussed Clause by Clause so that all the merits of the question of payment of Members could have been discussed, and the people and the taxpayers would be given an opportunity of seeing the reasons why the Government thought fit to force on this question.

    1585
    On the contrary, to return to the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what does he say?" I find that no regulations of any kind will be necessary at all. It will be quite a simple process." Is it because, under this system of Resolutions, giving payment to Members of Parliament will be such a simple process that they have proceeded in this way? Myself and my friends feel that it will be too simple, too attractive, once it is begun, and that we shall see the House constantly increasing the salaries at the expense of the taxpayer. It is because it is too simple that we wish by moving this Amendment to see the country safeguarded by the introduction of a Bill where, at any rate, safeguards can be placed upon the Statute Book which will prevent that simple process of voting money to ourselves, when we are supposed to be, and have been up to the present moment, the custodians of the public purse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to prove that the demands upon the time of Members have increased, and that really the life of a Member of Parliament is not quite so easy a thing as it was not many years ago, but he went on to say that the House has become more representative, more capable, and so on, generally patting us on the back. This argument may, or may not, have been right, but it did not go to prove that payment of Members was necessary. If the House of Commons at the present moment is so representative it shows it has risen to the requirements of the times. It is no argument for saying that Members should have to be paid. In spite of the fact that we had two elections in one year, there was no shortcoming of candidates, even on the Liberal side. We find many who call themselves democrats willing to come forward, and not only to give up their time and to spend their money in the elections, but, as the election petitions show, they were willing to spend more than the law allows them to spend in. order to get into Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "On both sides."] Yes, that applies to both sides, though not on the Labour benches possibly. However, my point is that there was no shortage of candidates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not prove in his speech that there was any real need, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, owing to any falling off of candidates, to change the present system. Whether or not payment of Members of Parliament is right, whether the arguments are in favour of or against it, I
    1586
    think the electors and the taxpayers as a body will look with considerable suspicion upon a Government which at the fag-end of a Session and at the very first moment they possibly could, after they had taken upon themselves by illegal means this supreme power in a Single-Chamber Government, made it their first act to vote themselves salaries. I think the electors will look with suspicion upon them and will give them the reward they justly deserve.
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Resolution upon the Paper will enable the Patronage Secretary, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Undersecretaries to receive £400 per annum in addition to their existing salaries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the proposal to take this money by means of a Resolution is illegal. I think so on account of what was done in 1875 and 1883. Just look at the matter from the point of view of ordinary practice. I do not agree with what the Noble Lord says, that if we vote the money now, it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep it in a pool and to cut out any hon. Member. I think it is all the other way, and that once Parliament has voted the money and has earmarked it for a particular purpose, the Treasury will pay it to the person who. is intended to receive it. If you go back to the year 1883, at that time the Government was in an enormous difficulty in Ireland in reference to the salaries of their stipendary magistrates. The salary of an ordinary resident magistrate was fixed by Act of Parliament at from £300 to £600 a year, but the Government, in order to give certain magistrates a salary of £1,000 a year, did the very thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now doing with regard to payment of Members of Parliament, namely, putting down an Estimate and carrying a Resolution, and then validating it, as he supposed, by means of an Appropriation Bill. That is exactly the method which the Auditor-General condemned in 1883. He said: "It is illegal for you to do that," and he referred back to the precedent of 1875, when certain half-pay officers in excess of the number were given half-pay by a system of votes in this House. The matter, I think, gains much more importance from the fact that we have deprived the House of Lords, or the Second Chamber, of the

    1587
    right to deal with financial questions. Once we have taken that step it behoves us to proceed ourselves with greater particularity. I have never hesitated to say in regard to the Budget of two years ago that I did feel, and I still feel, greatly obliged to the House of Lords, and my regret is that they did not throw the Bill out, not once but two, three, four, or ten times. I have never wavered in that opinion, and all the conflict, so far as Ireland is concerned on that point, has passed by me as the idle wind. This House, however, has decided by the Bill which is soon to become law that the Lords are to be given no opportunity of giving Ireland any protection in these financial questions, and therefore I think we are entitled in regard to so important a proposal as Payment of Members to look at it very carefully.
    Speaking generally, I am in favour of the principle because of the very great value of the entrance here of a large party such as the Labour party. I think, speaking generally, they are an ornament to this House, and it was my opinion on that question which prevented me voting against it the other evening. I thought it would be acting undemocratically to prevent the workman of this country sending here any representative he chooses. That being so. the question is, are we right or not, are we taking the proper step on which to found this great, and, as I believe, generally wholesome innovation which the Government have initiated? The right hon. Gentleman said the other night that he would safeguard this payment from the ordinary garnishee order against a man who is bankrupt or in default. May I ask him to consider for a moment the case of the Irish and Scottish Members? Suppose you apply at an Irish or a Scottish court for an Order—Scotland, I suppose, in this matter will be the same as Ireland—to attach for the payment of his debts the salary that has been voted here to a particular Member: is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that in regard to so novel a principle as the present an Order could be obtained to attach the salary of a Member which was in the hands of the Treasury of this country? I would not like to have to argue that point. Once, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that this sum of £400 will become attachable for ordinary debts which Members may owe, does not it follow, as a matter of course, that the creditor or
    1588
    creditors are entitled as against us to some provision which enables that money to be annexed for payment as suggested?
    If the right hon. Gentleman said, "We have determined, as in the case of Ireland, by certain Bills in relation to the pensions of certain police"—I am not quite sure whether it applies to soldiers, but I know in the case of certain police payments it does apply—"that the money can never be taken in execution, and that the pensions of particular people shall remain and shall not be chargeable for particular debts," then I could understand the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But surely this question of annexing the salary of a Member of Parliament is one that requires definition? For instance, take the case of bankruptcy. Is this money to be available in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors? If this money is to be available in bankruptcy, how in the case of Irish bankruptcy are you going to provide—if there is neither rule nor regulation, nor statute—that an Irish bankrupt's assets should be seizable in England for the benefit of Irish creditors? This question only lies at the threshold. Take, if I may put it, the case of a Member of Parliament who has only just come into the House, like myself. Am I, or is my predecessor, to get the salary which is to be annexed to the position? I do not say I am very much troubled about it, and I am sure my predecessor is not very much troubled about it; but this matter requires definition. Supposing the Treasury say that as regards a Member of Parliament who has only served for a few months that they will pay the salary. I should like to know upon what principle they will rely having regard to the terms of the Resolution.
    A person who ceases to be a Member of Parliament is not, I would suggest, entitled to any portion of this sum. Therefore it appears to me that we should treat the present Resolution as in the nature of giving Parliamentary sanction to a Bill for next year. I do not mind a bit if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then says that this Bill shall be dated back. But we are now at the threshold of a very important question, and we are, I think, in our own interest and from the point of view of finance, taking a leap in the dark. Let me illustrate this a little further. Take the case of schoolmasters; take the case of the Army. You pass annually an Army (Annual) Bill. You provide in that Bill, or

    1589
    in some Bill of the kind, for salaries for commanders-in-chief, colonels, captains, and other officers. Would it be tolerable that you should by a Resolution of this House raise those salaries without having the authority of Statute for it? Take Another case. This House very frequently votes a grant or a salary to distinguished officers. They did it in the case of the Egyptian War to a famous admiral. We vote pensions to Mr. Speaker. But these are all afterwards moulded into Statute form. We never rely in these cases on a mere Resolution of the House. In every case there is Statute law for what we do. Unless there was Statute law I venture to think that the Treasury would be very slow, under circumstances like these, to pay the money.
    If what is good, or rather what is required in the case of a distinguished general, in the case of a Speaker of the House of Commons, and in all those other cases affecting the Army and Navy and the great public services, why do we in our own interests and at a time when we have abolished the financial powers of the House of Lords take a step fraught, it may be, with inconvenience for the future? I do not say this for a moment by way of any opposition to the principle of the payment of Members, as I have indicated. But I do think that the Government require some further powers than those they claim by way of giving effect to the principle. The right hon. Gentleman will find my references to the Public Accounts Committee of 1883–4 on page 7 of the reports of 1883. The only other thing I would mention is this: What did Mr. Gladstone do? The Public Accounts Committee of that day was a very strong body. Mr. Courtney, now Lord Courtney of Penwith, was Secretary to the Treasury. Anyone who recalls the names of those on that Committee will see at once the weight and importance of them, and how strong a body that committee was.
    In consequence of their Report, what did Mr. Gladstone do? He brought in a Bill to regulate the salaries of these divisional Irish resident magistrates. That Bill, being opposed in this House by us, was dropped, and with it Mr. Gladstone allowed the salaries of these gentlemen to drop also, so that effect was given to the report of the Auditor-General and to the Committee of Public Accounts. That was a reasoned case. I do not pretend to know recent cases as well as I know old ones, but I think there was a recent case
    1590
    connected with the Education Department in England a year or two ago. I rather think that a precedent was created in the case, in spite of the protests in this House. Surely, when we are dealing with our own salaries it is an occasion when we should be the more scrupulous and the more careful! Lastly, let me remind the House how are Ministers' salaries settled. Ministers' salaries are settled by Statute. Take the case of the advance of salary—so well deserved, to the President of the Local Government Board, and I think, also to the President of the Board of Trade. Was not that done by Statute? If it was done by Resolution of the House, at all events the original Government had this warrant for the precedent created—that the original salaries were fixed by Statute. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always alert and wise in this House. He will say, I think, that the salaries of most Members of the Government are fixed by Statute. I think they are. They are not on the Consolidated Fund. They are voted every year by this House, and I certainly think in our own case it would be wrong if we departed from what is, I submit, a wholesome practice.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to support, the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend and also to support the grounds which have been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Healy). It is a very wrong thing of the Government to have thought fit to have brought this forward by Motion, because in very recent years this matter has been discussed and discussed again. That great financier, Sir William Harcourt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there was a Motion before the House for the payment of Members, on 24th March, 1893, said:—
    "It is a measure which ought to be carried by Act of Parliament. We perfectly admit that the proposal is one of serious constitutional change in this country, and it ought to be regarded, and dealt with, as such. It is not a thing to be hurried through by any sidewind or by any by-stroke."
    Sir William Harcourt treated the matter as the lawyer which he was. He knew the difficulties that surround the question. Financier as he was, he felt it was not right by a by-stroke or side-wind to alter what is a matter of high constitutional practice. May I ask the Committee to go back a little bit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the amusing speech in which he introduced the Resolution to the House, attempted to suggest that he was the constitutional authority who was going back over the period of a couple of

    1591
    hundred years in order to restore old constitutional usage. What he was attempting so far as constitutional history goes— to clear away one point, do not let us suppose there is any constitutional history which can possibly support any Resolution of this kind—for the old procedure was apparently that at the end of Parliament the Member for the Constituency had a writ to take with him down to his Constituency for the purpose of levying his expenses upon the Constituency which had sent him to Parliament.
    I doubt very much whether there is any Member of this House who would welcome having a writ put into his hands that would entitle him to go down to the burgesses of the borough which he represented, or the voters of the county division, and get his expenses from them for having attended the Session of Parliament.
    That was the procedure which lasted until 1681. If any reference is required to show that, it is to be found in the well-known and useful Diary of Mr. Pepys, which tells us so much about that time. He called attention to the disuse of this procedure, and tells us why in that time it was thought to be a misfortune. In 1668 he was dining in the City, and after a long conversation with various Members in the City, he said (Pepys' Diary, 30th March, 1668):—
    "But all concluded that the bane of the Parliament hath been the leaving of the old custom of the places allowing wages to those that served them in Parliament-[HON. MEMBERS: 'Hear, hear']—by which they chose men that understood their business and would attend it and they could expect an account from, which now they cannot; and so the Parliament is become a company of men unable to give account for their interest of the place they serve for."
    There are not quite such emphatic cheers for the last sentence:—
    "They could expect an account from them, which now they cannot, and so Parliament is become a company of men unable to give account for the interest of the place they serve for."
    5.0 P.M.
    I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he goes down to his Constituency, is able to give a very excellent account of his work. But is he immediately to put out his hand and say: "I have brought a writ for payment of services rendered?" That was the constitutional procedure of old times, arid when the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the House to believe that in passing this Resolution he is going back to the constitutional procedure which existed a couple of hundred years ago he may have been
    1592
    making a very amusing statement, but he must not really ask us to accept it as the true view of constitutional history. How does the matter go on? After that time I do not think anything was heard of the payment of Members until it was put forward as one of the items of the people's Charter in 1839; then it was scouted as one of the most impossible things, and the Chartists, as we know, failed to succeed upon that item. At that time it was fully discussed by many persons of high constitutional authority, and Lord Macaulay spoke emphatically against it when it was brought forward in what I may call the democratic charter of the time. Let us come down to an absolutely recent period of time, when the matter was brought forward, as it was, by an hon. Member for Leicester. Hon. Members for Leicester seemed to have held to the doctrine of the payment of Members for some time. When the Motion was brought forward by Mr. Taylor, who then represented Leicester, Mr. Gladstone declined to give the matter even consideration, because when the Bill was brought in his authority secured its defeat upon First Reading. I think I may fairly quote Mr. Gladstone as a person of distinction and authority, even for hon. Members opposite. The words he used at that time are important. He said:
    "When the charge is locally levied, it is an indication of a very strong sense in the local community of the necessity of the measure and of the value of the services of the man, but if these payments are to be made out of the Consolidated Fund, then I must ask whether it is generally desirable to, that irrespective of highly exceptional cases which may be counted upon one's fingers, we should entirely alter the practice that so-long governed our conduct."
    I do not know that in this Constitutional! question any sufficient authority has been given to prove that this House can by Resolution do what the authority I have already cited shows should be done by Act of Parliament.
    I desire to say a few words upon the important points raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). We all know that in many cases where either salaries or pensions are paid they are rendered immune from any illegal proceedings. That is done by Statute. The pay of officers and of retired officers, both in the Army and Navy are protected from legal proceedings, and cannot be touched where the person proceeded against has got himself into financial difficulty and has had judgment given against him. That is on the ground that these sums are given to those persons to maintain their status and position. It is given in order that they may maintain the

    1593
    honourable position which they hold in having the King's Commission or in filling an office of profit under the Crown. What is the intention in this case? Is it that this £400 a year is given to Members of this House in order to maintain their status and their position, and is it therefore to be a rule that it will be immune or impossible of assignment. I should like to ask the Attorney-General for his opinion on that point. Is this salary to be given to Members of this House in order that they may maintain themselves in an honourable status, or is it given merely as a bonus for services rendered? If given in order to maintain their status I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether it can be taken by any proceeding in any court; whether it is inalienable and unassignable, and whether it is given for that purpose, or is it given as a compensation or a bonus at the concluding portion of each Session?
    The other point which the hon. Member for North-East Cork raised is a very important one, and that is the question as to who are the Members to be paid? Is it the Members who are Members at the conclusion of a Session or Members who are Members at the commencement of a Session, and whether there are to be some rules and regulations made by which an adequate portion is to be assigned to Members for approved duty day after day, week after week, and month after month? And is this salary to be apportioned by one Member so long as he sits for a constituency, and does it go to the succeeding Member, and if so what is to happen during the day which the seat is unoccupied? All these are matters which must necessarily come forward and must arise for determination, and very quickly. The difficulty the House is in is that we are proceeding in a totally exceptional manner, and the manner in which there is no precedent at all. We have payment by resolution, and being outside a Statute, we are to have the whole power and control in our own hands. If the Attorney-General determines some of these points, there are still a great number of points incidentally to the matters raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork which must still await solution. What is the process if any portion of this sum of alienable or assignable by which we are to apply to levy, and where are we to levy it? If it is determined that it should be inalienable and that no portion of it can be taken the Section of an Act of Parliament is necessary to do
    1594
    that. Upon that ground I support the Motion of our Noble Friend. I can conceive the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by being in a hurry, has lost a good deal of time, as it will be ultimately necessary to deal in this important constitutional matter by way of Act of Parliament.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I support the Amendment of my Noble Friend below the Gangway, and I only regret that he did not move to reduce the sum by £200,000, which would amount to a practical rejection of the proposal of the Government. Passing that matter by, however, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what explanation and excuse the Government have for proceeding in this grave matter by Resolution and Estimate rather than by Act of Parliament? So far the Chancello rof the Exchequer made no attempt whatever, despite the long and humorous speech he made last Thursday, to justify this procedure. He justified, from his own point of view, the principle of the payment of Members, but he made no attempt to justify the procedure which the Government have attempted, and I really think it is due to him and to the House that we should be told why this departure from all precedent has taken place in this case. Most of us upon this side of the House, while entirely opposed to the principle of the payment of Members, think that at least if it is to be introduced, and if it is the Government policy, it should be made a subject of a first-class Bill which would be discussed thoroughly with adequate time and upon all its stages in order that all the many complicated and knotty questions which arises in connection with the payment of Members should be thoroughly entered into and discussed.
    We have to come to the conclusion the Government felt that this matter was likely to be so unpopular in the country that they want to smuggle it through under a cover of darkness, so to speak, when the majority of the House of Commons is absent, and they give the impression either of being ashamed of this proposal or afraid of the consequences in case the country came to realise before it was too late what was being done. I quite understand that they might have some hesitation in bringing in a Bill under conditions in which that Bill might have been rejected in another place. They might be unwilling to expose themselves to another rebuff, but now they are perfectly safe if they brought in a Bill dealing with this

    1595
    financial question. They would only have to persuade the House of Commons that it was a right and proper thing to do and the matter would be passed into law, and things would have been done decently and in order. Apart from that, the course which the Government and the Chancellor have adopted will be most inconvenient to the House of Commons, because this matter will have to come up again. I presume they are not going to keep this proposal perpetuated by not putting down this Vote until the end of the proceedings of Supply, and then closing it and thereby stifling all public discussion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman will see that all sorts of difficulties will arise if we have to vote this money every year. There will be Members of the House moving reductions of the salaries of other Members against whom they have some grievance, political or otherwise, and as a result we shall run the risk of having a number of Debates which certainly will not conduce to the dignity or reputation of this House, and therefore all kinds of knotty and difficult questions will arise as to the exact status of salaries which should really be settled by Act of Parliament. Some of these difficulties have been referred to by speakers who preceded me. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman considered many of these points, but, whether he has considered them or not, he has no power to decide what should be done in the absence of an Act of Parliament This resolution of the House of Commons merely says that salaries should be paid, but it lays down no law as to the position or security of those salaries, and sooner or later it is quite clear the Government will have to proceed by Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, do the Government propose to bring in a Bill next year, and that they merely proceeded this year by resolution and estimate because of the exceptional pressure of business? Do they propose to regularise the proceedings by Act of Parliament next year, and, if they do not proceed by Act of Parliament next year, will proper and adequate opportunities be given for discussion, or will the Government come down and say this: This is chosé judgée, it was settled last year, and there is no need for any time for discussion? We have known that course adopted in regard to other matters in the past. It would be little short of a scandal if it were adopted in future, because the House of Commons would have no adequate opportunity of discussing this great matter
    1596
    at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot pretend that we have had any adequate opportunity this Session for discussing this question. We shall have had at the most two days' debate, with opportunities for moving only one Amendment; and surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot contend that that is an adequate amount of discussion for such a grave constitutional change as this. I will not say more now about the evils of what I can only call legislation by Resolution, to which the Government now appear to have committed themselves. Once that principle is admitted it is capable of almost indefinite extension. In the days which some hon. Members below the Gangway look forward to they anticipate a Socialist Government in this country, and under those conditions what could prevent them bringing in a great measure of social reform on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's Insurance Bill by which invalidity pensions of 30s. a week might be paid to all adults who are not able to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] That proposal could be equally well brought in by a Resolution and a Supplementary Estimate if this procedure is stereotyped.
    Even the Supplementary estimate could be closured with the rest of the estimates at the end of the Session. Consequently the Government are setting up a dangerous precedent which they may find reason to regret in the immediate future. The procedure which has been adopted has this additional objection. One would have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as guardian of the Nation's purse, would have been the first to object to such a proposal as this, but as he does not object I think the taxpayers have a certain right to object because a great raid upon the finances ought not to be made except by a procedure which the country understands, and during the course of which the people had an opportunity of expressing their views. That security has not been taken away from the taxpayer, and whilst it would not be in order on this Amendment to discuss any further the principle of the payment of Members, which I think will he highly injurious both to the reputation and moral authority of the House of Commons, no Parliamentarian can deny that the actual procedure which the Government has selected in this case is nothing short of a Parliamentary scandal.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been listening to the Debate for some time in order to find out exactly what the griev-

    1597
    ance of hon. Members opposite is. I was under the impression that they were going to challenge the constitutionality of the action of the Government for proceeding in this matter by Resolution, and I thought they were going to argue that there was no precedent at all for this procedure. I have been waiting for some time, and the reason I did not get up earlier is that no case at all has been made out in support of that challenge. I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, hoping something might be said to justify the proposition which was laid down last Friday, and which was laid down with equal confidence on Thursday, that there is no precedent at all for a sum of money being voted, initiating quite a new policy except by Act of Parliament. It is quite clear that hon. Members who came to that conclusion have never even searched the Parliamentary records to find if there was any justification for that contention, and that is exactly where they are now. I cannot see that there has been the slightest effort made to search the records of Parliament to find out any precedents.
    There are two or three simply first-class precedents of the most remarkable character which could have been found without the slightest difficulty. I have no doubt at all that, by taking more trouble I could have found more precedents. Some of these precedents were not challenged at the time at all. It is true the Vote was challenged upon other grounds, but never upon this ground. I would like to say one or two words about the arguments which have been used in support of this Amendment. I am not quite clear what the complaint is—whether it is that procedure by Resolution curtails discussion or whether it leads to too much discussion—because both arguments have been used. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will show that both arguments have been used. The Noble Lord who moved this Amendment started his speech by saying this Resolution curtailed discussion, but he appears to have forgotten that he said in the next part of his speech the result of our proposal would be a debate every year. The hon. and gallant Member opposite so far forgot the first part of his complaint that he proceeded on the same lines. He said that we should always be having discussion, and somebody would be moving to reduce somebody else's salary, and that there would be endless debates, which would be derogatory to the dignity of this House.
    Mr. LEE: That is not what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman has unconsciously misrepresented me. I said there might be Debates on the Vote in Supply. My point is that you cannot have the discussion relating to matters of principle except upon a Bill. You could not move the Amendments we wish to move to a proposal of this kind on a Vote in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is where the hon. and gallant Member is wrong again. Not only has he taken no trouble to find out precedents, but he lays down the Parliamentary rule which has no foundation at all. There is nothing to prevent hon. Members each year challenging the whole principle of payment of Members each time the Vote is put down. Really this shows that a grievance is put forward and complaint made by hon. Members opposite without taking the slightest trouble to find out whether our proposal is based on some sort of Parliamentary precedent or not. We have had a discussion of this question for two days, and may I remind the hon. and gallant Member that there was no closure on Thursday, and we did not attempt to curtail discussion. We shall have another Debate to-day. This is not a discussion upon the principle, but upon the form of our proposal. The hon. and gallant Member says that next year this question may be put down in such a form that it may be closured along with the other Votes——
    Mr. LEE: I asked if you would introduce a Bill on the subject.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member said we were going to put it down in such a way that it would be closured without discussion. If the hon. and gallant Member knew anything about the order of our procedure he would know that that is entirely a matter for the Opposition, and all the Opposition Whips have to do is to go to the Government and say, "We want a discussion upon this Vote for the payment of Members." They can always have that discussion. I have never known a Government refuse to do that, and the moment the demand is made they have the Debate. They can have the Debate next year, the following year, and every year if they wish it, so that I think we have taken the course most conducive to a full discussion, and not merely a full discussion but repeated discussion. If this had been an unclean thing and we wanted to get it out of the way we could have brought in a Bill and got it through

    1599
    in that way. There is really not so much to discuss in it. If we had proceeded in this matter by a Bill it would have been done with then, and it could not have been raised afterwards. You could not afterwards challenge the principle, because you would be discussing something involving legislation, and you cannot do that. It is because we are anxious that this question should be discussed every year when the House of Commons has any doubt about it that we have proceeded in this way. The hon. and gallant Member knows very well next year and the following year, if there is a general feeling in the country against this proposal or if it is working very badly, not only can it be discussed but it will be discussed as it ought to be discussed, and the Opposition will certainly see that it is discussed. As I have said, if we wanted to have done with this question we could have proceeded by Bill and not by Resolution. An hon. Member opposite said, "You are smuggling this question through without letting the people know anything about it." Nothing could be further from the facts. I will read what the Prime Minister said, and I ask could anything be more specific on the eye of going to the electors just before announcing a dissolution than the words used by the Prime Minister, who said:—
    "I may say at once that it is the intention of the Government. if they have the opportunity and the requisite Parliamentary following next year, to propose a provision out of the public funds for the payment of Members, and they think that intention being announced before the General Election takes place there will be no constitutional impropriety in the proposal being made effective if Parliament thinks fit in the Parliament after the General Election."
    What more could a Prime Minister do on the eve of an election? [An Hon. MEMBER: "Put it in his election address."] Surely the Prime Minister is entitled to do exactly what the Prime Minister did in 1900, who said, "This is an election upon the war." I think we are entitled to say this was an issue. If the Prime Minister says, before going to the electors, "I propose doing this the very first year, if you give me a majority," what more can any Prime Minister do? [AN HON. MEMBER: "That suggests a Bill."] I am told that a question was put by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division to the Prime Minister on this subject, and he repeated that pledge, and nothing could have been more specific. Not only did the Prime Minister say he would do it in the next Parliament, but he said he would do it next year, and that is as specific as anything could possible be on
    1600
    this subject. Now I come to the question of precedents, although nothing has been said upon this point. I can assure hon. Members that there are precedents, and I have been able to discover three in a very short time. There was the abolition of purchase in the army, under which £803,000 was voted to provide compensation, not by Act of Parliament, but purely by a Vote in Committee of Supply, and that was incorporated in the Appropriation Bill, as it will be in this case. I will give another precedent. There was the question of paying rates on Government property, which involved a very considerable burden on public funds. In this case there was no liability on the Government to pay, but under pressure, in the year 1860, a vote was taken to cover the cost of making a contribution in lieu of rates on Government property to the local authorities concerned. That cost some hundreds of thousands a year; I forget for the moment how much, but at any rate a very considerable sum. You have never had an Act of Parliament for it. It has been done by Resolution of this House. The policy was initiated by a Resolution of this House. It has been continued by Resolution, and even to this very hour you simply have a Resolution put down and the rest is done by means of Government regulations and by means of Parliamentary pressure.
    I have got a third precedent, and it is a ranch more startling one. The whole system of State-aided national education was started in this way. In the year 1833 a Vote was put down by Lord Althorp to give State-aid to elementary education for the first time. That was a very great and serious departure. There was a great controversy going on at the time, and I believe the Radical view was the State should not support education in any State form, but that it ought to be left to voluntary organisation. There was a controversy between the Church and Nonconformists which raised some of the most fundamental issues that you could possibly raise. The issues raised by the payment of Members is nothing to the issues then raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I ask anybody who knows what issues are involved in that question whether the issues raised by the payment of Members are for the moment comparable? Can you raise any issue that is greater than the issue of denominational education? Of course you cannot. Whatever issue you take up, it is the most solemn issue that could be raised in this House or anywhere else. All that was in-

    1601
    volved in the intervention of the State for the first time in aiding elementary education in this country. That was done by means of a Vote in Committee of Supply without any Bill, and it was done without any notice being given before the election, or during the course of the Session. On the contrary, if hon. Members will turn up the Debate which took place earlier in the Session, they will see Lord Althorp was more or less opposed to it, and it was only towards the end of the Session he put down a Vote on the subject. I have been looking at the Debate. Sir Robert Inglis protested he
    "had never heard an Estimate brought forward in that House with greater surprise than the present."
    This predecessor of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil) protested:—
    "It was the commencement of a new system, the extent of which they could not know."
    He was perfectly right there.
    "He could not but express his surprise that such a proposition should have been brought forward without notice at the very end of the session, and at two o'clock in the morning."
    I hope the Noble Lord will follow his predecessor here.
    "He was not prepared, however, to oppose the Motion, but he thought the Noble Lord ought to delay it."
    That was the only protest. There was no protest on the constitutional ground. Mr. Hume, who was the champion of economy, and who would have protested had there been anything unconstitutional in it, because he was opposed to it on principle——
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: He had not much time if it was brought on at two o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There was no Eleven o'clock Rule then, and he could have gone on till four o'clock, as they frequently did, and as you can now, and as we have done once or twice.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: We are only able to discuss it now by arrangement, and through the courtesy of the Government Whips.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not object to interruptions so long as they have some relevance or some coherence. What on earth has this to do with it? Here you have a Motion which undoubtedly did initiate a policy of a most revolutionary character.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: 16th August, 1833.
    Sir H. CRAIK: And the amount was £20,000 a year, not £250,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With true Scottish instinct, it is the cash the hon. Member is thinking about, and not the principle. It is the principle that worries the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Rupert Gwynne); it is the money that is worrying the hon. Member (Sir Henry Craik). You were initiating great and revolutionary policy by a Resolution of this House, and it was at Two o'clock in the morning. Mr. Hume opposed it:—
    "Not on the ground assumed by the hon. Baronet. He opposed it because he thought the plan of giving assistance to schools bad."
    He opposed it on principle. Then, on the following day, they had the Report stage, and this Motion came first. What was the objection then?
    "Sir Robert Inglis could not support any plan of education that was not based on the principles of the English Established Church."
    It was raising the whole question of denominational education.
    "Mr. Aglionby's opinion was that a distinct plan ought to be proposed before the House proceeded to vote any money for this purpose."
    He was the only man who suggested it ought to be done by means of some distinct plan.
    "Mr. Cobbett could not consent to take from the people one single farthing…. in order to teach the working-classes reading and writing,"
    and he objected to it on the ground that education promoted immorality amongst the people.
    Mr. CAVE: That is not the great Cobbett?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, it is not the great Cobbett. He goes on to ask: What did all this education tend to?
    "Nothing but to increase the number of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses — that new race of idlers."
    The result of the little education they had had recently was that crime had gone on increasing, and if he had a choice of two men, one who knew how to read and the other who did not, he would not have the slightest hesitation in choosing the man who could not read. That was the sort of objection taken. There was no education on what was called the great constitutional ground. Here you have three distinct precedents. There is the precedent created three or four years ago by my

    1603
    right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna). I do think it is fair of a Government to take advantage of their own precedent. That was challenged at the time very strenuously by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not rely on it; but those are three precedents, two of them involving very serious departures of principle. They involve annual charges of a much greater amount than anything you could possibly contemplate with regard to the payment of Members, and they were not even challenged at the time. There is not the faintest doubt the House of Commons has an absolute choice of the best method of proceeding in these cases. I have no doubt those who are in favour of the payment of Members think the best way would be to proceed by a Bill, because then there would be an end of Debate, but surely from the point of view of those who regard this as an experiment, it is infinitely better to put it down by way of a Vote, so that we may have a Debate next year and the following year.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Could the House of Lords reject a Bill of this kind under the Parliament Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question of the interpretation of the Parliament Bill. They could not reject a Bill if it came under the Parliament Bill at all.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only doubt I have in my mind at all is whether any Bill initiated before the King's consent has been given to the Parliament Bill would be subject to that Bill. I would not like to express an opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman is much more competent to express an opinion on a matter of that kind than I am, and I would advise him rather to take his own opinion than to appeal to me for mine.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I should say the House of Lords could not reject a Resolution of this kind; if it was a Bill they could, and you deprive them of the power.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. and learned Friend knows that is perfectly wrong. Under the Parliament Bill they could not reject any Money Bill, and this is a Money Bill if it is anything at all.
    Mr. CASSELmade a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what that interruption means.
    Mr. CASSEL: It was intended to express a doubt as to whether this would come under Clause 1 of the Parliament Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a question of the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and I have already expressly declared I do not feel myself competent to express an opinion upon it. I do not think it arises at all, for the simple reason I do not think the Veto Bill is applicable, so far as I can understand, to any measure introduced before the King's consent has been given to it. There is therefore absolutely nothing in the point of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, because, supposing we had done it by Act of Parliament, even then the Veto Bill would not be applicable. The precedent used by the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite inapplicable. That was an attempt at payment without a Vote of the House of Commons, and that is a very different thing. Supposing we had gone on paying Members of Parliament without taking a Vote of the House of Commons——
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That would have been illegal.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, and that was exactly the case in the precedent of the hon. and learned Member. It was an attempt to pay something in excess of the statutory power. Of course, you cannot do that without some sort of Vote of the House of Commons. Take the other case, the case of the President of the Local Government Board and the President of the Board of Trade. In the case of the President of the Board of Trade you could not increase the salary because there was a statutory limit, and you had to get rid of that by means of a Statute, but with regard to the President of the Local Government Board there was no statutory limit, and the House of Commons voted £5,000 where they had previously voted £2,000 and left it to the Appropriation Bill. I have only found three precedents, but my hon. Friend has found a fourth. It is a small precedent, but, at any rate, it is a precedent which passed without challenge, and it was done at the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I have convinced the House that, at any rate, there are very important precedents for action of this kind, and that the Government adopted a wise course in following them.
    Mr. TOBIN: I listened with some alarm to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I confess it seemed to me to be characterised by too much levity. It is true the right hon. Gentleman cited precedents, but then precedents are very dangerous things to be guided by, unless we know the exact circumstances. We do know this, at any rate, with regard to one precedent, and that is that it referred to only a very small sum indeed—£30,000 a year, and when my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Scottish Universities (Sir Henry Craik) called attention to the fact that the only retort was, "Oh, you are after the money." Reply by way of the tu quoque as a rule is vulgar, and in this instance I think it was perfectly irrelevant as well. No one is entitled on either side in a matter of this sort to attribute evil motives. Not one single adequate reason has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Government should have adopted the hasty method of proceeding by Resolution in this case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the result of adopting this method will be that, as years roll by, there will be adequate opportunities for discussion, as the Vote can be put down year after year, and therefore the Debates may be prolonged and frequent. We decline to accept the view that there will be more continuous discussions by reason of the Government having adopted this method of procedure. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the Resolution having been passed this year it will be adequately discussed in succeeding years? We are all of us human, after all, and many of us are prone to yield to temptation. But, speaking as a man, I venture to say that when once hon. Members of this House have accepted this salary of £400 it will be treated as a step taken once and for all, and we shall never be able to retrace that step. It will be a case of vestigia nulla retrorsum.
    I should be very glad indeed to endorse what has been said by hon. and learned Members who have spoken in the course of this Debate. I believe that their view of the constitutional aspect of the question is the true one, and I thoroughly agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Cork when he called attention to the vagueness of the phraseology of this Resolution. I want to put this point: Suppose a man were elected to this House and sat in it for four months, doing, during that period, hard, continuous work; suppose at the end of that four months it
    1606
    should turn out, by the decision of some election tribunal, that the hon. Member's election was void through some act of his own, and not merely on the part of his agent. The Resolution is entirely vague on this point, whether a Member who has been elected to this House by corrupt means, partly used by himself, is to be entitled to receive a salary by virtue of having attained a position as Member of Parliament which he would never have attained except by his own corrupt act. That point is entirely ignored. I am convinced that the Government adopted this short and summary procedure by way of Resolution instead of by Bill, because they thought it would be more conducive to the interests of the Radical party to rush the Resolution through the House in a single sitting, almost, one might say, in the twinkling of an eye; and they did this rather than introduce a Bill, which would certainly have afforded abundant opportunities of debate on the First, Second, and Third Readings, as well as on the Committee stage.
    We all in this House know that at the bottom of this trouble lies the question of the reversal of the Osborne Judgment. We know that that judgment in the minds of many thinking men in this country created a sore. The Government recognised that it had created a sore, and that it was an embarrassing topic for them. They wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible, so they sought, by means of this hasty Resolution, which was to be forced through the House in one day, completely to cure the sore. I am convinced that it will not cure it. The Labour party are absolutely determined to stick to their resolve to do all they can to get a reversal of as much as possible, if not the whole, of the Osborne Judgment, so that the object of the Government in trying to smooth over matters in this way will not be realised. The Labour party are honest in their determination to secure the reversal of the Osborne Judgment.
    I would like in that connection to refer for a moment to my experience at the last General Election. I did what, I believe, comparatively few hon. Members in this House did, because in the course of my campaign in my constituency I repeatedly devoted whole speeches to this one topic of the payment of Members of Parliament. It was a matter I had very much at heart. Addressing, as I did, thousands of working men, while I, of course, found there was a great cleavage of opinion on such subjects as fiscal reform, the Parliament

    1607
    Bill, and the question of the reversal of the Osborne Judgment, I am certain that in the open meetings which I addressed on this question of the payment of Members, there was an entire absence of any cleavage of opinion. On the other hand, there was a clear atmosphere of unanimity on the part of working men present at the meetings, and that unanimity was one of disapproval of the payment of Members of Parliament. That is why I say it is wrong and unconstitutional on the part of the Government to rush this question through in the way they are doing, when really the country do not demand it. I have no doubt it was the experience of many other hon. Members that, while many of the working men desired a reversal of the Osborne Judgment, yet there was hardly a single soul who approved the payment of Members. Therefore, working men who wish to see the judgment reversed will never rest content with this remedy the Government are now applying. For these reasons I maintain that it is both unconstitutional and illegal to rush this matter through by means of a. Resolution instead of proceeding by means of a Bill. The fact is the Labour party has a grievance; they demand the reversal of the Osborne Judgment. The Government realise that they are in a hole, and have said to themselves, "This is very awkward for us."
    Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with a ruling given earlier in the evening—that the Debate should be confined at this stage to the constitutional question —for the hon. Member to go into more general questions?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I believe that was the understanding in the earlier part of the proceedings, but there is nothing in the rules of Order to prevent the hon. Member travelling wider. Still, for the convenience of the Committee, I hope that as far as possible he will observe the understanding.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): May I invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was arranged that this particular discussion should continue until about 6.0 o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past six."] At any rate the Division was to be taken by half-past six. May I remind the Committee that the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken only devoted a
    1608
    very brief portion of his earlier remarks to the constitutional point, which is the subject matter under discussion, and I submit it would be convenient to hon. Members generally if the general question were left over till after the question of procedure—a constitutional point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford in the discussion which took place of the last occasion—has been disposed of.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did understand it was the desire of the Committee to first dispose of the constitutional question. But the Committee will understand that this is a matter in their own hands rather than in mine. It is not for me to stop the hon. Member however wide he may travel, but now that he has been reminded of the understanding I hope he will observe it and allow us to dispose of the Amendment dealing with the constitutional point. After that the whole question will be open for discussion.
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly addressed his remarks to these benches and has emphasised the fact that the working classes of Preston are opposed to the policy of the payment of Members. Is he aware that the labour vote in favour of the payment of Members was increased at the last election, and will he accept the decision of the labour organisations and trade unions of Preston on this question?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is doing the very thing I was deprecating.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. TOBIN: May I at once say I will gladly accept any referendum on this question. I will also gladly abide by your ruling. I submit that the Resolution was wholly unconstitutional, because it forces the principle of payment of Members through the House, a principle involving admittedly grave questions, and therefore needing more and more to be dealt with in a Bill rather than in a Resolution. It was unconstitutional to do it in this way, especially as there are very few Members in this House indeed who, when they were candidates at the last election, made the question of the payment of Members of Parliament a prominent issue. For these reasons the Government ought to proceed by a Bill, which would allow elaborate discussion, instead of rushing a Resolution in the course of a single Sitting.
    Mr. CAVE: I want to refer entirely to one point, whether this is a proper or a legal way of providing for this payment? Have hon. Members considered what is the difference between payments made on mere Estimates sanctioned by the Appropriation Act and payments which are made under a special Act of Parliament? What, for instance, is the difference between the salary of a Minister and the payment of old age pensions? Surely it is this: When we vote a sum, as we are asked to do in Committee, we are voting a sum for the Crown, to be expended by the Crown upon the service of the year. The form of the Resolution is that a certain, sum be granted to His Majesty, and even when that sum is granted it gives no one a claim to payment, nor indeed can it be even expended until there is some subsequent Order, under the sign manual, I think, which puts the amount at the disposal of the Treasury. In other words, money voted in this way is to be expended by the Crown in paying its own servants, or in making Government Grants to local authorities. On the other hand, payments say of old age pensions, payments to individuals, are not, of course, made to them as servants of the Crown or the Government, but they have, under the Act of Parliament, to make personal and legal demands for payment. If that distinction is right, under what category does the House wish to put these payments to Members of Parliament? Do you want to say that we sit here as servants of the Crown? Are we here as persons appointed by the Government or by the Crown to do the work of the nation? Do we not sit here by a very different and a higher right? We ought not to be put in the position of mere Crown servants, paid by the Crown out of money granted by Parliament. I believe that to be a real and a very vital distinction. Follow it a little further home. May I put a question with a view to bringing out the point and also to clearing up doubts which I know are really in the minds of those who will be responsible for these payments. Who is going to make these payments? Under what Vote is it to come? Am I right in understanding that it is simply to be thrown upon the Vote under which the servants of this House are paid, and that we are to be paid as our excellent doorkeepers and others are paid? Is that a position in which you are going to be put or are willing to be put? If so, the House
    1610
    ought to understand what it is doing and to consider whether it is right to treat this-matter in this way.
    May I put another question? How without an Act of Parliament are you going to determine the nature of these payments? For instance, are they assignable and do they pass in bankruptcy or do they not? Different authorities take different views on the point. Surely the matter is of so much importance that you want to define it by statute and not by the mere opinion, however valuable, of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Here is another point which, though it may seem a small one, shows the need of an Act of Parliament. Under this Vote payment will run from 1st April. It depends entirely on the pleasure of the Government whether payment down to this day is made or not. Why should they have the determination of this matter? Take the case of a change in representation. The hon. and gallant-Gentleman (Captain Donelan) was elected last November, was unseated last May, and was again elected in July. Will he under this Resolution be entitled to salary from 1st April to 22nd May, when he was unseated, and when will his salary recommence, on the day of his election, on the day when the writ was returned, or on the day when he took the oath? Surely these are matters which must be settled somehow. I do not think it is right that the mere dictum of the Treasury, however valuable in itself, should determine these substantial questions. There is also the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Duke). On 21st April it was reported that he was the duly elected Member for Exeter. Is he to be paid from 21st April, or from 1st April, when this Resolution is to take effect? Then take the case of a man who succeeds to a peerage or is made a peer. From what date does his salary cease? Is it from the date when his father dies, or from the date when he is created or from the date when he is sworn a Member of the other House? I have always understood that a Member of this House created a peer remains a Member until he takes his seat elsewhere, and it is only by courtesy that he does not come to this House. How are you going to deal with a case of that kind? Take the case of death or any other case where there is a broken period. Does the Apportionment Act apply? I do not think it does. All these matters, some of small and some of larger importance, ought to be considered by this House and determined before a final decision is come

    1611
    to. I think the whole proceeding is wrong. You are not providing for the public service at all—that is, you are not providing money for the King to be expended on the public service. You are providing for a new payment to be made to Members as Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted some precedents, but they did not touch at all the point I am making. Take the case of compensation on abolition of purchase. That was a sum voted to the Crown to be expended in paying for something which has been taken away. Take the sums voted in order that the Crown may make a payment in lieu of rates. That again is a Vole for the Crown. In. the case of the Education Grants, though it is a more doubtful case, that is capable of being defended as a Vote for the Crown for the public service. This is nothing of the kind. Unless you are willing to make yourselves Government servants or Crown servants you will not consent to deal with the matter in this way. The point is of real importance, and it has not been dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: I must really in all seriousness protest against the precedent of 1833 as set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman based that contention was that that precedent was at the beginning of a revolutionary movement, and that therefore it was not of great consequence. What concerns us is whether the House of Commons of that date recognised it as the beginning of a great revolution, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that in those days, when the precedent was introduced, the question of education was practically unknown to this House. It had only once been mentioned before, and that in a purely passing and cursory way in 1827, and to set that up as a precedent is absolutely ridiculous. Besides which, it was not the accepted practice then, as it is now, for great new-measures to be solemnly set forth in election addresses and speeches. Hon. Members made very few speeches in the country, and they issued no election addresses at all, therefore you cannot compare that precedent with what has been done today. Our accepted practice to-day is that if you make a great change of any time it is only right that the people of this country should have a fair chance of considering it; at any rate, in its general principles if not in its small details. In answer to the
    1612
    interruption of the hon. Member (Mr. Clynes), may I say that when it is claimed for this measure that it is accepted and acceptable to the people of this country, the party of which he is a distinguished Member numbers in all forty-two, and of that forty-two only sixteen mentioned the subject of payment of Members at all in their election addresses—eighteen altogether, because two of them mentioned it simply for the purpose of protesting against this Bill as a solution of the difficult question of the reversal of the Osborne Judgment.
    Mr. LOUGH: I never heard a more melancholy Debate in my long experience of the House. We thought there was some large constitutional question to be raised. In the last speech we have heard nothing but the most petty, frivolous, contemptible pretexts for argument. I will take for example the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave). When I saw him rise I expected a good speech, such as we generally see from him, going to the bottom of the principle that is involved. What had we? A lot of small pettifogging questions which would be more suitable to a small court of Petty Sessions—such questions as these, how are all the small details to be settled without an Act of Parliament? Supposing a Member is elected on the third day. Will he be paid from the first? Supposing he loses his seat for ten days, will he be paid for the ten days? He suggested that all these points would be covered in an Act of Parliament. Nothing of the kind. The Act would be a short one dealing with the principle, just as our Resolution does, and these things would be settled by Orders in Treasury. Then he endeavoured to cast some stigma upon our proceedings by saying we should be paid in the same way as our doorkeeper is paid, under the expenses of the House of Commons. It could not be dealt with in a fairer way than that It is part of the expenses of the House of Commons, and it shows how reasonably and fairly the Government have proceeded when we see this treated as expenses, so that any Member who wishes to question it can do so. The House will see how unfairly the Government have been treated in this whole matter, and it is because of the restraints on their position that hon. Gentlemen opposite made such bad speeches, if they will forgive me for saying so. What is the course the Government has taken? It has ensured that there will be constant discussion of this matter, and that it can be looked

    1613
    into by the House of Commons. I say that is a fair and open way for the Government to take, and they should have been praised instead of being attacked. I want to give one or two reasons why the constitutional question must be settled in favour of the course the Government has taken. The old law of this country is in favour of the payment of Members. There is an old Act of Parliament passed early in the fifteenth century—I think it was in 1412—and there is another Act passed in 1472, allowing payment of travelling expenses. These payments were made for several hundred years, and therefore I say we ought to regard the action taken as relieving the rates rather than anything else, and from that point of view it should be welcomed by hon. Members rather than attacked in the way it has been this afternoon.
    It has been said that the question of payment of Members was not in the election addresses of hon. Members on this side. It has been in every election address of mine since 1892. The question has been discussed many times in this House. From 1870 to 1911 we have had ample discussions on the principle of the proposal. It has had the usual fate of good measures. When it was introduced first in the House in 1870 it was treated somewhat as hon. Members treat it this afternoon as a new and terrible thing. But discussion went on, and as early as March, 1892, in a Conservative Parliament the principle of payment of Members was carried by a majority of sixty-five. The principle was re-asserted in 1893, 1894, and again in the Parliament elected in 1906, by majorities of hundreds. There is nothing new in it. The whole of our Parliamentary history shows that the principle has been approved hundreds of times, and we ought to thank the Government for putting it in practice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Approved hundreds of times?"] Well, repeatedly. We have all been familiar with the question for many years. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) who opened the Debate, said that the Government would save time by this procedure. Why should not the Government save time? Why should it be a crime to take this course as long as fair play is given to everyone. Is it suggested that fair opportunity has not been given for stating every objection to the proposal that can be stated?
    Viscount WOLMER: Certainly.
    Mr. LOUGH: You can defeat the Government to-day on it if you like. [An HON. MEMBER: "I wish we could."] Is not
    1614
    that fair play? If the Noble Lord had men enough he could defeat the Government, and then the proposal would come up next year under the procedure which the Government have taken. Then, again, it could be defeated if its opponents had men enough. I say that the Government has proceeded in a businesslike way to carry out the proposal, and not a single sound objection has been raised to the course it has taken.
    Sir RUFOS ISAACS: I venture to appeal to the Committee now to bring this discussion to a close. We have already given considerable time to it. Many speeches have been made from the other side of the House with reference to the matter, and I suggest that we might now get on to the general questions involved in the Vote. [An HON. MEMBER:" IS there to be no reply?"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already replied, and I was afraid if I proceeded to answer points raised in the Debate that might prolong discussion. So far as I could gather from the speeches made, it seems to me that none dealt with the constitutional point, except the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee). I only want to reply to the points raised specifically since the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the general discussion. First of all, let me say, in answer to the hon. Member for Cork, that I think the point he made was quite fairly stated. He said he had considered this matter, and he referred to the precedent which did not apply to this particular case, namely, the raising of the salary of the President of the Local Government Board. Therefore, in view of the precedents given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think we are entitled to expect the support of the hon. and learned Member.
    The main question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Kingston Division (Mr. Cave) was that in this particular case we are voting this amount to pay ourselves; whereas in other cases the votes were Grants-in-Aid to His Majesty for the payment of services to the Crown, and that if they are not services to the Crown they should come under some other designation, which I do not think he made quite clear. As an illustration of this point he sought to bring out the difference between payment for old age pensions and payment for such ser-

    1615
    vices as those given by Members of Parliament, and said that in respect of old age pensions the vote would not be to His Majesty as it would be when it was to pay for services to the Crown. That is quite wrong. The money would be voted in this form for old age pensions: "That a sum, not exceeding (so many millions), 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 the 31st day of March, 1912, for …" Of course the point of that is that the sum of money is voted to His Majesty in order that the charge, which is in that case a statutory charge, may be defrayed out of moneys voted by Parliament. Therefore the distinction which my hon. and learned Friend was seeking to draw does not exist. I do not intend to follow him into those minor points with reference to the number of days in respect of which a Member should be paid. I will content myself with saying that he is entitled to be paid so long as he is a Member of the House. It does not seem to be open to very much legal discussion whether, when you say a man is to be paid for his services as a Member of Parliament, that would entitle him to be paid when not a Member of Parliament. Nor would this proposal entitle him to be paid after he is dead, or when he has succeeded to a peerage. I have no doubt there are points which my hon. and learned Friend will be quite equal to discover as to whether on a particular day, on the death of a peer, his heir, who is a Member of this House, would cease to be entitled to payment. I think we might leave these matters to be settled hereafter.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to state his view on the point I raised?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am speaking as a law officer, and I do not like to make a statement of what I believe to be the law on a point if I have not carefully considered it. I do not think there is any division of opinion among lawyers that this is payment made for public services. It is intended to be an allowance given to a Member in order that he may perform
    those public services, and therefore it is payment which will not be in the ordinary sense of the word payment like a private debt due to a man.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the contrary.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think he said exactly what I have said. I will read the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave. I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to an answer given to a question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), said:—
    "The payment of the salaries of Members will be governed by the ordinary rules relating to payments in respect of personal remuneration out of voted moneys, namely, the accounting officer will not recognise any assignment, unless made by order of court. I do not think any further restrictions of the kind referred to in the question are either necessary or desirable."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 10th August, 19ll, cols, 1349 and 1350.]
    I have only intervened in the Debate out of courtesy to my hon. Friend, who asked me to reply to the question which he raised, and I hope this discussion may now be closed.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that not one of the precedents he gave had ever been challenged. What are the facts? I remember perfectly well myself the abolition of purchase by Royal Warrant, and I have a record of the facts. They were these. It was sought to abolish purchase by a Bill which was debated for weeks in this House. On 4th July of that year it left the House, being carried by 289 against 231. It was introduced in the House of Lords on 13th July, and was rejected on the Second Reading on the 18th of that month by 155 to 130. It was then, and then only, that Royal Warrant was issued. I am not arguing the question whether that was right or wrong, but I state these facts in reply to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the precedents he gave had never been challenged.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £152,000 be granted for the said service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 216.

    Division No. 322.]

    AYES.

    [6.28 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, N.)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Balcarres, Lord

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton).

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bird, Alfred

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boyton, J.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cator, John

    Jessei, Captain H. M.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cave, George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Croft, H. P.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Macmaster, Donald

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Fell, Arthur

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Forster, Henry William

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Wolmer and Mr. Rupert Gwynne.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cullinan, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Adamson, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Dawes, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hudson, Walter

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Hughes, S. L.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Barnes, G. N.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson, W.

    Barry, Redmond John

    Doris, William

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Beale, W. P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Jowett, F. W.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Joyce, Michael

    Boland, John Plus

    Falconer, James

    Keating, Matthew

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Field, William

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lansbury, George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gill, A. H.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cockerm'th)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    Leach, Charles

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Logan, John William

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lundon, T.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. c. (Pembroke)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Macdonald, Ramsay (Leicester)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hackett, J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hardie, J. Kerr

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Manfield, Harry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayward, Evan

    Mooney, John J.

    1618

    1619

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Snowden, Philip

    Muldoon, John

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Munro, R.

    Radford, G. H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Neilson, Francis

    Reddy, M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ogden, Fred

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Webb, H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands, James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson John (Durham, Mid)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. MacKinnon (Glas.)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: I beg to propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £63,000.
    The Committee will see by a not very elaborate use of arithmetic that under this Amendment hon. Members, instead of getting £400 a year, will get £300. I do not know whether that is a very disturbing fact to hon. Members, but I have been at some pains to look into, not only past Debates, but also some of the speeches delivered on the subject to see whether or not any particular sum was specified which Members were to receive for their services. I think the Committee will agree with me so far that the process of voting money for ourselves is not perhaps a very agreeable or a very ennobling one, and that the House of Commons have been engaged in other occupations which perhaps are better deserving of the credit and support of the electorate. It is difficult to gather much from the election addresses of hon. Members opposite. I quite admit that there were only thirty of them which mentioned the question of payment of Members, but I do not think that any of the thirty specified a particular sum which they were going to receive. But so far as my experience goes on platforms, and I believe the experience of my hon. Friends also, £300 a year was the magic sum which was going to restore the representative capacity of the House of Commons. If hon. Members look back to the Debate of 1906 they will see that actually and specifically the sum of £300 was to be paid to Members of Parliament.
    1620
    It is interesting for a moment to refer to that Debate, because the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman spoke in it, and said:—
    "I concur with Sir William Harcourt when he said we had neither the time nor the money. The policy upon which the Government have taken office and upon which they have been supported by their friends is the policy of retrenchment."
    I do not know whether their policy is still one of retrenchment, but I do know that in those five years public expenditure has increased at a greater rate than it ever increased in the whole history of this country, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer himself can have his boast that he has added more to our permanent expenditure than any Chancellor in our history.
    I now wish to offer to hon. Members opposite a very humble opportunity to practice a little of what they preach. It is a very small one, and it is going to come out, not of any expenditure on any noble object, not upon old age pensions, not upon giving married women some contribution under the Insurance Bill, but out of their own pockets, and I am going to ask hon. Members opposite to make some little sacrifice—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Peel family?"]—in order to do two things: first, in order to show their own disinterestedness on the question of voting this money; and the second is in order to save the taxpayers a sum of no less than £63,000 a year. Hon. Members will agree with me that if you have got a mandate for this—and I am not going to discuss that metaphysical question—you

    1621
    ought to be very careful in interpreting a mandate of that kind against yourselves. Hon. Members have said, "After all, if we do not pay each other, who is going to pay us?" That is a very pertinent observation. We are the only people who can pay each other, and we are the only people who have got our hands on the public finances. From those two reasons the inference I draw is that we should be very careful not to pay ourselves more than is absolutely necessary. Of course, if there is any surplus, if the money is too large—and I have no doubt some of the hon. Members will be able to make a, saving out of the £400 a year— there is a danger that it might possibly be used for some object other than that of supporting the hon. Member himself. For instance, it might be used for assisting electoral corruption. A passage from a speech of the hon. Member for North-West Devon (Sir Godfrey Baring) is interesting on this point. I quote from the "North Devon Herald" of 4th May, 1910. The hon. Member gave utterance to this remarkable sentence:—
    "I tell the electors that if anyone corner to me f or any help, that help "will be quite gladly given, independently of whether lie supports me or not."
    That is a very generous sentiment, but at the same time I do not think that we ought to vote money in order that hon. Members who have such generosity of sentiment should make large contributions to those who are unfortunate among their own supporters. Apparently the hon. Member took a very modest view of himself, because he said further:—
    "I am not a walking encyelopædia, and I daresay some of my Conservative friends know more about politics than I do."
    The question is, would £300 a year enable the objects to be pursued which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks ought to be pursued. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not quite satisfied with the level of ability on the benches behind him. How can we examine whether £300 or £400 a year is a sufficient sum? First of all, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when he was dealing with this matter, said it ought to be enough to provide hon. Members with the extra expense to which they are put by living in London. I submit that for that extra expense £300 a year will be entirely sufficient. There is another class of Members, those who have no money at all of their own, and who follow some manual occupation which they could not carry on and at the same time be in Parliament. I think £300 a year is a really very considerable sum for those
    1622
    Members who come into this House and who earn their living by some manual occupation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What cheek."] Cheap? [HON. MEMBERS: "What cheek?"] I would not have listened only that I thought it was some more sensible observation. Living in the country, I know something of the conditions of agricultural labour, and I should be very glad indeed myself to see representatives of agricultural labour sitting in this House. Without wishing any discourtesy to hon. Members opposite, I must say that, after listening to their speeches, I have come to the conclusion that most of them have made their reputation in other fields than agriculture. I think it is not invidious to say that an agricultural labourer earning 15s. to 18s. a week would find £300 quite sufficient to enable him to live in London in more comfort than he lives at the present moment. And, after all, that is the sole question. If you are going to do this, it would be very easy to double the amount of £400 a year.
    The point is whether the choice of the constituency is to be limited simply by a question of money, and whether you would get for £300 a year quite as large a choice of useful Members representing different occupations and professions, including manual occupations, as you would get if you gave them £400 a year. What you want to aim at is, I suppose, not so much to give a man a comfortable living, as to enable him to discharge his duties to the State by coming into the House of Commons, and serving it there. This is public money with which we are dealing, and we ought to be as careful and economical as we can with what we have got. There is another class of men who have been referred to already by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, men of great natural aptitude for politics, but they have not got sufficient money to enable them to come into Parliament. I am not talking of manual workers. You must assume that those to whom I refer earn something like £200 or £300 a year in addition to what they would get from the State. I am not myself very much of a, believer in this class of unacknowledged geniuses, who are unable to earn sufficient money in any profession or occupation, and would come to this House in order to get £300 or £400 a year. This is not a place where high artistic ability or high ability in similar directions is necessary, for, after all, politics is a practical art, and I assume that those who are able to come into the House for £300 a year are people who are capable of earn-

    1623
    ing a certain amount of money outside. It will be very unfortunate if, in consequence of this payment of Members, you merely got a class of professional politicians. I do not use the words "professional politician" in the least in an offensive sense, but I mean people who are wholly devoted to politics and nothing else.
    I think it must be clear to anybody that the position and reputation of this House is due to the fact that there is a large number of Members who are great experts on a very large variety of subjects, and who have obtained their knowledge by a number of years of service. On any subject which may be raised you will find some Member who has very considerable information in relation to it. It is that knowledge which gives strength and prestige to the discussions of the House of Commons as it is at present constituted. The question I wish to ask is whether the conditions are changed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based a good deal of his case for this large expenditure of £400 a year upon the fact, that we were all, willy nilly, being forced to become professional politicians. First of all, it seems to be a very remarkable thing that this payment of Members should be proposed at a time when there is likely to be a very large diminution of the duties of this House. If we. got Home Rule all round the duties of this House will be reduced very greatly. All we would have to discuss, perhaps, would be the Army and the Navy, foreign affairs, and a certain amount of finance—my right hon. Friend suggests an increase of salaries. Those will be the subjects with which you will have to deal, but they will not take up the whole of your time. Again, without disrespect to hon. Members, I often think that the Debates on foreign affairs had better not take place, as they often do more harm than good. Therefore, this House would be very much restricted in its activities, and, of course, the salary which you are going to pay now will largely govern the salaries to be paid in the subordinate Parliaments, where the work will be less difficult than in this House, though perhaps more laborious.
    As everybody knows, there has been a vast amount of legislation in the last few years, and a vast amount of legislation involves an enormous amount of administrative criticism in this House, nor can you be perpetually legislating. We have had, during the last seven or eight years a vast range of legislation on many subjects. Next year we will not have a Bill about
    1624
    Copyright, nor will we have a Bill on other subjects with which we have dealt. I do not know whether we can compare this-period with another historical period, or whether there is anything useful to our times by such a comparison. But undoubtedly the experience of other States that a period of great legislative activity i3 followed by a period of quietude.
    The condition, of things which is making us sit here from January to July, and October to December, will not be permanent, and, under these circumstances, I hope to persuade the Labour Members to vote for the reduction in their salary by £100 a year. I am inclined to think that if they go to their constituents and tell them that they had been afforded an opportunity of voting for £300 a year instead of £400 a year, and that they preferred the £400 a year, they will have, rather a disagreeable time. I am one of those who are very anxious, of course, to spare them any anxiety in that respect. I do not wish to make the suggestion, because it might be disagreeable to the Front Bench opposite, but it is one made by the present Prime Minister, who suggested that if there were any difficulty in getting money for the payment of Members it might be met by retrenching the existing salaries of Ministers and officials. That proposition I feel is unpopular, and I hardly like to suggest it. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Cut down pensions."] Hon. Members can make their own suggestions. I do not wish to occupy the whole field of the subject. I wish only to make this one simple and, I think, fruitful suggestion, which might be borne in mind by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. Anyhow, this burden rests on the Government. It is they who have to show that £400 a year is going to bring useful and admirable men into the House of Commons who would be prevented from coming into this Assembly if the salary were fixed at £300 a year. That is the whole problem that the Government have to face. This is not a bonus that is being given to hon. Members. It is an effort to get the best you can for this Assembly, and, as we are the sole Assembly in these islands, it is very necessary, I agree, to get the best material you can. But the Government have got to show that by their £400 a year they will get better material than for £300 a year. That is the problem, that is the burden they have to discharge, and they should at least spend as little as. possible on these salaries, wages or pensions, or whatever you like to call them, of hon. Members.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir W. BYLES (who was indistinctly heard): I have on the Paper a similar Amendment to that submitted by the hon. Member opposite, but I will endeavour to justify my proposal by some reasons which are perhaps rather better, if I may venture to say so without disrespect, than those which the hon. Gentleman has advanced. At any rate, I differ from him entirely in this respect, that I warmly approve of payment of Members, and am grateful to the Government for having at last proposed to the House this small bit of fruition of some Radical seed that we have been sowing in the constituencies as long as my political life has lasted, and indeed longer. I may remind the House that it is a very old question; it has been before the country for very many years. Unlike probably anybody in this Chamber, I am able to go back from memory to the Chartist days. It was one of the points of the Charter that Members of Parliament should receive payment. It is perfectly absurd therefore to say that it was not in the election addresses. I myself distinctly remember a Debate and Division in this House eighteen years ago when I gave a vote similar to that which I shall give tonight. We have got the franchise for the artisans and the agricultural labourers, but what do these men find when they come to an election. They found that they had to make a choice between two rich men. That, therefore, is the justification of the general policy of the Government. I myself know several Friends who were in the Parliament of 1906, excellent Members of Parliament, who were respected on all sides, and who had to go out, not because they did not please their constituents, but because they could not afford to stop in. I say that a small payment, such as the smaller amount which I propose, would probably enable us to enjoy the advantage of having them still. I myself have been rejected by a constituency before now for my poverty. I was for a long time inquiring after constituencies, and I failed to obtain selection over and over again because of my poverty. I am quite sure that my experience must be the experience of a, great many who would serve this House and their country far better than I can pretend to do. I fear I am getting into hot water with some of my Friends for venturing to propose a smaller amount than that in the Government Resolution. A good deal is friendly banter and chaff, I daresay, but some of it I am
    1626
    afraid is serious. At any rate, I have discovered from the various conversations I have had that £400 is a much more popular figure than £300 amongst a good many of my colleagues. They charge me with seeking popularity in the constituencies, and thus it appears that £300 is more popular in the constituencies, in their view. Surely if that be so they would not desire to take £100 more, which the constituencies did not approve of.
    In my judgment £300 is a better and more defensible figure than £400. I know that may not, and is not, the opinion of a large number of other Members. All I say is that it is a proper thing for the House to discuss. It is surely not a matter to be dictated by the Treasury Bench. It is a perfectly fair thing that we should ourselves consider and consult and confer together as to how much would meet the case. In this Division, if the hon. Member opposite proposes to take it to a Division, I hope that the Government will allow it to be without the Whips. No reason whatsoever has been alleged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think no reason whatever is not too strong, of why they arrived at that figure, and the sum of £400 has never been supported by argument. I think we ought to have some explanation as to why that figure was reached. I will, at any rate, give reasons why I think a smaller sum is more fitting. This is not a policy that hon. Members should receive a salary adequate for services they render, and it should not be regarded as payment for services rendered. If so, then I would say that there are very few of us who are not worth a good deal more, and some of us less, but I dare say some very much more. Therefore do not let us attempt to appraise the value of services of Members of Parliament, and to pay them that sum.
    My idea is altogether different. I want the State to defray the cost of being a Member of Parliament. I want not a salary, but an allowance which shall cover ordinary necessary disbursements of the average Member of Parliament. I mean for instance, travelling to the House of Commons, food while we are here, postage to attend to the letters of our Constituencies, and various incidental expenses. It is not like a director's fee; it is more like the expenses allowance which is made by, say, an educational authority or a borough council or any public body when one or two or more of its members go away

    1627
    on deputations, to inspect schools or something of that sort. They are not allowed to be out of pocket by doing that service for the body with which they are connected, and neither should we be out of pocket with the daily service which we render in this House. It is my view that this ought not to be a payment for work done. The work differs enormously both in amount and quality. This sum is only to enable any average man to come to this House and to do the work voluntarily. I have heard a great deal of argument and extremely well put, by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) about gratuitous public service. I hope we shall be doing nothing by this vote to injure that splendid record of Englishmen in all public services that they have established. But we shall not be doing so by paying those expenses of which I speak. We should still recognise the principle of gratuitous public service, and we should simply defray the cost to which the Member is put by coming here to do voluntary service. I say that £300 is enough for that, and that it would remove the barrier which keeps out good, able, valuable men. After all £300 is not bad pay. I came to the conclusion that I could live very well and comfortably in any part of the world on £l per day. This is not quite £l per day, but it is a long way towards it. A sum of £6 per week is a very decent salary for a journalist, for a reporter, for a workman, for a skilled artisan, or for a clerk.
    Mr. DELANY: Will the hon. Gentleman say what a Knighthood is worth?
    Sir W. BYLES: If hon. Members want the Slate to maintain their wives and families as well as themselves; if they want the State to clothe and feed them; if they want the State to pay for their one home in the country and another in London, then I do not think that the Nation is called on to do any such thing. I do not want to set a figure which would tempt men to come here for the sake of the money. I suppose we all of us know, or have known, the clever demagogue and the gasbags who are very good talkers and very poor workers. I do not think we have one such in the House now. Let us consider the type of men we have here now all over the House. I do not share the fears that we shall lower the type of man, and I certainly do not think we
    1628
    shall if we do not overpay them. I look at the Labour and Irish Benches. It is understood, I suppose, that most of them are paid a stipend. I say there are no more intelligent, capable men, no men more attentive to their duty, no men who can be more counted on for late Divisions, although they are not whipped by either of the two great parties; and, although none of them is looking for a job, I say that those qualities make a pattern to us all, and I say that that is a complete answer to any arguments you may raise that a small stipend of this kind will lower the quality or the character or the type of men. in this Parliament. You may have undesirable Members here, of course. It has been said, and I think it will be admitted even by my opponents, that the House has become too much a preserve for rich men. A small stipend will tend to exclude the type of man whose real idea is coming here is to serve himself rather than his fellows, to get something, to do little when here, and to keep a constituency in the same way as he would keep a moor or a yacht. I think the proposal will make hon. Members more independent—more independent of their Whips, and more independent of the unhealthy pressure of their constituents. After all, we are elected on an exposition of our political views, and we are sent here to use our best intelligence in forwarding the principles we have expressed. Three hundred pounds is more, and not less, likely to enable us to do that duty frankly and fearlessly. If an hon. Member is paid by somebody else—by a trade union, by a party, or by a constituency he is less independent and less likely to express his particular views. It will not be so if he is entitled to this money in the way now proposed. I think £300 would secure the desired object. There may be 100 Members in this House already paid by someone. I do not suppose there are as many as I could count on the fingers of one hand who get more than £300 a year. This will be the first time we have made this payment. It will to some extent alter the relations of the House of Commons and the constituencies, of the individual Member and his constituents. It will be well to move cautiously. It has been said that this Vote will come up every year. If £300 is found too little this year, we can increase it to-£400 next year; but if £400 is found too much this year, it will be found extremely difficult to bring it down to £300. Although supporting this reduction I am cordially in

    1629
    favour of payment of Members. I want to make a breach in the walls of this House, just as there has been made a breach in the walls of the other House. I want to let in some of the waters of democracy, to find out what the people of the country are really thinking of our "Dreadnought" expenditure, of our Land Taxes, and of our timid legislation in various directions. This country cannot be for ever governed by the lettered and the wealthy classes. The unlettered and the poor are infinitely more numerous, and should have their share in the government of the country.
    Mr. BIRD: I support this proposed reduction, although personally I should be inclined to move a reduction equal to the entire Vote, because I regard it almost as one of the most serious steps which this House has taken in its modern history. On behalf of my Constituents I protest against this wasteful, improper, and unnecessary expenditure. I support the experience of an earlier speaker, who said that in Ms own constituency he had found that this proposal was very unpopular. In my Constituency I referred to the question at every one of my meetings, but I found nobody in favour of it. I was asked many questions, but I was never once asked whether I was in favour of the payment of Members. My practice was to save it up till towards the close as the bonne bouche with which to finish up the meeting in a successful manner. I contend that for all practical purposes the question was not really before the country at the last election. Out of 573 election addresses only forty-eight declared that the candidates were in favour of the payment of Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day quoted with a great deal of emphasis the remarks which the Prime Minister made with reference to his intention of bringing in his Resolution if he had a majority in the new Parliament. But what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on Thursday last?
    "….the Prime Minister, immediately before the last General Election, stated that he proposed, if he had a majority in the new Parliament, to submit a Resolution to the House of Commons for the purpose of the payment of Members. That was not a convenient moment to make an announcement of an unpopular character, but nevertheless the Prime Minister clearly stated that to be his intention."
    Those were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they are scarcely in harmony with the great emphasis which he put upon the remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon. But what did the Prime Minister do? Did he include
    1630
    the proposal in his election address. Certainly not. Yet this is all the justification that has been afforded us for adopting such a revolutionary change in the life and character of the House of Commons. This is how the Government manufactures certain of its mandates from the people. This is the excuse afforded to hon. Members opposite for dipping their hands into the public purse to the extent of eight golden sovereigns every week all the year round. Never was there a subject on which it was more necessary that a Member should have a clear understanding with his constituents than whether he was to be allowed to vote himself a salary out of the taxpayers' money. The Government would not have dared to put this question as a single issue by referendum to the constituencies throughout the country. Yet, as the constitution of the House of Commons is being fundamentally changed by this Resolution, if it is the real will of the people,, that would have been the right course to. have adopted.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer was somewhat elaborate in his apologies to the House for the very small sum he was asking it to vote to its Members as a remuneration for their services. He emphasised the fact that it was an altogether inadequate amount. I thought it was rather a dangerous line for him to take, because he will find in future years, when hon. Members opposite bring up the question, as they certainly will, with a view to an increase in their remuneration, they will not be slow to quote his words as their justification in so doing. What has been the experience in foreign assemblies? I will not weary the House by referring to a number of them. I will take only the House of Representatives in the United1 States. They began by voting their members £l80 a year. At present they vote themselves £l,500. What will this proposal lead to? The evil example of this House will be followed by every local body, every town council and every county council throughout the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave many reasons, some of them no doubt of: considerable weight, why they would not be entitled to urge the same principle for remuneration of their services. That may or may not be. At any rate, already certain of those bodies have begun to agitate for remuneration of their members. That will be the evil consequence of the example of this House, bringing with it a great deal of cost to the country and influences, to my

    1631
    mind, of a most demoralising character. Before it is too late I entreat the House to pause ere it commits itself to this final step—a step which is altogether out of harmony with its glorious traditions, and one which will, I am certain, be instrumental in lowering the whole tone of our public life to the great detriment of the services of the country.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Committee, I think, will understand that it is no very agreeable task for a paid Labour Member of this House to rise to support the Motion for the payment of Members, and especially to oppose the Amendment for the reduction of the sum which has been proposed. But I rise at the earliest possible moment to respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member who moved the reduction (Mr. Peel), and repeated by the hon. and gallant Knight who seconded it (Sir W. Byles), to show whether £300 a year would provide what I think is the admitted purpose of the proposal, namely, sufficient means to enable a man to enter this House and support himself while here. I think I have qualifications to deal with that question which none of the three hon. Members who have already spoken possess, because I have for six years now tried to live in this House and to maintain the expenses of a Member of Parliament on something less than £400 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in submitting his proposal to the House last Thursday, said that it was not a proposal to pay a salary. We quite accept that. We admit that. I think it has been generally understood that if we paid Members of Parliament it was not payment for their services to the country, but compensation or subsistence in order to enable them to occupy the seat to which they had been elected. Therefore I want to try to show from the experience of myself and my colleagues that £400 per year is neither too much or too little. It is a sum just sufficient to satisfy the object upon which most of us are agreed. The Labour Members, my colleagues and myself, are paid, but we are not paid a uniform sum. I, unfortunately from one point, of view, have my candidature promoted by an organisation which is poorer, and some half a dozen of my colleagues, like myself, have received during the six years we have been in this House the sum of £200 a year each. During these six years I have kept a fairly accurate account of those expenses which
    1632
    are distinctly to be regarded as expenses incidental to my seat in the House of Commons, and I have supplemented by my own earnings the allowance I have received from my organisation, by a sum equal to the amount they have paid me. If I were to take this Committee into my confidence I could prove from my own experience that there are four items of necessary expenditure which absorb the whole of the £200 a year which I receive.
    I would like the Committee to understand that I am able to support myself as a Member of this House far more economically than many of my colleagues are. Most of my colleagues are members of trade unions. Their candidature is promoted by trade unions; they are officials of trade unions, and it is absolutely impossible for them to remove their homes to London. It is neither possible nor desirable to cut themselves off from their trade union connections in the country. The position of a Member of Parliament is a precarious one. They have run the risk twice during the last year of losing their seats in this House, and if, on the chance of the permanency of their position as Members of Parliament they had removed to London and resigned their trade union position they would have been thrown upon the world as beggars. It is not possible that they could remove to London. I was in different circumstances. It does not matter very much to my means of livelihood where I live. The House will excuse these personal details, but I think it is important. For the first two years I kept my home in the North of England and went home as a rule once a week and sometimes once a fortnight, and the expenses of the railway journey to my home absorbed the whole of one week's allowance. In addition to that, I had the expenses, very humble though they might be, in my own standard of living, of maintaining myself and my wife, when she was with me, in London for five or six days a week, and that again would absorb a sum equal to the allowance of the society. There was in addition to that the expenses to which the hon. Member for Salford referred, getting one's meals here and other incidental expenses, the necessary incidental expenses connected with receiving deputations in the House of Commons, and of most of these I have kept a fairly correct record; and with regard to the postage account, I may say it averaged 15s. per week. There are of course other incidental expenses. As I have said, many of my colleagues are compelled to keep

    1633
    their homes in the country and to pay lodgings in London, but they have railway expenses to pay, and I was asking before I rose one of my colleagues who sits near me what was the third-class railway fare from London to his home, and the bare third-class railway fare for the return ticket was £3 5s. 9d., and he has to incur that expense every week. He has to maintain himself in London and has also the maintenance of his family in the country, and there are all these other incidental expenses.
    Therefore I ask the Committee to consider whether £400 a year, £8 a week, is really more than sufficient to cover the necessary expenditure incurred by a Member of Parliament who is placed in that position. It may be said that I have taken an extreme case, but take a more moderate one. I am quite prepared to say that the average return railway fare incurred by my colleagues going home at the weekend is 45s., and this they do in some cases rather than come to London. When I came to London I found that my rent was more than doubled, and that the accommodation was far inferior. Even by coining to London I did not avoid the expenses of railway journeys. I visit my constituency from twelve to twenty times a year, and I cannot go down without incurring railway expenses and hotel expenses for each different visit amounting to a sum of about £4, and to use a homely expression, an expenditure of £4 makes a very big hole in a weekly allowance of something like £4. I submit, from practical experience—and we are told that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory—the experience of those who have tried to meet the necessary expenses of a Member of Parliament on less than £400 a year is that that sum is not too much. May I give just the experience of trade unionism upon this matter. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that the constituencies would not support the paying of Members £400 a year. What have the constituencies of the trade union Members and the Labour party done? The amount paid by the Miners' Federation is £250 a year and railway fare, and that is more than £400, and that sum has been fixed by men who themselves are not in receipt of a wage equal to that. The Mover of the Amendment said it was an enormous increase of a man's income from that of a wage-earner to £300. But he left out of account the enormous increase of expenditure which a man incurs when
    1634
    he leaves the bench or the loom in order to serve his fellow-workers in the position of a Member of Parliament. I venture to say, and I am quite sure that it is the experience of every one of my colleagues, that as trade unionists they would be better off with a wage of £2 per week than they would be with £300 or £350 a year, and having to meet all the incidental expenditure connected with a seat in this House.
    Trade unionists cannot be charged with being extravagant or wasteful in the expenditure of their money, but they have come to the conclusion that a sum equalling, the salary and railway fare, more than £400, is not too much. I rose solely for the purpose of putting before the House the practical point of view, but before I sit down may I be allowed to say one or two words in reply to certain statements which were made, particularly by the hon. Member who moved this reduction (Mr. Peel). He made an appeal to Members sitting on these benches, and, on conditions, I am quite prepared to respond to that appeal. He urged the reduction of this Vote by a sum of £63,000, on the grounds of retrenchment and economy. That £63,000 is a sum equal to one-fiftieth of a penny in the £ upon the Income Tax. Now, if the hon. Member is so anxious to promote national retrenchment, I suggest to him that there are other places in which he might begin. For instance, I daresay the hon. Member may be familiar with the case of an ex-Speaker of this House who, during the ten years he occupied that Chair, drew £50,000 from the public funds, and, in addition to that, the free occupation of a House, and since his retirement from that well-paid position—the figure is rather singular seeing that it is proposed to reduce the amount by £63,000—that ex-Speaker has taken from the public taxation of this country during the last sixteen years a sum of £64,000. If he wants economy on the same lines, I can make another suggestion. The hon. Member who sits for but does not represent the resident voters of the Newton Division of Lancashire has been very prominent in opposition to payment of Members. It is possible to effect economies in matters in which he or members of his family have some interest. I find by a Return that was presented to this House that in nearly thirty years, between the years 1850 and 1883, twenty-four relatives of the Earl of Selborne took from the public taxes in salaries or pensions a sum of £316,750. I find that in the same thirty-three years 532

    1635
    aristocratic families found 7,991 relatives 13,888 offices, and then took in these thirty-three years out of public taxes the sum of £108,000,000. I do not believe that during all these thirty years we have heard from the party opposite anything about the glorious principle of gratuitous public service. I do not believe that during all these years we have heard from those benches a plea for retrenchment or economy by the reduction of the sums that were paid to those families which were practically dependent upon the public purse. It is only when we want something which is going to open the doors of this House to the representatives of democracy that we hear these proposals. In supporting this proposal to pay Members of Parliament, I say it is a difficult task, but not because of any personal advantage to myself. It is more because I believe the proposal will be a great public advantage. I believe it is necessary in the interests of representative and democratic government. I believe it will add to the dignity of this House, and that it will provide just enough to give immeasurable benefit to every cause that means the welfare and progress of the people of this country.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sure the Committee will feel indebted to my hon. Friend for the speech which he has just addressed to this House. He gave us the case from a practical point of view, and I think that is exactly what the House desires to hear. The real difficulty is this: how many Members of this House realise exactly what it would mean to have to live in this House, to carry on their work, to perform their public services, on an amount of £300 or £400 a year? It is very useful in the consideration of this query to have the statement of fact which we have heard from my hon. Friend. He was evidently speaking not only from his own experience, but with knowledge of what happens to other Members of the party with whom he sits, and who really are best able to give us the real facts in connection with the amount required. The Government, of course, put to themselves this question: What was the amount which Parliament should be asked to vote as a fair and reasonable allowance to enable a Member to perform his public services, so that the door of this House might be thrown open and the area of selection of Members of this House might be considerably extended?
    1636
    The object of the Government was not to attract men to this House by payment of a large salary. That, I think, is made perfectly plain by the amount suggested in the Vote. Equally it was not to find a niggardly amount that would not do what the Government intended. It was to give a sufficient amount to enable a man to live, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, in the witty and humorous speech he made to the Committee. At the very least he thought that an amount of £l a day was what a man ought to have to live upon. Although he seconded this Motion for reduction, I really appeal to him to support us, because it is on the basis he suggested that the Government have arrived at their conclusion; it is on the basis that £l is necessary for a man to live upon, and that he cannot really do with less, that, in considering an allowance for services of this character, they were induced to put this forward. There are many other payments that a Member has to make—travelling expenses—of which we have heard so much to the point just now—payment for postage and telegrams and for visits to the constituencies. I think one must also include payment of cab fares on certain occasions. All this has to be taken into consideration, and the Government took care to ascertain as far as possible what would be that sum which would be this fair and sufficient allowance, without at the same time erring on the side of giving too much. The Government came to the conclusion that £400 a year was the right amount. On behalf of the Government I ask the Committee to accept that amount.
    The Government do not ask the Committee to fix £400 a year without having made every investigation which it was open to them to make. They have not thrown this at the Committee without having weighed carefully what was the amount which, on the responsibility of the Government, should be submitted. They ask the Committee to accept that amount and to reject the Amendment on the ground that in fixing £400 the Government are really only doing what the Committee would desire once the Members come to the conclusion that the principle is right. I would remind the Committee also, although we have taken a standard so well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, that it is not only for representatives of the Labour party that this payment is designed, or that this amount has been arrived at. It is a very good test by

    1637
    which to arrive at what is a proper amount. Once you have arrived at it it is a standard which will apply to all Members of the House. Might I add further: It is very easy for hon. Members in this House or for persons outside to say, "£,300 a year is quite enough; the extra £100 really ought not to be given," who do not realise that this is the only pocket out of which money will be received by many hon. Members of this House. As was explained by the hon. Member, and as will be apparent to this House when once the effect of the decision in the Osborne case and subsequent cases is recognised, it is no longer open to trade unions, as the law at present stands, to make compulsory levies to pay their Members. There are, consequently, difficulties in the way of those organisations supplementing the earnings, whatever they may be, of hon. Members who are dependent on payment from the trade unions. I think it is a very fair assumption—when you take into account what is to happen when this Vote has been passed—as I hope it will be—to assume that a Member has only his £400 a year as remuneration or allowance for his public services, out of which he has to find everything. I do ask the Committee to bear in mind when voting, if there is a Division upon this Amendment, that there is only one pocket out of which the money, whatever it is, is to come. Therefore it is not really too much. It is only what I would submit is a very fair sum. I do not intend to travel into the more general question, because that has already been discussed at some length. I am not suggesting, of course, that it would be out of order to discuss it, at any rate to some extent, because that is, I understand the view of the Chairman; also because an understanding has been arrived at. I only content myself with referring at the moment to one argument which has been adduced against this payment. It has been said that it will tempt——
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not want a wrong impression conveyed upon what I said. The whole question is open.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I hope I was not stating anything to the contrary.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was not quite sure.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I intended certainly to state that. I did place a little limitation, inasmuch as I said that it was
    1638
    open, I thought by general agreement, and also by what I understood had fallen from you, to discuss the whole question, although I thought it was possible that the same latitude would not be allowed as on the original Resolution. I accept what you say, and will deal with the matter as if everything was open. Nevertheless, I do not intend to say more than one or two things upon the general question. I will deal with the proposition which was put forward: that payment for these services will tend to degrade us, and lower the position of the House of Commons in the eyes of the country. I utterly fail to understand that point. All services which are rendered, except in a very few instances, are services for which payment is accepted, and in which payment honours the recipient as well as the person who pays. I will only instance what happens, for example, with a minister of religion. Do politics stand so high in the estimation of hon. Members opposite? Is the political field one which stands so eminently above every other in which human beings are engaged that it is only in respect of these services that there is to be no payment, and that payment will degrade or lower the person who receives it in the estimation of those whom he represents? I would ask hon. Members to consider for a moment.
    Does anyone suggest that the payment to a minister of religion has anything like that effect upon him? I will not instance all the various classes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to when he made his speech on Thursday. I only add the case which seems to me to be unanswerable. If it does not degrade the minister of religion to receive payment for his services, why should it degrade a Member of Parliament to receive payment for the services which he renders? I know, on the other hand, it has been said that this proposal is something utterly novel. I am not going to travel at any length into the history of this policy as it is now before the House of Commons. But may I just remind the House how it does really stand. As we know, it was part of the law of this country. There is the high authority of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, who was also Lord Chancellor, for the statement that it was part of the common law of England that Members should be paid for the services rendered in Parliament. We also know that it was part of the statute law of this country that payment should be made to

    1639
    Members. It is true, as hon. Members have said, that the payment was made by the constituents themselves. I am inclined to the view that the reason why in this country the practice was given up of exacting payment from the constituencies was because of the abuse into which this practice fell.
    8.0 P.M.
    What happened as time wore on? Gradually you had Members going down to the constituencies and offering themselves without payment, so that the constituencies would be able to keep the money in their own pockets. Equally, again, you have some Members, not only serving without payment, but making payment to their constituents to enable them to serve. Of course, it is not very difficult to see that that state of things could not continue. The consequence was that in 1677 a statute was passed to put an end to this practice. What happened afterwards? In 1678, by the way, Andrew Marvel was still drawing his pay from Hull, and in 1681 Mr. King issued a writ in respect of money for services rendered to the borough of Harwich. But from 1677 forward there was no longer direct payment. Indirect payment in many instances took its place, as was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That went on for a very long period, and the period subsequent to 1677 was one in which, I think, few persons could be found to defend the purity of public life as compared with what had been the state of things before 1677. It is a most curious thing, and well worthy of reflection, that when payment was made Parliamentary life was purer than it was after the abolition. That was up to 1780 when my right hon. Friend was dealing with indirect payment which followed direct payment made hitherto. What is it that we propose to do? Those who are suggesting that we are doing something so very new would do well to remember that in 1830 it was proposed that £2 per day should be paid to Members of the borough and £4 per day to Members of a county. Then there was a proposal of £500 per annum, to be paid out of the Treasury. That was some seventy years ago, when money was of quite a different standard from what it is now. Then we come down to a much more recent period, and we find that in 1893 and 1895 resolutions were proposed in this House, and the House voted upon them, and there was a majority in the first
    1640
    instance of forty-seven, and in the second instance of eighteen in favour of resolutions for the payment of Members. In 1906 there was a majority of 238 in favour of the resolution which was discussed, and in 1909, when the matter again came before the House, there was a majority of 150 in its favour, so that it is idle to say that this thing is new or that it is sprung upon the House. Then, again, the Osborne Judgment has had the effect of making the problem much more acute. It is useless for hon. Gentlemen to shut their eyes to that. They know very well that that made it imperative that something should be done, and done at once.
    My right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Walton, was so impressed with that and as to the consequences of the Osborne Judgment, that he became an advocate for the payment of Members. It is quite true he said he did not like the proposal, but he came to the conclusion that it was inevitable, and that if the Osborne Judgment was to remain payment of Members must necessarily follow. That was the view not only taken by him, but it was the view to which he gave expression with that facile and graceful pen of which he is a master, in a letter to "The Times." Hon. Members upon the opposite side will no doubt remember that that produced some difference of opinion amongst them, but it at all events showed this: that so strong was the case for the payment of Members that my right hon. and learned Friend was in favour of it. I could produce a passage of a similar character from a speech or letter of the hon. Member for Worcester, and that very good supporter of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Gravesend, also wrote a letter in which he stated, not so emphatically, I agree, his view in favour of the payment of Members. He gave eloquent testimony in favour of it from abroad, having spent considerable periods of his life in Canada and Australia, and at a later period in the United States, and his views are very well worthy of consideration by those who think that by giving effect to this Resolution we shall be lowering the standard of our public life in this country.
    If we turn to what occurs in our own Dominions—and this is the last reference I wish to make upon this subject—we find that the payments made in Canada and in Australia and in South Africa are all at least as great, or are in excess of, the amount we ask the House to bear in this instance. I think I am right in stating that

    1641
    the lowest amount, £400 a year, is the amount paid to the Union Parliament in South Africa under its very recent constitution, and I am told that not only is £400 a year paid but that travelling expenses are also allowed. Of course, the railways are State railways there, and that is a very great assistance, as everyone will realise who studies the subject. In Canada the amount is £500 a year, with a considerable allowance for travelling expenses, and there are also some other expenses. If we look at Australia we find the amount is £600 a year. I take these as instances because we are dealing with our own Dominions, and with two of very recent creation. What we are carrying out is the principle which is carried out in our own Dominions, and we are not fixing the amount in this country in excess of what is paid by them. My submission is that, comparing the amount which we propose, £400 a year, with that paid in our Dominions, it is a very reasonable amount, and if the Government have erred at all they have not erred on the side of lavish-ness, and I ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that the amount fixed, the result arrived at after considerable amount of thought and consideration, is the right amount, and I ask them to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn because I did not hear it, nor do I desire to follow the arguments on the general question which the Attorney-General has put forward. I made my observations upon the general question last week and I do not wish to repeat them now. I desire to ask the Attorney-General a single question which springs directly from the only pertinent argument he has used in regard to the particular Amendment we are discussing. The Amendment proposes that salaries should be fixed at £300 instead of £400. The Attorney-General said that henceforth that is the only source from which Labour Members can be provided. Does he mean that? Have the Government decided to withdraw from their Bill dealing with the Osborne Judgment or modify the part which provides that further payments could be made out of trade union funds?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I said was that if there is payment of £400 a year from the State the trade unions would not pay their Members the amounts which
    1642
    they hitherto paid them. Supposing a man was receiving £200 or £250 from his trade union for his maintenance in Parliament that sum would not continue to be paid if the State pays him £400.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General said this was the only fund from which a man should be paid. His answer now shows that the Government still intends to reverse that part of the Osborne Judgment.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I only rise for the object of making a few observations upon that part of the Attorney-General's speech which dealt with some part which I played two months ago in connection with the subject of the payment of Members. It is quite true, as the Attorney-General said, that I wrote two letters to the Press dealing with this question. The Postmaster-General quoted from the earlier of these two letters a little while ago. He did not deal with the conditions. I make no complaint of that. He quoted from one of the letters, but he did not in fact quite do justice to the circumstances under which I wrote that letter. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General in his speech anticipated my explanation, but as reference was twice made to my letters, I desire to make clear what was the position when I wrote those letters. The Osborne Judgment has been delivered, and so long as the Osborne Judgment remained unmodified it was not possible for any working man who became a Member of this House to have pecuniary support made him from his trade union. I formed the conclusion that the result of the decision, unless its consequences were corrected in some other matters, would have been to exclude direct representatives of labour from the House of Commons. I confess that would have been a circumstance which I for one would have contemplated with great dislike, and would have counted as a great misfortune both to the House of Commons and the country. I make no observation at this moment upon the special representation of labour which calls itself the Labour party in this House. I, of course, think that many who are not direct representatives in the sense that they support themselves by manual labour, but who nevertheless represent the working classes, are entitled to describe themselves as working-class representatives, although it is true that something new and fresh and something altogether desirable is contributed to the House when you have here, at any rate,

    1643
    some infusion by direct representation in the sense that you have some Members in the House who themselves have laboured with their hands, and acquire that close connection with the life of the working classes which can only be had by persons who attain that knowledge. I brought this prepossession to bear upon the Osborne Judgment. I for one was most desirous that the Osborne Judgment should be maintained in its integrity. I think it would be a great misfortune and a gross act of tyranny if the Osborne Judgment were in substance modified. I know this as the representative of a city where the trade unionists as a whole support the Conservative party, as, undoubtedly, in Liverpool they do; and I knew of the injustice which was occasioned when men who belonged to a party that voted for me in my own Constituency were compelled against their wishes to subscribe to the expenses of Labour candidates. I regarded that, as I said, as the greatest instance of tyranny conceivable. I had the idea of having that corrected, and corrected at once, and I was in great hopes from certain observations which fell from prominent Members of the Government that it was their intention to leave the Osborne Judgment in its integrity unaltered. In these circumstances, I, myself being an acquiescent party in this judgment, was face to face with this dilemma. I had to go to my Constituency and elsewhere, and had to answer this question, "How do you propose if you are opposed to the reversal of the Osborne Judgment that the direct representatives of labour should find a place in the House of Commons and should support themselves when they had found places in the House of Commons. I confess at once that I did not find myself able to make any answer to that question, and it was not a question which it was possible for me, holding my special views on politics, to leave unanswered. In these circumstances, I decided that, having regard to my desire that the Osborne Judgment should remain unaltered—and it was an object of more permanent importance—that the door of the House of Commons should not be flung in the faces of the direct representatives of labour, and I formed the conclusion that of the two evils, namely, the reversal of the Osborne Judgment or the payment of Members, the reversal of the Osborne Judgment would be immeasurably a greater
    1644
    calamity than the payment of Members. If the Attorney-General looks into the matter he will see that I stated very plainly in my first and in my second letter the reasons which led me to that conclusion. He will find that the very limited support I gave to payment of Members-depended upon the maintenance of the Osborne Judgment in its substance and in its entirety. Comment has been made upon my consistency when I state that under the changed circumstances I shall vote against the payment of Members. The condition upon which I supported the payment of Members was the maintenance of the Osborne Judgment. The Government have introduced a Bill, through the Attorney-General, on the Second Reading of which I made a speech clearly expressing my view. I will state almost in a sentence what is contained in the Osborne Bill which in my judgment makes a complete reversal on the only point which really matters, and which was very important in influencing my decision. Under the terms of the Osborne Bill it is necessary for any working man who wishes to be relieved from the obligation of contributing to the support of Labour candidates to indicate his dissent from the general policy of the union; in other words, the onus is thrown, not upon those who want to pay, but upon those who do not want to pay.
    No one can have followed the recent history of the political activity of trade unions without being aware of the degree of pressure upon persons who do not wish to subscribe to the political expenses which the men's leaders desire which is brought to bear upon individuals upon whom the duty is thrown of signifying their dissent. You cannot ask any trade union to undergo the intimidation which immediately follows. I am not blaming the Labour Members of this House. I have not known in the six years I have been in the House of Commons which has coincided with the Parliamentary lifetime of the majority of the Labour party, of any case in which the Labour Members have not done their best to prevent cases of intimidation where specific cases have been brought to their knowledge. May I point out, however, that the Labour party have not the slightest control over the men, as the present situation shows. If that is true, then we are face to face with a difficult position. It is not so much so in Liverpool, because the Conservative party is very strong there, but there are places where the Unionist party is weak in the

    1645
    trade unions, and in those places it will be impossible for individual Conservatives to come forward and say "we won't pay," because they would be exposed to the same tyranny which non-unionists meet with now. I should not have troubled the House with a somewhat personal explanation if it had not been for the observation made by the Attorney-General. The House may come to the conclusion that I am right or wrong on the subject of payment of Members, but in face of the reversal of the Osborne Judgment, the one conclusion hon. Members are not entitled to come to is that there has been the slightest inconsistency on the part of one who wrote to the papers and advocated the view that payment of Members was a proper choice between two competing evils, if the Osborne Judgment is maintained, but when the Osborne Judgment is reversed, I do not involve myself by changing my view.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I wish to point out the remarkable position which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division, Liverpool, has placed himself in by his action in this matter. As I understand him—and I think there is no doubt as to the meaning of his speech which was delivered with his usual crispness and clearness—he would support payment of Members if the Osborne Judgment could be maintained.
    Mr. F.E. SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will announce that the Osborne Judgment is to be maintained and the Bill withdrawn, I shall not have the slightest objection for voting for the payment of Members.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman confirms the accuracy of my view of his speech. He says that if the Osborne Judgment is maintained he will support payment of Members as a means of securing the direct representation of labour.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Because in my judgment there would be no other means of doing it.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the other hand if the Osborne Judgment is repealed —and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that would be the effect of our Bill—then he thinks there will be a sufficient avenue for the direct representation of labour.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: There will be an avenue.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, an avenue which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is not necessary to supplement by payment of Members to allow other men of small means to enter the House of Commons who are not trade unionists, and who are not the direct representatives of trade unions. It is rather a strange doctrine that there should be no assistance to the lower middle classes of small means to enter this House, no help to the farmer or the shopkeeper, and no help to the nonunion man to enter this House. It is only if the trade union itself is able to send its own paid Members that the right hon. Gentleman thinks we shall have a sufficient representation of that class of the community. It is strange to find the right hon. Gentleman advancing that argument and saying he is not willing to work with non-union labour.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Postmaster-General has said that in order to meet the necessities of those who are a small minority of this House, and who must be a small minority, you are going to force upon the great majority of this House a payment which they do not want and which the country ought not to be expected to make. The Attorney-General's speech did not amount to more than this, that in the opinion of the Government £400 is a fit and proper salary for a Member of Parliament because they think it so, and therefore the Committee ought to accept their estimate. I want to ask the Committee whether the Government are entitled to give advice of this sort to us, considering that there has been no Government in recent years which has been so profligate of personal expenditure as the Government which now sits on the Treasury Bench; no Government which has created so many paid posts; no Government which has raised the salaries of its own Members to the same extent. Considering the generous way in which they have looked at the question, and the manner in which they have been prepared to charge the public with expenses which I venture to say are in no way justified, I do not think the fact that they tell us that £400 a year is the least that ought to be given to a Member of Parliament for his services is in the least conclusive proof that the Committee ought to adopt their proposal.
    I confess that the most unpleasant side of this question is the argumentum ad

    1647
    hominem. In the attractive form in. which the hon. Member for Blackburn put his case, I was sorry he marred his appeal by a personal attack which was not palatable to any portion of the House. He attacked the hon. Member for Taunton on the score of his father's services. Now, there is no Member of this side who sat under Speaker Peel who would begrudge him one penny of the money he so amply earned. The House of Commons, for very good reasons, decided to make a very liberal grant to their Speaker, and they gave him a very large pension. They did it to exalt the dignity of the office, and they did it in the old days to secure the independence of the Chair. I do not think it a fair charge delivered personally, as it was, against my hon. Friend, to cite his father's case in order to disprove the desire on this side of the House to limit national expenditure where, as most of us think, it was uncalled for. The other case was hardly less unfortunate. He dealt with the case of the Noble Lord who sits below the Gangway, and who is so intimately connected with the family of Cecil. The fact that in past days the family of Cecil has earned a very great deal of public money only shows they played a great part in British history. Those arguments do not amount to very much, and I am sorry they were introduced. I think we are all sorry they were introduced by an hon. Gentleman whom we are always glad to hear. If it were possible to meet the necessities of those who sit below the Gangway and others, there is hardly a man who would be so churlish as to oppose it, or would think it his duty to do so. The difficulty is we are asked to vote a quarter of a million of money to be given to the majority of Members who do not want it, and who are prepared to do their Parliamentary work without it. I venture to say the credit of the House of Commons certainly stands high among the representative assemblies of the world to-day. The answer to the argument of the Attorney-General is contained in a speech of Mr. Gladstone made in 1870, on the great Debate on the question. He himself spoke much more strongly against it than any hon. Member is likely to do to-night. He said:—
    "The public enjoy the fortune and advantage of having plenty of persons who are ready to serve for nothing, and the public is entitled to that benefit."
    That is where the matter stands. Are we, who ought to be the guardians of the public purse, justified because of the
    1648
    necessities of a certain minority of our own Members in taking as much as a quarter of a million out of the public purse and devoting it to the purpose of our own payment? Mr. Gladstone held we were not, and he argued the question, not on high ground, but on the simple ground of expediency, and, economist as he was in regard to public money, he decided against it. Of course, there is no more worn chapter in Parliamentary annals than this question of the payment of Members. It has been discussed time after time. Mr. Gladstone's speech is conclusive, and it ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I listened with very great interest the other night to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) when he tried to show that the work of this House had improved not only in quantity but in quality, not only, as he put it, quantitatively but qualitatively. I myself am not prepared to admit that the work of the House of Commons was bad, on the whole, though I quite admit the individual Member is giving far more time to his duties now than he did in the old days—not every Member, but the individual Member. Is it work? Surely "work" implies a continuous strain on one's mental or physical faculties, and, having served here and on many other public bodies for many years, I cannot honestly say the great part of the time we spend here is really consumed in intellectual work. Half of it is a laborious waste of time in and about the Lobbies of the House, and, unless we can establish our case on the ground of work done I differ from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and think we have no right to take money out of the public purse. We may be worthy of the money. I believe we are. Most Members of this House could earn far higher salaries and emoluments outside than in this House—but that is not the point. The point is: Is the work we do in the House worthy of the payment now proposed? Some hon. Members undoubtedly earn every penny of it, but I do not think the average Member gives to his work here anything like the same time the Civil servant is asked to give in the offices outside. I do not believe we can on that ground establish a claim that ought to be the determining factor.
    The Government are asking for this salary without conditions. It will go to the Member who is only here half a dozen times in the Session to exactly the same degree as to the man who attends every

    1649
    day, and is to be found in his place not only here in the House, but in Grand Committee upstairs. That is not the old custom. The Attorney-General alluded to the ancient practice of this House, and that was the ground on which, in former debates, the case for payment was made out. When the salaries were paid by the constituencies continuous attendance was exacted of the individual Member. He had to be here in the House until the last day of every Session, and, unless he was here, his salary was stopped. I will not trouble the House with them, but there are many cases on record—and I have them here to show those who are curious to learn—of Members who were fined for non-attendance. If any Member left the House before the end of the Session without the leave of the Speaker he had no claim for wages. Knights of the Shire were fined £20 and burgesses £10 for non-attendance. It was not a question of finance only, but imprisonment was one of the penalties inflicted on a Member of the House who did not attend to his duties. I am not suggesting a return to those archaic penalties, but I would ask the representative of the Government whether it is intended to exact any condition of attendance whatsoever for the payment of this salary. Cases are notorious on both sides of Members who only put in a fitful attendance of ten days, and they are to draw public money to the same degree and to the same amount as those who never leave the House. I do not think, when it comes to it and when this payment has to be defended, the country will allow these men to have a claim on the public fund. We have the experience of other countries to guide us. You cannot draw on the American Commonwealth for example, but you can draw on the opinion expressed by our Ambassador there (Mr. Bryce), who is one of the great political philosophers of our day, as to what the effect has been on the payment of Members there and what justification there is for the payment of Members here. He says:—
    "Its existence furnishes no argument for its introduction into a small country with a large leisured and wealthy class. It contributes to keep up a class of professional politicians for the salary, though small in comparison with the incomes earned by successful merchants or lawyers, is a prize to men of the class whence professional politicians mostly come."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Will you go on?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I have not the continuation of this particular quotation,
    1650
    but I took it myself from his book in the Library of the House. But he says:—
    "Cynics defend the payment to Congressmen on another ground, namely, that they would steal worse if they did not get it, and would make politics, as Napoleon would make war support itself."
    Nobody pretends that would apply here, but at the same time it shows the arguments that have been used for payment elsewhere and perhaps in our own Dominions, though in a lesser degree, do not apply to this House. Surely if this is a great step, it is worth our while to look and see what has happened elsewhere. In the States of the American Union they pay their legislators by the day. It varies so much for every day for which the Session lasts from one dollar in Rhode Island to eight dollars in California or Nevada. Five dollars seems to be the average. There is also a small allowance for travelling expenses, but the length of the legislative Session, which now gonerally stands limited to a fixed number of days, varies from forty clays to 150 days. They have had to pass measures against prolonging the Session beyond a certain number of days, because, when paid in this way, legislators had been inclined to prolong them too far. They said the daily pay should diminish or should absolutely cease and determine at the expiry of a certain number of days, hoping thereby to expedite business and to check inordinate zeal for legislation. We do not propose any of these precautions. We are going to pay the salary without limit or condition. We are not going to ask a Member to put in any particular number of days, and we are doing this, I again say, in order to meet the necessities of a minority of the House, of what is at present a small minority. If by any way we can meet that grievance —for it is a grievance—without charging the public Exchequer to the extent proposed, and without forcing on those who do not want public money, or who may feel in many cases they do not earn or deserve it, I think it would be a very excellent thing. The hon. Member for Sal-ford said this was a first fruition of Radical seed. I think it is going to be an expensive fruition. It will diminish, he tells us, the unhealthy pressure of the constituencies. But does any hon. Member think that that unhealthy pressure will be diminished by this proposal? Is it not certain that in most cases hon. Gentlemen will be asked for larger subscriptions, and that there will be a constant reproach thrown on them if they do not pay more liberally, that they are taking the people's

    1651
    money and are doing nothing for the poor in their own midst. I am quite certain that those who know the conditions of political life in England will realise that that particular argument cannot be advanced with any reason for the provision of such a payment as is now proposed.
    It is certain that as time goes on we shall be asked to vote more to ourselves. That has been the experience everywhere else, even in our own Dominions, and, as the Committee knows, there was a popular cry in France only the other day against the legislators there, who were given a nickname for the increased salaries they claimed from the public. Is this worth doing for exceptional cases? Hard cases make bad laws. The case of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is a hard case. Their presence here is both valuable and important; no one is more pleased to see them here than I am. But it is not fair, in order to meet their case that we should do something which cannot confer much benefit on the community generally. Hon. Gentlemen are not stopped coming into this House; at this moment they are here in considerable numbers. If there is one thing which would tend to stop them it is not want of salary when they are here; it is the heavy entrance fee we charge in the way of election expenses. Personally I should vote cheerfully for throwing election expenses on the public funds. I think there is a good case for that. I do not see how this Bill deals with the real difficulty. Even although hon. Gentlemen look forward to a salary when they come here, they have to pay election expenses in order to get here, and those election expenses must be charged to the trade unions, or provided by those interested; therefore that grievance remains. It is a real grievance. If the Government had really cared for enlarging entrance to this House and making it easier for poor men to get here, that is the point they would have attacked; they would not have paid salaries to Members when they got here; they would have done away with the artificial barriers which prevent a man coming here in the first place. They have cited old traditions; they have tried to revive an old custom. But if anything was ever abolished through desuetude it was the payment of Members by their constituents. For years we have been working as the only unpaid Legislature in Europe. Those who have cared most for the honour of this House, men like Gladstone and John Stuart Mill—and
    1652
    nobody opposed the payment of Members more strenuously than John Stuart Mill— have always asserted it would be the beginning of our degradation if we abandoned a system that has been tried and has not been found wanting.
    I personally am opposed to the whole proposal now made. But I make this reservation. If the Government can show us a plan by which the lot of those who come here from the great trades of the country can be made possible, if they will only lay on the Table of this House a legislative proposal to do away with the expenses which keep the poor man from coming here, I shall be on their side, and not against them. But, as at present framed, this proposal can do very little good, and I am afraid it is likely to do harm, not in lowering the social standard of membership—nobody cares for that—but in lowering the intellectual standard. I am afraid of this House being flooded by the failures of society; I am afraid that those who do not succeed in the professions will flock here; the money is not enough to induce those who do succeed; but it is enough to satisfy the ambitions of the briefless barrister and the practiceless doctor— those who having taken up professions for which they are ill fitted find that they had better turn their activities elsewhere. Those are men we do not want but those are the men who, I am afraid, will flock here under the new system, and whose entrance we shall have every cause to regret.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I only wish to refer to one point, and I do so because the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken up a very advanced attitude upon it, much to my own surprise. No one has yet pointed out that this sum of £400 a year is really too small; it is too small unless the second part of the Government scheme for the payment of election expenses is a great deal more liberal than anything hitherto indicated. If £400 a year and the payment of official election expenses constitutes the limit of our proposal, then hon. Members opposite have really very little to fear, as there will still be the entrance fee of the General Election, and that entrance fee will range from £400 to £3,000. Of that sum the official election expenses will only represent about one-sixth, and, consequently, the political associations will still, in three cases out of four, have to choose their candidates from within the small circle of the wealthy and prosperous classes.

    1653
    In the Debate on Thursday night, whenever any Member of this House attacked the system of party funds he met with unanimous expression of approval. But it must be remembered that the party fund is accumulated for election expenses, and, consequently, it will not disappear until we are willing to go a great deal further than to pay £400 a year and the Returning Officer's charges. If the road into this House is to be really open to the poor man it is not enough simply to pay him after he has passed this door; we have to secure him a straight and dignified road up to the door without any entrance fee for admission. On the first day of the Debate I put down an Amendment to the Resolution then before the House, pointing out that the payment of £400 a year, unless something else is done, would not really achieve the object we have in view. It ought to be followed by payment not only of the Returning Officer's charges, but of at least one-half of the remaining expenses of elections according to a scale to be laid down by law. This sum would not be given to any but genuine candidates running with a real chance of success; and I suggest it should only be given to those who poll at least 15 per cent. of the total electorate. This would bring up the payment to an equivalent of about £600 a year, and there would be absolutely nothing standing between Parliament and the poorest man in this country. The poorest man could come here and stand on his own feet absolutely independent of any party fund. The party fund, which has been attacked from all sides of the House, is certainly the ugliest thing that still lives in public life. It will no longer be a necessary part of British political machinery.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I rise to support the protest which has been made against the principle embodied in the proposals of the Government. The hon. Member (Mr. Lees-Smith) has really not dealt with what, to my mind, is the most objectionable feature in the proposal of the Government. Surely the representatives of the people for the time being are the last persons in the world in any Parliament who ought to abrogate a longstanding custom and vote themselves salaries at so much a year without a special authorisation to do so. Other hon. Members have shown with great force that it is bad statemanship to change the law all in this respect, and their contention, during the Debate of last week and
    1654
    to-day, seems to me unanswerable. But if the law has got to be altered it would be a more dignified procedure for hon. Members to vote salaries to become payable in some future Parliament and to take special care not to line their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, however much in the public weal they feel that action to be. A Member of this House has to resign his seat if he accepts an office of profit under the Crown, and I think most hon. Members will admit that this is an excellent custom. The principle that goes to the root of that custom is that the electorate who sent that particular Member to the House of Commons may be willing to send him here if he gives his services for nothing, but that they ought to be afforded an opportunity of expressing the opinion whether they still wish to retain his services when he becomes a public charge upon them as taxpayers of the country. But what are the Government doing here? They are asking Members to vote themselves salaries, but they are absolving them from the duty of submitting themselves for re-election by those who sent them here on the understanding that they would serve them for nothing. We have heard a good deal during the last day or two about mandates. Have hon. Members who are going to vote for the Government got really a colourable justification for voting for their own payment in this Parliament? If so, where is it? Is it really in their last election addresses? How many hon. Members put it into their election addresses last December and at the same time made it unmistakably clear to the electorate that it was to apply to this Parliament, and that it was to date back for services rendered before the proposal was even carried into law? Is there a single hon. Member opposite who had the courage to ask for his salary in his election address in this sense? Certainly there are very few. They ought to give those whom they represent an opportunity of re-electing them before they dip into the public purse for their own advantage. It is quite true that this would involve all the trouble and turmoil of another General Election, which might prove somewhat inconvenient to the party opposite. It is certainly the opinion of a great many Members that hon. Members opposite do not want to face the risks of a General Election at this moment. If so, surely the only proper alternative is to postpone this question, and when a suitable time arrives, submit it definitely in each election

    1655
    address to the electorate and let the electorate clearly understand that if one of the great political parties prevails at the polls their chosen representative will be a public charge upon them in the future to the tune of about £250,000.
    There is another consideration. If the Government think they have a mandate for £400 this year, what really is to prevent them from thinking that they have a mandate for an increase of salary next year or the following year? Our value in this House, which is apparently to be assessed by ourselves, will, in all probability, go up. It is only in human nature. What has happened in other countries ought to be a warning to us. In the United States it has been a case of geometrical progression. In 1789 they paid £l 4s. to their Members of Parliament for every day's attendance. In 1818 it had risen to £l 12s. In 1856 it had risen to £600 a year. In 1866 it rose to £1,000 a year, and in 1873 it rose to £1,500 a year. In 1874 it was decreased to £1,000, but four years ago it was increased once more to £1,500, and it remains at that figure at the present moment. The same thing has happened in France and Denmark. In Denmark in 1903 the salary was raised from 6s. 8d. to 11s. a day, and in France, only four years ago, it was raised from £360 to £600 a year. The same thing has happened in other countries of Europe and in our own Dominions. In Tasmania only a very short time ago the salary was actually doubled. Is it really likely that it is going to stop at £400 a year in this country? Great efforts have been made abroad to stem the tide of this extravagance, but up to now practically without the slightest result. A highly instructive despatch, illustrative of this was written a few years ago by the Consul-General at Christiania to the British Minister at Stockholm. The Consul-General describes the rejection, in the Norwegian Parliament of five distinct Motions on the part of the Economists for the limitation of payments to members. His description is extremely graphic, and I will recommend its perusal to the Government. He says:—
    "The proposal for the reduction of the Daily Sustenance Allowance from twelve kroner to five was rejected by a large majority and when Mr. Bangs got up and proposed that the scale of payment should be retained, Mr. Bangs gained the largest number of votes for his proposal."
    I think we should have our Mr. Bangs in this House in the future. Indeed, I foresee an unending vista of Mr. Bangs if this proposal is carried into law. But
    1656
    Members of Parliament abroad do not stop at salaries, and I do not see any likelihood of its stopping at salaries in this country. There are travelling expenses, and all kinds of extras. In fact, this Vote is merely a shy and tentative beginning of things. The same Consul-General—I take him as an illustration, other cases may be found elsewhere—says that members of the Norwegian Parliament have not only salaries, but, what would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were here, Medical Benefit. He says:—
    "In the course of time the privilege of an allowance for nursing and medical treatment often became the object of a somewhat free and elastic interpretation on the part of members. Thus it is a well-known fact that under that privilege members have made the State Treasury pay for their baths, more or less medical, for courses of gymnastics or massage, for inhalation processes, for medical comforts (wine for the sick), for the drawing and stopping of teeth, etc. etc."
    What a prospect for hon. Members in this country! What is more encouraging still, according to some reports, they even bury their Members of Parliament at the cost of the Treasury if they happen to die during the course of the Session. May I submit once more that if the Government have irrevocably made up their mind to pay salaries to Members of Parliament, the particular manner in which they propose to do it is not only the most undignified but the most distasteful to every Member in this House that could possibly be chosen? This great change is being smuggled through at the end of a laborious Session under the cloak of other and better advertised measures. The Government have taken good care not to advertise payment of Members too much. I have not seen a single Radical leaflet on the subject. Why did they not take the opportunity of booming it at the recent by-elections? They did not boom it for the very good reason that they knew perfectly well the electors are not very enthusiastic about it. But however unpopular it may be—and I believe it is unpopular—the Irish party will give all their help. They voted for the Budget last year, although they loathed it. They voted down the Labour party on Clauses 10 and 11 of the Insurance Bill, although the Irish party did not mean to have them for their own country, and now they will vote for the payment of Members, although they have declaimed against it. They have said they do not want it for themselves, but they are willing to vote for it to give it to us.
    The Government are proposing to give £400 all round, but surely it would have

    1657
    been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End said, more politic and businesslike to give salaries according to attendance. Some hon. Members in this House, owing to the pressure of business and through no fault of their own, put in comparatively few attendances in this House. Why should £400 a year be squandered in their case for services which are rarely rendered? It is a sheer waste of public money. The Government have abolished the financial veto of the House of Lords. Is it quite certain that they themselves are to be trusted with the sole management of the public purse? It will read rather curiously in history that on 8th August, 1011, the House of Commons at the bidding of a Radical Government abolished the veto of the House of Lords, and that less than a week later they voted themselves £400 a year. If the Government had the courage of their opinion, they would bring in a Bill. The Prime Minister foreshadowed a measure, but this is not a measure. It is a temporary makeshift for this year's Members of Parliament. I do not think the Prime Minister is behaving very fairly to the Members of his own party. He has forced upon them the obligation of voting themselves salaries, whether they want them or not, while leaving it possible for a future House of Commons to be more disinterested and to recall the bait so temptingly dangled before them. I do not believe that a majority of hon. Members really want salaries to be given to them in this particular manner. I hope therefore that they will save the Government from themselves before it is too late.
    9.0. P.M.
    What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think of all this? He made a brilliant speech last Thursday commending the proposal to the House of Commons, but has he forgotten that £250,000 would pay for several Amendments to the Insurance Bill which he refused to accept on the score of expenditure? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rather have this money for social reform. As everyone knows, this House is pledged to vast expenditure in future. Every year the burden rises. How far is it justified? In spite of certain exuberant speeches in the past, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I believe, genuinely anxious to keep the expenditure of the country within bounds, but the country desires social reform, and desires it passionately. If we are to have it, especially if we are to have it in a hurry, we shall have to pay for it, either
    1658
    by new taxes or by fresh economies, or both. Would it not be better to begin by economies? Cannot we save this £250,000? Some hon. Members who have recently learned to think in millions, may say that a quarter of a million is a small sum, but no nation or individual ever economised by saving big sums only. I hope the Members of the present House of Commons will have the courage to record their votes on this occasion in accordance with their convictions, and not according to a mistaken sense of party loyalty which is not-going to do their party any good. Let them justify their claim to be the sole trustees of the nation's finances by refusing to vote themselves a personal salary out of the national till. Finally, if it is irrevocably decided that the British House of Commons is to be salaried in future, then let the Government do it by bringing in an honest Bill, and not by setting up a dishonest precedent.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-son), like many other previous speakers in the Debate, has done his best to make out a case against those who are supporting the Motion of the Government on the ground that we have never properly put this question before our constituents. In order to disabuse his mind I shall endeavour to show exactly what my own position has been on this question. I came into this House during 1903. At the election I placed the question of payment of Members prominently in my Election Address. In the early part of 1904 I took part in the ballot for Motions, and being fortunate I selected the subject of payment of Members and moved a resolution on that subject, which was debated for the tune allotted for private Members' Motions. At the election in 1906 I again placed the question prominently before my constituents in my election addresses and my speeches. At the two elections that took place last year I brought before my constituents, as the main item, the question that had been brought so prominently before the public, namely, the constitutional crisis; but in my election address I repeated that I stood by the whole of the questions I had set before them in my previous election addresses.
    It seems to me that having in four elections directly and indirectly brought forward this subject both in my election addresses and my speeches, and having moved a resolution on the subject in 1904, and voted on the question every time that

    1659
    it has been submitted to a Division since 1904, I at any rate ought not to admit the soft impeachment that we have not placed this subject properly before those whom we have the honour to represent. Having regard to the whole of the circumstances under which the last two elections were taken, this question of the mandate can be pushed altogether too far. It was impossible to oblige hon. Members by putting every question in the very forefront. If we had sought to oblige them, if some of us had put Home Rule in the first place, and some had put Free Trade first, and others the payment of Members first, what would we have heard? Throughout the whole of the Debates on the constitutional question we should have heard from speaker after speaker that we had evaded the issue, that we had preferred to go to the country to ask for a renewal of the confidence of our constituents, in order to settle the constitutional question, and instead of putting that question in the very forefront we had diverted the attention of the electors from that great question by putting in the front some of the other questions to which I have just referred. Another point of which the hon. Member has made a great deal is that we are voting money to ourselves.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In this Parliament.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I do not know that that matters very much. It must be in this Parliament if it is to ourselves.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not necessarily.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Well, we are going to vote it to ourselves. That is the point I want to come to. Are we the only people who have ever done that? Is this something entirely new in party politics? Does the hon. Member forget the time when his party proposed the measure known throughout the country as the Agricultural Ratings Act? Did none of the Members belonging to the party with which he is associated vote for the passing of the Agricultural Ratings Act, and did they delay its operation until another Parliament? But I may go further. Not only did they vote for it, and not only did they take the money, by its operation in that Parliament, but, what is more to the point, the party with which he is associated made themselves responsible for passing the Act without ever having given a word of notice to the electors at the previous General
    1660
    Election. After all, if we are open to the charge that we are passing it in this Parliament, and within a few hours of the settlement of the constitutional crisis, it is a very happy augury that the two questions are being settled so closely together, as they both have a very important bearing on the future of democracy in this country. But there is this to be said for the credit of those of us who are going to vote for the Motion to-night, unlike the party opposite when they passed the Agricultural Ratings Act, notice has been publicly given in language that was clear and unmistakable, and may I say here that if the Liberal Press had not been sufficiently alert and had not given sufficient notice of the question, I am quite convinced of this, that the Press of the party opposite made the fullest use of it in the election.
    In my own case it was told on every platform that not only did I want to vote myself a salary, but the country would never know when we would be prepared to come forward and vote a substantial increase to that salary; and my opponent told this on every platform, after spending something like £1,100 for the satisfaction of taking five from the majority, on a smaller poll, which I had over him in the previous January. Another point that has been pressed very forcibly against us this evening by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) is that the Government are passing this Estimate for giving £400 a year without associating with it any conditions. Both hon. Members said practically the same thing. They said, "Supposing a man only turns up for a few days, is he to be paid the whole £400 a year?" All I have got to say is this: the very fact that he has got £400 a year would probably be the means, if he took it under such conditions, of cutting short his Parliamentary career. I am prepared to leave such a Member who is so remiss in his attendance upon his Parliamentary duties in the hands of the constituents.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the hon. Member suggest that I am very remiss in my attendance?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No. My hon. Friend must remember his own speech. He was speaking of someone who had not attended very regularly, and I say I am prepared, if there are such Members, to leave them, and leave them with greater confidence when once this £400 a year is in operation, in the hands of the constituents; and I will tell you why. Those of

    1661
    us who have been associated with politics for a number of years know full well that many constituencies have been tied down to take the man who came to the House of Commons just when it pleased him. This is well known, and I know this subject not only as a Labour candidate and as a Labour Member, but as an old agent of one of the orthodox political parties. I know something of the conditions that are associated with the acceptance of candidates on both sides of the House. It has often not been a case of merit or a case of attending to their Parliamentary duties. It has often been: "How much are you prepared to pay?" That has limited the choice, and the choice has been so restricted that often the constituency could not help itself. It was Hobson's choice. It was tied up to the man who could put the most money down, and he pleased himself as to when he attended to vote or took any of the serious responsibilities associated with Parliamentary representation. I again repeat, I shall leave those who are remiss in their attendance upon their Parliamentary duties entirely in the hands of their constituents. Another point that has been made very strongly, especially by the hon. Member for Mile End, was that this step should not be taken, because at one time in his illustrious career Mr. Gladstone was supposed to be against the payment of Members. I may remind the Committee that in 1892 Mr. Gladstone came to this House and spoke in favour of the payment of Members. But I can quote somebody whom they have not yet quoted in this Debate. I Have not heard it once said in this House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) up and down the country was very fond of saying in his Radical days—[An HON. MEMBER: "His palmy days."]—his palmy days, as someone reminds me—
    "You pay your Ministers, and I cannot for the life of me see why Members of Parliament are the only people to work for nothing."
    I never heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) make the statement. I believe he did make a statement—at any rate, the other day—that certain things run. in the blood. He had evidently forgotten that there is some of that Radicalism in his blood when he made the speech against the Motion to which we listened only a couple of days ago. I want particularly, in my last point, to associate myself with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr.
    1662
    Snowden). He, I think, put before the Committee in a very practical way the position of many Members of this House. I have tried, to the very best of my ability, to serve my Constituency in this House, and I have tried it by keeping my home in the North of England and keeping up lodgings in London. Since 1906 I have tried it by bringing the whole of my family to live in London, and I can give a little practical experience on this subject. Perhaps if we can show some of these concrete cases hon. Members opposite will be more sympathetic with those of us who are on these benches. The first two years I kept my home in Darlington, and I am free to confess I lived according to my income. My rent was £18 10s., and the rates. I brought my family to live in London. I took a smaller house; there was only one room difference. What was my experience? My rent, instead of being £18 10s. and the rates was at once £45 and the rates for a smaller and almost exactly similar house; in fact, if I had to make a free selection between the two houses I would prefer to stick to the house that I had when I was living in Darlington for the £18 10s. rather than the house I had in Clapham for £45 and the rates upon the £45, which I was compelled to pay, being a resident in London. My coming to London simply meant that every time I went to my Constituency, which was further north than Darlington, I had to pay the railway fare.
    I brought my family here because I thought it would raise the standard of my family's life by my being associated with it more closely than I had been by leaving it in the north of England. I thought it would enable me more freely to discharge my responsibility to my own children, and, therefore, I went to the extra cost solely on that account. It should be remembered that we have to pay the increased rent in London, or the extra railway fares when we have to go to our constituencies; or, if we do not live in London, as the hon. Member for Blackburn put it, still we have to keep up our lodgings here, and have to travel home once a fortnight, or, as I used to do in those days, once in three weeks. Really I could not afford to do it oftener. We have to keep up our homes in the country, with all the other incidental expenditure with regard to postage and other things that every Member on the other side knows equally as well as we do. Once you grant that Members ought to be paid—and, of course, you take up the issue on that

    1663
    ground—it seems to me it would be well-nigh impossible for men to do proper justice to the position that they occupy, and to their families, on a sum much less than the sum which the Government have been pleased to include in their Motion. A good deal is said with regard to the abandonment of gratuitous public service. It has been said as if there was a monopoly amongst certain classes in the way of rendering gratuitous public service. I want to take exception to any such inference. I myself— and I hope the Committee will pardon my referring to my own experience—was taken away, when I was twenty-nine years of age, from the foundry to enter into public service. For the first ten months of my public life I worked in the foundry and attended the best I could to my Committees as a member of the Newcastle City Council. I can look back to those days when I kept a suit of clothes in the foundry and changed in order to get away for two or three hours during the day, which the firm with which I was connected permitted me the liberty of enjoying. But, mark you, I lost my pay for every hour that I was away, and there was nothing to compensate me on the other side. And I wish to say on behalf of my colleagues on these benches, most of whom have had their training in connection with county councils and borough councils of this country—two of them serving on two borough councils and one on a county council, and all three on magisterial benches—that they have given some little share of gratuitous public service.
    May I say that I have given the whole of that public service without a single halfpenny of reward of any kind, paying for it out of the weekly wages earned in the foundry in the first instance, and out of any small salary that I secured when I finally left the foundry to go more fully into the public service? We on these benches, I say, claim that not only have we given gratuitous public service, but have given it—and I hope the Members of the Committee will recognise that I say it without any degree of exaggeration—at a greater point of sacrifice than most members of public authorities belonging to classes in a higher or more superior social position. And at this very moment may I say that there are thousands of men associated with the Labour party in the country, who, as everybody knows who knows anything of public life, are rendering splendid service in connection with our local
    1664
    authorities, and they are most of them doing, at a point of sacrifice great to themselves, what is known as gratuitous public service. But why, I want to ask all those concerned on the other side, talk about the degradation of being associated with paid service? Do they seriously lead us,. to believe, or want us to believe, that they are opposed to every form of payment of Members? I am asking that question quite seriously. I go back a few months, and I take up my London newspaper. What do I find there? I find there the most stirring appeal. What for? For a fund. For what purpose? To pay Conservative working men, not only to get into this House, but to maintain them in the event of the constituencies returning them. Is it more degrading, openly and straightforwardly, to take from the Exchequer of this country payment for your political or parliamentary services than it is to take it from a political party fund; for it was nothing more than that—it was collected through the advertisement columns of a Tory newspaper? May I say further—and this is very surprising to many of us—that if you go back and examine the list of subscribers to "The Standard" fund for the return of Conservative working men to Parliament, what do you find? You find the names of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side who are opposed to the straightforward payment of Members out of the public funds. No, there has been too much cant in these Debates. If it is right to pay from the "Standard" fund for services rendered in this House, rendered not to a constituency but to a party, it must be more than right to pay directly and honestly and straightforwardly from the public funds. We on these benches are prepared to take our political careers in our hands and to go to our constituencies when the time arrives, and if we are wrong so much the better for hon. Members opposite. They tried to prove us wrong on Free Trade; they tried to prove us wrong on the House of Lords, and they can go and have a try to prove us wrong on the payment of Members. We are prepared to stand or fall according to the position of those that we represent. The very fact that we may foe personally interested in this is a small matter after all in the life of a nation, a very small matter, but we are supporting the payment of Members because we believe it is the only position consistent with democratic development and representative government.
    Mr. FELL: I cannot follow the last hon. Member into the interesting details which he has given us of his career and of what he has done, but I join issue with him on one point when he says that when the Agricultural Bating Act was passed, that it was privileged and that we put the money into our own pockets. Every Bill, in some way I suppose, affects Members of this House indirectly or directly. If I vote for the reduction of the Income Tax, I suppose according to the hon. Member I should be accused of having voted for putting money into my own pocket. It is the same thing but I see a difference between voting for the reduction of the Income Tax and this proposal. There is nothing in comparison with that and voting for ourselves a considerable income which is not voted to anybody else. Of course, if we voted that everyone in England should have a pension or something of that kind, it might be said that we were personally affected, but when we are voting money to ourselves and ourselves alone, then to compare that with the Agricultural Rating Act seems to me almost an absurdity. I had an Amendment which I proposed to move, but the ground has been so fully covered by this Amendment that I do not now intend to do so. I will just mention why I put down an Amendment to reduce the vote by £152,000. When I took up the Supplementary Estimate I saw that we were proposing to vote a sum of £600,000, and that contained an item of £252,000 to ourselves and the sum of £100,000 for the unemployed. I said surely is this what we are proposing really to do? We are going to vote £252,000 to some 660 Members here, and for the unemployed, whatever their number may be this winter and next year, a sum of £100,000; while a year or two ago we used to vote £200,000 or £300,000. Even in that case I did not believe it was adequate, and I cannot see now with what decency we can propose, with all the unemployed there may be this winter, and there may be difficulties, to vote ourselves £250,000 and £100,000 for the unemployed. Even last year, which was considered a very good year, in my town there was a number of unemployed who were paid by the town and by voluntary subscriptions. The unemployed may number thousands or tens of thousands and they are to receive £100,000 and we shall receive £252,000. I wish the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) were present as he takes a great interest in this fund. I hoped I should have had his support in moving that there should be a considerable
    1666
    reduction on this proposal. I could not move an increase in the other Vote, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had £152,000 in hand which he could have added to it. I am merely explaining the Amendment which I propose to move and which, under the circumstances, I shall not move now.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer went into great retrospect with regard to this payment, but he devoted very little time to what effect the payment of Members would have on this House, on the Members that make up this House, and their qualifications. He suggested that what I should call imaginary perfect Members were kept out at present and that they would be enabled to come in. Those perfect Members I believe do not exist; I am quite convinced of that. I have another idea of what those Members will be who will come in when we have this payment of Members. I was speaking to one of the Colonial Premiers three or four weeks ago. We were discussing politics, and he said to me, "You have a much more important proposal than any of those to come before you." I said, "What is it?" and he said "Payment of Members. It will have more effect than the Veto Bill." I said "Do you really mean that?" He said, "I do—I come from a country where we have payment of members and I tell you that in England, when you have payment of Members, you will have greatly changed for the future all your laws. You are going to change the nature of this House, and the laws will be different from what they are now." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought you were approving of the laws you were bringing in now.
    Mr. KING: They are not radical enough.
    Mr. FELL: That Premier told me that payment of Members would bring about a greater change in this House than anything effected by any other Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Members think so. I thought we thought this House, the Mother of Parliaments, was, I will not say perfect, but that it could be amended as time went on to meet the times, and that we did not want to change it radically and get in new men, not the class we see represented here, but another class entirely. That Premier said to me: "You will have a crowd of briefless barristers in the House." [An HON. MEMBER: "We have them now."] "You

    1667
    will have a number of street orators in the House of Commons, but you will not have merchants, shipowners, bankers, financiers, and others you now have. Those men will be absent as they are in the Colonial Parliament. The briefless barristers will come in with the object of getting that £400 per year which will just keep them while they are hoping to get on, and, mark my words, it may not come yet, and may come gradually, but it will come." I was passing through one of the big towns in the South of France at election time, and I had a long talk with one of the candidates whom I knew. I asked, "How many candidates are there?" He replied, "There is one seat, and there are seven candidates, five of whom are barristers, and the others I do not know what." I asked, "What are your chances?" He said, "Our chances are about equal." "Then what is the object?" I asked. He replied, "Well, we are all trying to got the £600 which appertain to the place as member for this town." The election took place. The sucessful candidate did not secure a majority of the votes, and there had to be a second ballot. If you adopt payment of Members here, you will have to follow it up by the second ballot. We shall not only change the classes of men in this House, but we shall have the second ballot. [An HON. MEMBER: "And no Second Chamber."] I do not know whether we shall have a Second Chamber or not. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had turned his attention to some extent to what would be the future composition of this House, and had told us whether he was in favour of the second ballot. In the countries where there is payment of members they have Government by groups. In America it does not follow so much, because there are two great caucus parties, and a considerable portion of the salary is paid into the caucus funds to work the party machinery in the most efficacious way. If payment of Members is introduced here, before many years are over groups will follow. Such groups will be able to use their votes to advantage, as we see done at present to some extent. The present Parliament consists of four or five groups, but if the number is increased and you have to negotiate with those different groups, then things will be very different. I shall, of course, vote for the reduction, but I wish the amount were nothing at all. It means that we shall be charging about 8d. to each elector in the Kingdom, and I think they would very
    1668
    much prefer that the money was spent on the unemployed rather than that we should vote it to ourselves.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I hope I may be allowed to say a few words on this question, not only because I speak on behalf of the Government, but because I am one who for many years have not only told my Constituents I was in favour of the payment of Members, but have constantly spoken in its favour all over the country. Although I agree that at the time of the last election many of us were not laying the matter very much before our Constituents, because they already knew that we were in favour of it. I say with certainty that the artisans in the North of England wanted this measure, that they have been expecting it, and that they are expecting us to pass it. It is extremely probable that in the South of England the question has not been discussed as much as it has been in the North; but in the West Hiding of Yorkshire I say confidently there is no industrial constituency that has not practically given its voice in favour of this measure. Those of us who are in favour of payment of Members will be ready to acknowledge that during the Debates of these two days the opposition to this proposal has been put forward in very moderate terms. The Members of the Opposition have not used to any extent the rather easy popular gibe that we are voting money for ourselves, and when that gibe is used it leaves us cold. In the first place the payment in this Parliament will, as a matter of fact, be a boon to many Members. And they have a right to it. After all, before the last election the Prime Minister announced that this measure would be introduced in the first Session of this Parliament. I know one or two Members, and one or two candidates, who stood for Parliament because they knew that payment of Members was coming. I say, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that it should be voted in this Parliament. However many fears hon. Members may entertain in regard to this proposal, they must admit that it cannot change the character, quality, or personnel of this Parliament. Whatever harm it may do, if any, will be in future Parliaments. Therefore that is what we have to decide.
    I am glad, too, that in these discussions there has not been much talk about gross corruption resulting from the payment of Members. But allusions have been made to the American Commonwealth. Mr.

    1669
    Bryce, who is suffering a good deal from quotation nowadays, has been called in aid of the Opposition. It is only fair to read what Mr. Bryce did say. I will read first of all what has been given as his view, and then I will continue the quotation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bryce cannot be quoted on either side. He is an extraordinarily impartial person, and it is only fair that his views should be before the Committee. His words are:
    "It (payment of Members) contributes to keep up a class of professional politicians for the salary, though small in comparison with the incomes earned by successful merchants or lawyers, is a prize to men of the class whence professional politicians mostly come. But those European writers who describe it as the formative cause of that class, are mistaken. That class would have existed had Members not been paid: would continue to exist if payment were withdrawn."
    I think it far better to judge this question from what we may reasonably believe will occur in our own country without considering what has occurred in other countries. I do not think that any opponent will say that our Colonial assemblies are in any sense as corrupt as some of the American assemblies are. They may have their failings, they may be rougher than some of the assemblies in Europe; but I think, as a matter of fact, Colonial politics are as honest as ours. There is a great deal less payment to the constituencies. There is in the Colonies what we want by this change, a greater opening to the talents. That is what we are driving at. Of course, in a sense the House of Commons is a very democratic assembly. Men are taken here upon their real merits. The House is not caught by mere smartness, nor is it alienated by unpopular opinions. Once a man is in this House his means are disregarded. A man with talents rises rapidly according to his conduct, his courage, his speaking ability, and his judgment. As soon as he is in this House, it is very true we regard his personality, and we are peculiarly little biassed by a man's social pursuits or pecuniary position. That is once he is in the House. We should all agree that in a rough-and-ready way the Cabinet of fifteen are the best men from one side or the other. The House of Commons could be truly said to be democratic if we were the 670 best of the political population, but what is the case? Any of us who go up and down the country know that there are to be found there numbers of men who are as good or better than ourselves, who are kept out of this House simply because they are poorer than we are.
    Many of us have to do with electioneering, and we know what happens con-
    1670
    stantly when a constituency has to find a candidate. The party looks round first of all for the man whom it knows, the local man whose character it knows, whose position it knows, because he has taken a considerable part in local politics, and very often it happens that it is unable to get a single man out of the constituency or even in the neighbourhood. They have to go to some rich outsider. What happens then is that the constituency has to choose without knowing the man. They have to take his character from the party Whip. He may be a mere political adventurer, or he may come with one recommendation, the hall-mark of wealth. It is a mere dip in the bucket, and they may get a good one or a bad one. The constituencies do not like to do that. They would far sooner have men whom they really knew, who lived in the town, and not men who came from the outside. I admit there are advantages in the carpet-bag system. It is a good thing when an able man is rejected in his own district that he should be able to find a constituency in other parts of the country. If the Liberal leaders should have to find an asylum in the North the Conservative leaders have to find asylums in the south. But in any case, I think it would be an advantage if the Constituency had a clear choice, so that there would be more local representatives than at the present moment. The House has also to decide, in the vote which is to be taken, whether, given the principle of payment of Members we are giving an allowance which will make it possible for a man of small means to live in London and to do his duties in the House of Commons. Is the sum proposed sufficient, or is it too much? I think, after the speech to-night from the Member for Blackburn, it is very difficult for anyone to say that, given the principle, £400 is too much. He gave us the facts. Surely all must feel that that was the real truth of the case. If a man comes up here, and has to live in London and pay high rents here, and to do his duty not only here but by going down and speaking in the country and visiting his Constituents, if he has to keep his family in the constituency or the place from which he comes, and to have two houses or two homes, one in Blackburn or wherever it may be, and the other in London, I ask anyone to say that £400 a year is too much.
    At any rate the Government have made careful inquiries, and they have come to the conclusion that £400 a year is what a man can just live on, and that much less would not enable him to live in London

    1671
    and do his duty. If any of my friends on this side of the House feel that it is too much there is a further consideration that I would put to them. My hon. Friend who seconded the reduction (Sir W. Byles) said, "You can increase it if you find it is too little." Well, we do not want to enter into a, career of increasing the amount. If you begin by giving a man less than would really allow him to live in London and do his duty you will have to increase it. I think the House will be well advised to start at a fairly high point rather than to begin at £300, where it would have to go up. I believe the strongest case against this proposal is really the sentiment which, I agree, we cannot afford to disregard, that unpaid service is a particularly honourable thing. I think the Member for Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), said the last mark of our superiority over foreign Parliaments would be swept away if we pass this resolution. He suggested that our 600 Members of Parliament now serving for no reward would be replaced by mercenaries. But what does unpaid service really mean, stripped of all its glory? It means the service of men who happen to be so well off that they can, without inconvenience or sacrifice, work for nothing. The most they sacrifice is leisure. But in a very large number of cases there are people who would enter the service of the country, and who think that they have the same right to that honourable service as the rich people, but they cannot do so unless at the expense of the comfort of their families, or very likely the education of their children. For my part, I hope that the House will see to it that all public service here ought to be paid for; that it would be better service because it is paid for; and that the payment will be a symbol of the work which is to be expected. I think it is worth while also considering that here, in this century, we have passed out of the old system which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was speaking about the other evening when he referred to the aristocratic theory of Government under which we were governed. We have passed out of that. We have got a popular franchise; but we still have the limitation which, of necessity, the possession of wealth allows. Having got a popular franchise, the absolutely necessary corrollary of that is that the people should be allowed
    1672
    to choose the men whom they want to serve them. We are asking to-night simply for the completion of the system which has been begun.
    Mr. BAIRD: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) began his speech by saying that he had some diffidence in supporting a measure for the payment of Members, seeing that he was one of those Members who hoped to benefit by it. I had considerable sympathy with him, because, although by no means able to do without this grant, I am perfectly prepared to serve those who send me here without any subvention. But at the conclusion of his speech my sympathy vanished from him altogether. I take it that his remarks amounted to this: that it was perfectly right for the State to pay him and those who agree with him, and very wrong for the State to pay persons who had discharged important and difficult functions. He particularly inveighed against the pensions paid to a former Speaker of this Assembly. Anyone who has been only a short while, as I have been, in this Assembly, knows that it must be an almost exceptional man to discharge the functions of the important position of the Chair. As to begrudging him his pension, all I can say is that I hope the Noble Lord will be spared many many years to enjoy his well-earned pension.
    Mr. JOHN WARDmade an observation that was inaudible in the Gallery.
    Mr. BAIRD: I am delighted to hear from the hon. Member opposite that nobody objects to the pension. I do not know how what he says will agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman who habitually sits behind him. If he did not object to the pension there was no point whatever in his remarks. There was another allusion which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn made in reference to the speech of the Noble Lord who moved the reduction. He made equally disparaging remarks with regard to the sums which have been paid to-various members of the Noble Lord's family. When hon. Members who object can show a like record to the services rendered during many centuries to the Empire then it will be more fitting to put forward their objections. Meanwhile, as I say, this objection of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn simply amounts to this——

    1673
    And, it being Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under discussion.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £189,000, be granted for the said service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 237.

    Division No. 323.]

    AYES.

    [10.0 p.m.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Astor, Waldorf

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bennt Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanderson, Robert Lancelot

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Campion, W. R.

    Jessei, Captain Herbert M.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Keswick, William

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cator, John

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cave, George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Locker-Lamnson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Clynes, John R.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Croft, Henry Page

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fleming, Valentine

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peel and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Doris, William

    Adamson, William

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Alden, Percy

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Falconer, James

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Clough, William

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Barnes, George N.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Field, William

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Beale, William Phipson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Cullinan, John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Boland, John Plus

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    De Forest, Baron

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Delany, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hackett, John

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rowlands, James

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro, Robert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro-Ferquson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Shortt, Edward

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Snowden, Philip

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Johnson, William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sutton, John E.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ogden, Fred

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. Hmts., Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philip

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wadsworth, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wardle, George J.

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lansbury, George

    Pointer, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Logan, John William

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Radford, George Heynes

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Maclean, Donald

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 324.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Cullinan, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Adamson, William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Alden, Percy

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    De Forest, Baron

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Delany, William

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Donelan, Anthony Charles

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Doris, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Duffy, William J.

    Barry, Redmond John

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Beale, W. P.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clough, William

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Falconer, James

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Boland, John Plus

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Field, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Brady, Patrick (Mayo, North)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robinson, Sidney

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Rowlands, James

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hackett, J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morgan, George Hay

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Muldoon John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire, N.)

    Munro, R.

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Snowden, Philip

    Hayward, Evan

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Neilson, Francis

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sutton, John E.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Johnson, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Ogden, Fred

    Wadsworth, John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan Timothy

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jowett, F. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Keating, M.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cocherm'th)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Leach, Charles

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Logan, John William

    Rainy, A. Holland

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lundon, T.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Reddy, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cassel, Felix

    Grant, J. A.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cator, John

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cave, George

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Baird, J. L.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hills, John Waller

    Baker, Sir R. L (Dorset, N.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Balcarres, Lord

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Keswick, William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fleming, Valentine

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bird, A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Boyton, J.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Campion, W. R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    1678

    1679

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Morrison Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. E. F. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Younger, Sir George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Wolmer and Mr. Gwynne.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Mr. CAVE: J beg to move, "That the Vote of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. C. Fenwick) be disallowed."
    I want at once to raise a point which I think I can only raise at this moment and by a Motion to disallow a vote. I want to move to disallow the salary of a Member on the ground that he who voted for this Motion has a direct pecuniary and personal interest in it. I call your attention to the fact that this particular Vote applies to every Member of the present House. Therefore, every one who votes for it, is voting for the payment of £400 to himself. I have looked up the rulings on this point, and I only desire to quote one. The ruling of the Speaker of the day on the Vote for compensation to subscribers to what is called the Loyalty Loan. The point was raised then whether a subscriber to the Loan could vote for compensation to subscribers, and the Speaker's ruling was this:—
    "Having been appealed in in so distinct a manner by the hon. Member, it is my duty to state what appears to me to be the rule and practice of the House in questions of this nature. I have always understood the rule and practice of this House to be that no Member can regularly, subject to some qualification, vote on any question which involves in ii the immediate interest of such Member. This, I have said is subject to some qualification. I will not detain the House by entering into the details of the qualification at present. But when any measure is submitted to the House, the substance of which is to confer a pecuniary advantage, or diminish a loss, which is the same thing I am satisfied it is not consistent with the mode of proceeding which the House has adopted on occasions of delicacy and importance, that any Member should vote on a measure by which he intends to derive any benefit in case that measure be carried into law."
    Mr. Maiming, whose vote was impeached, said he was much obliged to the Speaker for delivering so clear an opinion, and he should decline voting upon the question. The Speaker repeated his ruling in these distinct terms later on:—
    "When a measure was proposed conferring a pecuniary advantage or diminishing a pecuniary loss, no Member who intended or expected to derive any benefit from it could vote."
    1680
    This is not a vote upon a public Bill; it is a vote in Committee for a direct Grant of money to Members who have voted. I desire to make it clear T raise no personal question, and for that purpose I desire to select a Member for whom we all have respect, and who, I know, voted for the Motion on general grounds. But he, like others, derives a money interest himself from the vote, and for that reason I best to move, "That the vote of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) be disallowed."
    The CHAIRMAN: I only learned from the hon. and learned Gentleman a few minutes ago that he intended to raise this question.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you are ruling on a point of Order, I should like to draw your attention to one thing. May I point out this question was gone into very fully by a Select Committee, appointed I do not quite recollect the year.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is this a point of Order?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a point of Order I am submitting to the Chair. I am going to read the Report of that Committee. It is a Committee appointed during the time the Unionist party were in power.
    Mr. CAVE: On a point of Order. Is not this a matter for the House, and ought not the Motion first to be put to the House and then debated?
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no need to put the Motion to the House. I am going to state why I do not intend to put it to the House. I am perfectly familiar with the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and therefore perhaps it is not necessary for him to read it. I only heard a few minutes ago that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to raise this

    1681
    question, but, naturally, I expected it would be raised, and therefore I have taken a good deal of trouble to look up the precedents, and particularly to look up the evidence and the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—the report of a very strong Select Committee appointed in 1898. The rule of the House is, of course, well known, "a Member is disqualified for voting"—I am quoting Mr. Speaker Cully's statement of the case— "on any question in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest of a private and particular and not of a public and general nature." In this case, of course, Members may be said to have a private pecuniary interest, but also they have a public and general interest, and anybody who has listened to the Debate knows perfectly well that the matter has been discussed from the standpoint of public and general interest. The precedent which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted comes from the year 1797. Of course, there are much more recent judgments on the question than that. The most recent rulings of importance of which I know are those of Mr. Speaker Gully, in 1898, and those of the present Speaker when he was Chairman of Committee in 1904. The ruling of Mr. Speaker Gully was on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, and was on a question involving grants in. aid of rates to landlords. I should say Mr. Speaker Gully in that case refused to allow the question to be put to the House. His ruling was that "there must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular and not of a public and general nature, and when the question before the House is of a public and general nature and incidentally involves the pecuniary interest to a class which includes Members of the House, they are not prevented by the rules of the House from voting." The ruling of the present Speaker, when he was Chairman of Committees in 1904, was on the Licensing Bill in regard to the question of Members interested in the licensing trade voting on the question of grants from the Compensation Fund for the extinction of licences. The present Speaker also on that occasion did not allow the question to be put to the House. These rulings seem to me to cover the present case. It does not matter to the question of principle whether the Members voting are few in number and representative of a larger class outside the House, or whether as in this case they represent a considerable
    1682
    proportion as compared with the total number of Members who are affected by the Vote given to-night. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that this point and a very analogous point were the subject of a paragraph in the report of the Select Committee to which I have already re ferred—a report which was founded, I think, on the opinions given by Mr. Speaker Gully and by Lord Peel, who had only very recently ceased to be Speaker of the House, to that Committee. The paragraph is this:
    "On the other hand, it has always been held that members of the Government might vote on Motions for the reduction or their salaries made in order to censure their conduct, because the question of general and public policy involved would override the personal pecuniary interest. The same argument would doubtless apply to motions for a. general or individual reduction or Ministers' salaries on the ground of economy, or for the payment of Members of Parliament."
    Having regard to the precedents and opinions to which I have referred, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot put this Motion to the Committee.
    Mr. CAVE: Is it the fact that the statement in the report of the Committee is not founded on any statement either of Mr. Speaker Gully or Mr. Speaker Peel, the evidence of both of whom I have carefully read, and secondly, is it not the fact that in the case of none of the precedents that you have quoted was there a Vote before the House or the Committee for the direct payment of money to Members?
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first question I have very carefully read the evidence of the Speaker of the day and the ex-Speaker of the day, and the conclusions I have formed is that the paragraph does represent their opinions. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. With regard to the other question, I think the principle, as I have tried to explain, governing this case and those cases is the same.
    The CHAIRMANthen proceeded to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each class of the Civil Service Estimates, including the Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding for the Navy and Army (including Ordnance Factories) be granted for the said services as defined in those classes and Estimates.

    CLASS I.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,518,233, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-

    1683
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Service, namely:—

    £

    1. Royal Palaces (including a Supplementary sum of £3,900)

    45,700

    2. Osborne

    6,200

    3. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    73,600

    4. Houses of Parliament Buildings

    31,170

    5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    34,400

    7. Diplomatic and Consular Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £9,000)

    57,600

    9. Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

    80,000

    10. Public Buildings, Great £ Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £17,500)

    398,050

    11. Surveys of the United Kingdom

    312,344

    12. Harbours under the Board of Trade

    72,389

    13. Peterhead Harbour

    21,000

    14. Rates on Government Property

    380,000

    15. Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    161,370

    16. Railways, Ireland

    43,410

    17. The Palace of Peace, The Hague

    1,000

    £1,518,233 "

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 325.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Adamson, William

    Davies Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hodge, John

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    De Forest, Baron

    Hudson, Walter

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Delany, William

    Hughes, S. L.

    Alden, Percy

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson, W.

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Doris, William

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Jowett, F. W.

    Barry, Redmond John

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Joyce, Michael

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, J.

    Keating, M.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kellaway, Frederck George

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Ferens, T. R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bentham, G. J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Field, William

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Boland, John Plus

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lansbury, George

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cock'rmth)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Leach, Charles

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Goddard, Sir Daneil Ford

    Logan, John William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lundon, T.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Gulland, John William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Maclean, Donald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hackett, J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hancock, J. G.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Clough, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Manfield, Harry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Meagher, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hayward, Evan

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Cullinan, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Morrell, Philip

    Radford, G. H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Muldoon, John

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Tennant, Harold John

    Munro, R.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Reddy, M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wadsworth, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Webb, H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Dowd, John

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ogden, Fred

    Rowlands, James

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Malley, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E B.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Shortt, Edward

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Phillips, John (Longford S.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Snowden, P.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W Jones.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutton, John E.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Grant, J. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gretton, John

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baird, J. L.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barlow Montague (Salford, S.)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hoare, Sir J. G.

    Starkey, John R.

    Bird, A.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boyton, J.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Keswick, William

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Campion, W. R.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cassel, Felix

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cator, John

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cautley, H. S.

    Locker-Lampson, D. (Ramsey)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Cave, George

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Croft, Henry Page

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Tobin.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Class II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,744,191 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, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 11. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    14,559

    2.

    House of Commons Offices

    31,000

    3.

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    57,738

    4.

    Home Office (Supplementary sum)

    12,200

    6.

    Colonial Office

    38,616

    7.

    Privy Council Office

    5,533

    8.

    Board of Trade

    320,716

    9.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    67,100

    10.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    11.

    Hoard of Agriculture and Fisheries

    104,914

    12.

    Charity Commission

    16,558

    13.

    Government Chemist

    10,088

    14.

    Civil Service Commission

    27,516

    15.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    39,560

    16.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    5,910

    18.

    Lunacy Commission, England

    11,342

    19.

    The Mint, including Coinage

    78

    20.

    National Debt Office

    8,155

    21.

    Public Record Office

    16,030

    22.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    31

    23.

    Registrar General's Office, England

    42,023

    24.

    Stationery and Printing

    443,650

    25.

    Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, etc., Office

    13,908

    26.

    Works and Public Buildings Office

    77,930

    27.

    Secret Service

    28,000

    Scotland.

    29.

    Fishery Board

    15,529

    30.

    Lunacy Commission

    3,703

    31.

    Registrar General's Office

    6,871

    32.

    Local Government Board

    12,241

    Ireland.

    33.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,182

    34.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    17,622

    35.

    Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

    231,600

    36.

    Charitable Donations and Requests Office

    1,220

    38.

    Public Record Office

    4,983

    39.

    Public Works Office

    24,470

    40.

    Registrar General's Office

    6,020

    41.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    24,581

    £1,744,191"

    Question put. The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 125.

    Division No 326.]

    AYES.

    [10.42 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    De Forest, Baron

    Adamson, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Doris, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Duffy, William J.

    Alden, Percy

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Falconer, James

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapple, Dr. William Alien

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Barnes, George N.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Clough, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Beale, William Phipson

    Clynes, John R.

    Field, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Boland, John Pius

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cullinan, John

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greenwood, Granville C. (Peterborough)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Brocklehurst William B.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Gulland, John William

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hackett, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Morton, Aloheus Cleophas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Munro, Robert

    Shortt, Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hayward, Evan

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Smith, H. B L. (Northampton)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Snowden, Philip

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sutton, John E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Johnson, William

    O'Doherty, Phillip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ogden, Fred

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wadsworth, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Malley, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Parker, James Halifax

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Wardle, George J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Webb, H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Lansbury, George

    Pointer, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Logan, John William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Radford. George Heynes

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Lundon, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, Michael

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cassel, Felix

    Gretton, John

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cator, John

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cave, George

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingden)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hills, J. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Bathurst, Charles Wilton

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fleming, Valentine

    Keswick, William

    Bird, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Boyton, James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Campion, W. R

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Grant, J. A.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    1690

    1691

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Younger, Sir George

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Arkwright and Mr. MacGeagh

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    MacCaw.

    Class III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,395,854, 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, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    46,317

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    22,994

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    185,524

    4.

    Land Registry

    23,232

    5.

    Public Trustee

    7

    6.

    County Courts

    3

    7.

    Police, England and Wales

    57,312

    8.

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    380,900

    9.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    144,911

    10.

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    54,297

    Scotland.

    £

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    51,590

    12.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    25,992

    13.

    Crofters' Commission

    2,655

    14.

    Prisons

    57,167

    Ireland.

    15.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    35,248

    16.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    66,343

    17.

    Irish Land Commission

    262,395

    18.

    County Court Officers, Etc.

    70,645

    19.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    35,801

    20.

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    751,732

    21.

    Prisons

    69,721

    22.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    47,700

    23.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    3,368

    £2,395,854 "

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 327.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Plus

    Clough, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clynes, John R.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Alden, Percy

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cotton, William Francis

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon S. C. (Poplar)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Beale, William Phipson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    De Forest, Baron

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Delany, William

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Reddy, Michael

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, George H, (Norwich)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Falconer, James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maclean, Donald

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Field, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowlands, James

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Manfield, Harry

    Scott, A. M'Callum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meagher, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Gulland, John William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Snowden, Philip

    Hackett, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Hancock, John George

    Muldoon, John

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Munro, Robert

    Sutton, John E.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Neilson, Francis

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wadsworth, John

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wardle, George J

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ogden, Fred

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Webb, H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Malley, William

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Johnson, William

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Keating, Matthew

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Lansbury, George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bird, Alfred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Boyton, James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Campion, W. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cassel, Felix

    Fleming, Valentine

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cator, John

    Forster, Henry William

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gardner, Ernest

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cave, George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    1694

    1695

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Macmaster, Donald

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Gretton, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Keswick, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Yate, Col. C. E

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Marquess of Tullibardine and Mr. Grant

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    CLASS IV.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £11,052,540, 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, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1. Board of Education

    9,125.442

    2. British Museum

    115,271

    3. National Gallery

    10,994

    4. National Portrait Gallery

    2,738

    5. Wallace Collection

    4,023

    6. Scientific Investigation, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)

    35,603

    7. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain and Intermediate Education, Wales

    203,800

    £

    8.

    Public Education. Scotland

    1,436,594

    9.

    National Galleries, Scotland

    2,143

    Ireland.

    10.

    Public Education (Supplementary sum)

    3,000

    11.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    530

    12.

    National Gallery

    1,146

    13.

    Universities and Colleges

    111,256

    £11,052,540"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes. 122.

    Division No. 328.]

    AYES.

    [11.4 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cotton, William Francis

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Cullinan, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bryce, John Annan

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Alden, Percy

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    De Forest, Baron

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Delany, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Beale, William Phipson

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Doris, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duffy, William J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Benn, W. (T Hamlets, St. George)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Bentham, George J.

    Clough, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Clynes, John R.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Falconer, James

    Boland, John Plus

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Condon, Joseph Thomas

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, George H. (Lincoln)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rowlands, James

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Manfield, Harry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Gulland, John William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-oh-Tees)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Hancock, John George

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shortt, Edward

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrell, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Robert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Snowden, Philip

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Neilson, Francis

    Sutton, John E.

    Hayward, Evan

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nuttall, Harry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dre, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Verney, Sir H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wadsworth, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Dowd, John

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Johnson, William

    Ogden, Fred

    Walters, John Tudor

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    0'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wardle, G. J.

    Jones, William (Cararvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pointer, Joseph

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts Cricklade)

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

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Lansbury, George

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Leach, Charles

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rainy, Adam Holland

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Logan, John William

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Guest.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bull, Sir William James

    Forster, Henry William

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Campion, W. R.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cassel, Felix

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Grant, James Augustus

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gretton, John

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Cave, George

    Gwynne, R. s. (Susex, Eastbourne)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Croft, Henry Page

    Harrison-Broadley, H, B.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Hills, John Waller

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fell, Arthur

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Bird, Alfred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Homer, Andrew Long

    Boyton, James

    Fleming, Valentine

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Jardine Ernest (Somerset, East)

    1698

    1699

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Peter, Basil Edward

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Lawson, Hon. H.(T. M'mts, Mile End)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Younger, Sir George

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Gilmour and Mr. Cator.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

    CLASS V.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,115,044, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    358,031

    £

    2.

    Colonial Services

    735,739

    3.

    Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

    20,274

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    £1,115,044"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 329.]

    AYES,

    [11.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Alden, Percy

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cullinan, John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Barnes, George N.

    De Forest, Baron

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Beale, William Phipson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Hodge, John

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hudson, Walter

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Edwards, Enoch Hanley

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Johnson, W.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Boland, John Pius

    Falconer, J.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    French, Peter

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Field, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    Bryce, John Annan

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Glanville, Harold James

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Moiton)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lansbury, George

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cocksrm'th)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Guiland, John William

    Leach, Charles

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Clough, William

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Logan, John William

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hancock, John George

    Lough, Rt. Hon, Thomas

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lundon, T.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Macdonald, J Ramsay (Leicester)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Snowden, Philip

    Maclean, Donald

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Strauss, Edward A (Southwark, West)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sutton, John E.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Tennant, Harold John

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Manfield, Harry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Radford, George Heynes

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Meagher, Michael

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wadsworth, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Reddy, Michael

    Ward, w. Dudley (Southampton)'

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wardle, George J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, George (Norwich)

    Webb, H.

    Munro, Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robinson, Sidney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Neilson, Francis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Ogden, Fred

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Shortt, Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    O'Malley, William

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J Fortescue

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mount, William Arthur

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)'

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bird, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Rutherford Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, John Waller

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Homer, Andrew Long

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cator, John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cave, George

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Crott, Henry Page

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Faber, George D. (Ciapham)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Touche, George Alexander

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    1702

    1703

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Younger, Sir George

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir R. Baker and Mr. R. McNeill.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,174,516, 'be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and He-tired Allowances

    421,763

    2.

    Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances

    349

    3.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    913

    4.

    Savings Banks' and Friendly Societies, Deficiencies

    36,491

    5.

    Old Age Pensions

    7,715,000

    £6"

    CLASS VII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £445,129, 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, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Temporary Commissions

    18,000

    2.

    Miscellaneous expenses

    4,673

    3.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    2,395

    4.

    Ireland Development Grant

    1,000

    5.

    Government hospitality

    5,000

    6.

    International exhibitions (including a supplementary sum of £700)

    5,700

    7.

    Coronation of His Majesty

    185,000

    8.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    3,361

    9.

    Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    100,000

    10.

    Their Majesties the King and Queen (Visit to India)

    120,000

    £445,129."

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,902,400 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

    £

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    2,618,800

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    270,900

    4.

    Martial Law

    3,900

    5.

    Educational Services

    150,500

    6.

    Scientific Services

    72,000

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    3,721,000

    10.

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

    3,065,300

    £9,902,400"

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,181,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:—

    £

    2.

    Medical Establishment, Pay, etc

    437,000

    3.

    Special Reserve

    742,000

    4.

    Territorial Forces

    2,766,000

    5.

    Establishments for Military Education

    147,000

    6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    1,641,000

    7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    4,295,000

    8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    581,000

    9.

    Armaments and Engineer Stores

    1,472,000

    10.

    Works and Buildings

    2,591,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    73,000

    12.

    War Office

    436,000

    £15,181,000 "

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS' ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,517,845, 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, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Customs and Excise (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)

    1,471,400

    2.

    Inland Revenue

    964,000

    3.

    Post Office

    13,082,445

    £15,517,845"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 330.]

    AYES.

    [11.25 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Gelder, Sir W. A

    Manfield, Harry

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Alden, Percy

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Moiteno, Percy Alport

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Gulland, John William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morrell, Philip

    Barnes, George N.

    Hackett, J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barry, John Redmond (Tyrone, N.)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Muldoon, John

    Beale, W. P.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Munro, R.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Neilson, Francis

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Boland, John Pius

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hay ward, Evan

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ogden, Fred

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hodge, John

    O'Malley, William

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Carr-Gomm, H W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Johnson, W.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Clough, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'lets, Stepney)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clynes, J. R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Keating, M.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Radford, George Haynes

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Moiton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Cullinan, J.

    Lansbury, George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Leach, Charles

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    De Forest, Baron

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon Richard Douglas

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Doris, W.

    Lundon, T.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Maclean, Donald

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Falconer, J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowlands, James

    Ferons, T. R.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rown tree, Arnold

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Curdy, C. A

    Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Samuel S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgton)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wiles, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Sloe.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Stan's., N.W.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Webb, H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Forster, William Henry

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Arkwright, John. Stanhope

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baird, J. L.

    Grant, J. A.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gretton, John

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hills, John Waller

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Starkey, John R.

    Bird, A.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boyton, J.

    Homer, A. L.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Campion, W. R

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cassel, Felix

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Cator, John

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Cautley, H. S

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts., Watford)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craik Sir Henry

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Croft, Henry Page

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Morrison-Bell and Mr. Sanderson.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair, and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported that the Committee had come to several Resolutions.
    Ordered, that the Report be received tomorrow.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE (1909–10).
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse) moved the following Resolution:—
"I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in. the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

186,610

14

5

Total Deficits

…

88,826

4

0

Net Surplus

…

£97,784

10

5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services:
1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1909–10. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

—

11,752

14

5

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

—

5,876

12

9

3

Medical Establishments and Services

11,548

11

5

—

4

Martial Law

1,459

14

6

—

5

Educational Services

16,367

15

6

—

6

Scientific Services

512

4

2

—

7

Royal Naval Reserves

3,565

17

6

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

I. Personnel

6,312

15

9

—

II. Matériel

55,161

13

5

—

III. Contract Work

—

29,546

16

2

9

Naval Armaments

14,877

12

3

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

62,200

8

7

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

—

18,191

0

8

12

Admiralty Office

—

6,619

0

0

13

Half Pay and Retired Pay

—

3,681

12

5

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

15,614

1

4

—

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

8,728

18

9

—

Amount written off as irrecoverable

—

4,428

8

10

Total

186,610

14

6

88,826

4

0

Net Surplus

£97,784 10 5

Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask towards what particular Votes it is proposed to divert the surplus of £97,000?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and he will have had that very point before him.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is advisable that the House should be informed.
Dr. MACNAMARA: We are proceeding here under the Appropriation Act. We are entitled, with the sanction of the Treasury, to apply the surplus on one Vote for the purpose of meeting the deficiency on an-
other. We have received the sanction of the Treasury from time to time, and we have given full explanations to the Treasury of the appropriations we have made, and now we come to the House to receive their sanction under Section 4 of the Appropriation Act. I think it is due to the House that some explanation should be. made. I may point out that the Estimates were prepared in the fall of 1908,
as is usually the case. The expenditure began on 1st April, 1909, and was concluded on 31st March, 1910. Having regard to the eighteen months elapsed between the preparation of the Estimates and the final expenditure, the variation in prices, and certain unforeseen circumstances, I think the Appropriation Account shows remarkably close estimates. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee concluded his examination by stating that he was satisfied as regards the Navy evidence and the way it had been presented to the Committee. The net estimate was £35,831,800, and the Schedules show surpluses on ten Votes amounting to £186,610 14s. 5d., and deficits on seven Votes amounting to £88,826 4s., giving a net surplus of £97,784 10s. 5d., which we

1711
surrendered. If the hon. Gentleman will add the surpluses and deficits he will find that the total variation is £275,436 18s. 5d. The total variation in 1908–9 was £614,000; in 1907–8, £1,609,000; and in 1906–7, £1,685,000. The total variation upon the net estimate was.77 per cent. Having regard to the long period between the date when the Estimates were first prepared and the date of the last expenditure, I think it is a matter for congratulation that the variation has been so small. In the year before, the variation was 1.9 per cent. In the years before that the figures were 5.12, 5.29, 2.01, and 2.38 per cent. I think that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was entitled at the conclusion of the examination of our appropriations to congratulate the Department on the satisfactory way with which they had been presented. I shall be glad to answer any other question that may be asked.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question that was put to him. It appears that £97,000 has been given up, and £186,000 has not been spent on things which the House authorised and £88,000 has been spent on things which were not authorised by this House. I should like some explanation as to what items were incurred which were not authorised and why they were incurred. There are two very large items, an item of material £55,000, and works buildings and repairs at home and abroad £62,000. There is no less than £110,000 for materials that have not been purchased and works that have not been carried out. Of course, there is no saving there as the material will have to be bought and the works carried out, so that it is ridiculous to suggest that this item is a saving. On the other hand, when! we come to extras for contract works that have not been authorised, of which we have heard nothing whatever in this House, we find £29,000 paid for expenses of materials. Then there is an item of £8,728 for pensions and gratuities. These are items as to which we would like a little information.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I was only anxious to spare the Committee, but I am glad to answer any questions that may be asked. My hon. Friend referred to the item of materials, £55,000, and asked how we had not spent the money. If he refers to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Accounts
1712
he will find that he gives in very great detail the reason why that money was not spent. As to the surplus on naval stores, that is owing to lower prices—and he will not quarrel with that—modified by £20,000 deficit on fuel. The hon. Member asked me as to a surplus of £62,000 on works, buildings and repairs, and said we had not spent the money. I would remind him that these Estimates are made eighteen months before they appear, and the matter is fully explained in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Account. Then he referred to the extra sum of £29,547 for expenses of material, and asked how that was. The explanation is that it is due to the progress made with the work on machinery in His Majesty's vessels having been more rapid than was anticipated. The question as to £8,728 for pensions and gratuities is explained in the Appropriation Accounts in detail. It was mainly due to unanticipated awards of death gratuities and additional allowances under the Superannuation Act of 1909, and the expenditure on Service gratuities was larger than anticipated when the estimate was made eighteen months before. I think when we are dealing with these figures, and when we come to within 77 of the original estimate, the House may be congratulated.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what the amount of £4,000 irrecoverable is due to?
Dr. MACNAMARA: We are dealing with the Estimates of 1909–10, and not the present Votes. The House must be seised of that fact in considering the Appropriation Account.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I point out that the matter is not quite so obvious as the right hon. Gentleman appears to think?
Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will look at pages 56 to 62 of the Appropriation Accounts he will find given in detail the balances which are irrecoverable. The normal expenditure is from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. Taking the various items together the grand total is £4,428. It is set out in great detail in pages 56 to 62 of the Appropriation Account.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: As I understand the question put by the hon. Member opposite was to what part of the service this sum was applied.
Dr. MACNAMARA: It is surrendered to the Treasury. We have appropriated less money than we were voted.
Major MORRISON-BELL: There is a small claim I pressed on the Admiralty from the Beer fishermen amounting to seven or eight pounds. Before they surrender this money, may I ask could they not keep back that amount?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid we cannot do that.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I hope if there is any money left in the Admiralty that you will remember this claim.
Mr. MORTON: I do not want to complain of this not having been brought forward at some decent hour. The real difficulty about this sort of thing is that it has never been before a Committee of this House except to-night. It has never been brought forward in the ordinary Estimates, and you hardly know what may be mixed up in this. When I was on the Public Accounts Committee I remember discovering some four or five hundred pounds for a dinner and something else for wine cellars. These matters ought to be brought forward in Committee in the ordinary way. It might be a useful thing for some younger Members to raise the question why, at least, you could not properly discuss these matters on the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. At present you are not allowed to do so on the ground that it has already been discussed in Committee. I hope now

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1909–10. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of Army

—

18,622

15

5

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

397

18

11

—

3

Special Reserves

109,093

9

8

—

4

Territorial Force

—

376,902

4

0

5

Establishments for Military Education

3,253

11

0

—

6

Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

97,516

8

3

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

—

63,232

14

3

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

9,233

1

1

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

330,016

18

0

—

10

Works and Buildings

108,212

18

10

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

3,531

8

5

—

12

War Office and Army Accounts Department

10,529

12

10

—

13

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

—

4,192

9

8

14

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

—

12,631

17

3

15

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

2,018

6

0

—

—

Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

—

7,046

6

0

Total

673,803

13

0

482,628

6

7

Net Surplus

£191,175

6

5

we have got rid of the Lords Veto that we shall have proper time to consider these matters at an earlier hour. At the present moment the way this money is voted is a scandal and it ought to be put an end to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely: —

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

673,803

13

0

Total Deficits

…

482,628

6

7

Net Surplus

…

191,175

6

5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Can the hon. Member give any particulars as to the character of the amounts transferred?
Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: According to the Appropriation Accounts the largest items are J and K. Has the equipment referred to in item J yet been settled and supplied? Under item K, why has there been a saving in practice ammunition? Have the Artillery sufficient ammunition now? Why was their practice ammunition cut down?
12.0 M.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): The largest variation in the Estimate was in connection with the Territorial Force, where we had an excess expenditure of £375,000 over the Estimates. That was due to exceptionally good recruiting and exceptionally heavy attendance of men in camp, particularly for the full period of a fortnight. Though that upset our calculations, it is a thing upon which we must congratulate ourselves, and it is not some thing which it is easy to foresee from one year to another. In the year under review we were only just beginning to settle down under the Territorial system, and it was not possible, nor is it now, to make at all close or accurate Estimates for the Territorial Votes. The heavy under-estimate on Vote 9 is explained on page 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is a fact that there were large savings because of the delay in connection with the field howitzers, but that matter is now settled, and the manufacture has been in process for some time. The saving in ammunition was not due to any cutting down of the scale of practice ammunition allowed; it was merely because during certain replacement of guns, guns did not fire so much ammunition in practice as they would have done if the change of pattern had not taken place during the year. There was, so far as I am aware, no cutting down in the scale.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He suggested that there was reason for congratulation on the particulars laid before the Committee. I remember well in the old days the Opposition used to spend not a few hours or a few minutes, but a few days on the discussion of these matters. We should remember that these Army Estimates are really an amount set down opposite a head. When the War Office in the first year of the Territorial system gets
1716
£376,902 out I think that is a very large amount. I do not think there is any credit whatever for it. Then with regard to armaments and engineering stores, it is out £330,000. Surely that is nothing to boast about. I think the private Members of this House have reason to complain of these Estimates, which are seriously brought forward and discussed and passed. In future it must be felt that the War Office, with the consent of the Treasury, can practically juggle the figures from one hand to another without asking the House of Commons. In view of these enormous amounts it is quite clear that money voted to a particular item may be carried to another item altogether. I protest against the claim that there is any cause for congratulation in that.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We know that it has been the practice of both sides for many years past to resort to this kind of thing, and that various sums of money distinctly authorised for various purposes have not been spent. There are other items which have been incurred but which were not authorised. Then the Treasury comes in and gives a licence to the use of certain moneys for one purpose and the other, and after that we are asked to strike an account and to sanction the appropriation of enormous sums of money for absolutely different purposes from those for which they had been voted. Whichever side is in power, I strongly object to this practice, and I think it is time that those of us who pretend to be business men took some sort of united action. I care not for the time being which party happens to occupy the Treasury Bench. I do say it is time that the considerable number of business men in the House united to insist upon some different arrangement to that of which we complain. I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke upon naval matters was most to be congratulated, if at all, on account of the smallness of the amounts, but when we come to see that £673,000 voted for Army purposes has not been expended at all it shows a great want of foresight. It shows that arrangements were made for taxing the people for Army purposes to the tune of £673,000 which really was not wanted. Then there is nearly half a million of money laid out upon things which were never authorised at all. It shows that the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure of the country is unreal if this sort of thing is to be permitted. I shall be glad

1717
to join with any section of the House in making a very effective protest against this kind of thing being continued.
Mr. MORTON: I would like to ask for some particulars in regard to the £376,902 4s. and the £63,232 14s. 3d., the first of which is a deficit on the Territorial Force, and the second of which is a deficit for supplies and clothing. Why is this matter not brought before the House earlier than now? It has been before those concerned fifteen or twenty months. I can tell why it has been left till the last moment. There is no doubt but that these surpluses, as a rule, are made up purposely —"cooked," I should say—for the purpose of having surpluses to pay for all sorts of things that they do not want to discuss in this House. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Dinners!"] Well, you cannot tell what is in it. There is no one on the Public Accounts Committee now that knows anything about it. They took good care that I should not be reappointed. That is the way it is managed by the officials and others. They are afraid that anyone who understands the accounts will go into them. But why, in the matter of these two sums, has the opportunity not been taken to bring the matter before the House at a more reasonable hour, and long before, seeing that they have been before the authorities since April 1st—the very day for them!—1910?
Captain JESSEL: Why, I may ask some representative of the Government, have we not had these accounts much earlier in the Session? The Public Accounts Committee finished their work on them before Easter. It does seem to me an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government to have kept back this Report until now, especially after our trouble at the Committee to get them forward. We have had no discussion this year of the Public Accounts Committee. The extraordinary pressure of business and bad management on the part of the Government have had to do with it. I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Owing to the extraordinary number of promotions to the Peerage one of the Members of the Public Accounts Committee, Lord Ashton, has gone to the Upper House. No doubt there is a vacancy——
The CHAIRMAN: That is not the question before us.
Captain JESSEL: I was only taking up what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no one on the Committee able to do their duty. I only wanted to raise the question as a member of that Committee, and as a method of protest on behalf of my colleagues, especially the chairman, who is not here.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is away from the point.
Captain JESSEL: I bow to your ruling, Sir; and I should really like to have an answer as to why these accounts have not been put forward earlier?
Mr. ACLAND: It does not fall to me to fill the vacancy on the Public Accounts Committee. But I can reply to the hon. Member on the question of date. These accounts cannot be presented to the House of Commons immediately after the close of the financial year. They have got to be submitted first of all to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and, secondly, to the Public Accounts Committee itself. The Committee did not get the accounts until the spring of this year. As they are not before the House until the spring of the year, it does not seem to be a matter of very great public importance whether they should be discussed in June or at this time of the year. With regard to the question of surrender and to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that that money was surrendered in some curious or dishonest way, I can assure him that that is not so. These moneys are taken into account when the Annual Budget is presented, and are appropriated by the Treasury in aid of national expenditure at that time. I think my hon. Friend was rather in error when he said I congratulated myself in regard to this statement as a whole. We have been closer to our Estimates in past years, and I hope we shall be closer in future years. The only point on which I thought there was reason for congratulation was with regard to the particular case of the large surplus. It is a case of extraordinary difficulty. You have to make your Estimates in November as to the proportion of men who are likely to go to camp in August or September. We are dependent on all sorts of regulations not out until the beginning of the camp, and as to all sorts of things which it is impossible to foresee. With regard to the deficiency of £63,000 in Vote 7, that was very difficult to foresee. We had introduced a new system of payment for the soldiers. We

1719
trusted to the soldier to buy his own clothing in place of supplying him with it, and it was very difficult to foresee whether the soldier would be economical. The result has been that the soldier is looking after his clothing and boots more carefully than ever before, and the issues are not so great, therefore, as before. While I hope we shall be able to estimate more closely in the future, I think what I have stated is sufficient explanation of the cases in which the Estimates were less close than we could have wished.
Mr. MORTON: What was the date when the Public Accounts Committee had them?
Mr. ACLAND: February, 1911.
Mr. MORTON: Surely they should have brought them forward long ago. I do not make any personal charges against any of these gentlemen, except that they ought to know more than they do. You have no such system as that in the Civil Service. I say the system with regard to Army and Navy Accounts is bad and ought to be reformed by the Liberal Government.
Mr. BOOTH: I do not intend to discuss this Vote, as I am in the position of a new Member and must learn. I cannot promise to do justice to these Estimates even next year, but in the third year, and as an economist, I intend to put on my war paint and go into them very fully.
Question put, and agreed to; Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, the sum of £91,444,008 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL [Lords].
As amended, further considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th August.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of a Debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant Money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—[Mr. Gulland.]
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Twelve a.m., Tuesday, 15th August, 1911.