Commons Sitting of 15 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] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Wellpark (Glasgow) Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wellpark (Glasgow) Church and Parish Quoad Sacra," presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section V of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 6th March; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POLICE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 20th June; Mr. Edmund Harvey]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of The Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st March, 1911, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC..
Copy presented of Report on changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in
1734
the United Kingdom in 1910, with comparative Statistics for 1901 to 1909 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
Copy presented of Report on Strikes and Lock-outs of 1910, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards, with comparative Statistics for 1901 to 1909 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
Copy presented of Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of Railway Servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of May, 1911, on duty on the Railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time; or who, after being on duty more than twelve hours, were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest, showing periods of duty after deduction of time (if any) spent on travelling home after relief, and of certain definite and continuous intervals of rest of four hours or upwards, with Appendices giving additional statements and explanations furnished by the Railway Companies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1910 compared with the four preceding years. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Abstract and detailed Tables showing the Trade between the United Kingdom and each Foreign Country and British Possession according to the system of classification in force in 1908 and previous years (Supplement to Vols. I. and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TEA AND COFFEE, 1910.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Forty-ninth Report of the Inspector for the year ended 31st December, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th July; Mr. MacVeagh]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 15th August, 1911, amending the Schedule to the Minute of 30th January, 1905, providing for the establishment of Committees for the Training of Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SMALL, LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS AND RETURNS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill.
  Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why is there not included in the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill a schedule setting forth the various unnamed conventions to which it refers; and why has a different course been pursued in this Bill from that pursued in the Naval Prize Bill, in which the Convention to which it refers was included as a schedule?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): It would not be convenient to the House to annex in a schedule to a Bill of six Clauses Conventions which would probably occupy fifty pages of print, and which have already been laid before the House in Cd. 4175 (Miscellaneous, No. 6, 1908). The titles of the Conventions to which the preamble of the Bill relates are the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the Convention respecting the rights and duties of Neutral Powers and persons in war on land, the Convention for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime war, the Convention relative to the establishment of an International Prize Court, and the Convention respecting the rights and duties of Neutral Powers in maritime war. Legislation is required only in respect of some of the Articles of these various Conventions, and those not the most important; but it would not be feasible to schedule isolated Articles, because they would not be intelligible without the context. There was no inconvenience in scheduling the Prize Court Convention to the Naval Prize Bill, and it was therefore thought desirable to do so.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has his attention been called to the fact that Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B., Extraordinary

  1737
  Ambassador, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and Delegate Plenipotentiary for Great Britain to the second Peace Conference at The Hague, has published as his written opinion and conclusion regarding the effect of the Declaration of London on blockade, that it must be admitted that the rights of England as a belligerent suffer a limitation; and are His Majesty's Government prepared to postpone the ratification of the Declaration of London until they have further considered this question?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen the statement referred to. There was no agreement about the right of blockade before the Declaration of London; and the agreement now made is not a limitation but an extension of rights, if by the term rights is meant rights recognised, as distinct from rights disputed.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to communicate that opinion of Sir Edward Fry to the Admiralty, and get a report from them on the subject.
  Sir E. GREY: The question has been thoroughly considered by the Admiralty. I do not think there is anything in the opinion of Sir Edward Fry, who is not an expert in these matters, which has not been brought before the Admiralty.
  Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could he explain the apparent contradiction between Article 17 of the Declaration of London, which prescribes that neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective, and Article 20, which prescribes that a vessel which has broken blockade outwards, or which has attempted to break blockade inwards is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force; and does Article 20 in fact authorise the capture for breach of blockade of a neutral ship which has been pursued outside that area of operations to which article restricts such capture?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no inconsistency between Articles 17 and 20. Pursuit by a warship, detailed to render a blockade effective, of a vessel which had attempted to break blockade at a place within the zone which such warship was to watch, extends the area of operations within which the capture of such vessel is legitimate.
  Mr. PEEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think Article 17 is very denfiite in its conclusion inasmuch as it states neutral vessels can only be captured within the area of operations of the warships and would it not be wise to alter the article so as to make that quite clear?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not the text of that article or of Article 20 before me, and I cannot supplement the answer I have given on the spur of the moment and without notice.

  Fur-Sealing in the Pacific.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House any information regarding the terms of the recently signed agreement relating to fur-sealing in the Pacific?
  Sir E. GREY: It is hoped to lay the treaty in question shortly before the House.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India the result of his inquiries into the rates of pay to workmen engaged in connection with the Government contract for rails, etc., at Dowlais ironworks; and what action he proposes to take to secure the proper observance of the Fair-Wages Clause attached to this contract?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite answer. We have made this progress; that, on the advice of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee I am prepared to admit that the moulders and steel makers at Dowlais must be regarded as employed on our contract. The wages at Dowlais appear certainly to be low, but the Committee have not yet given me their advice whether the general rates paid there are within the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution, and it is on this point that I regret very much there is still delay, which I hope will be of short duration. I may add that no new contract will be placed at Dowlais until the matter is decided.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply and to ask him whether there is any probability of the Advisory Committee being able to report by Thursday of this week?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have communicated with the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, and I have not the slightest doubt they will do all in their power to expedite a decision. It is a difficult matter of far-reaching consequences, and I am sure there will be no delay which is absolutely unnecessary.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Fair-Wages Clause is being systematically and continuously violated by Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold whilst executing Colonial Office contracts at their Dowlais works; and what action he proposes taking to secure its enforcement?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite answer. We have made this progress: that, on the advice of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, I am prepared to admit that the moulders and steel makers at Dowlais must be regarded as employed on our contract. The wages at Dowlais appear certainly to be low, but the Committee have not yet given me their advice whether the general rates paid there are within the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution, and it is on this point that I regret very much there is still delay, which I hope will be of short duration. I may add that no new contract will be placed at Dowlais until the matter is decided.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No more contracts are to be given to this firm by the Colonial Office until this matter is cleared up?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is so.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If this is the conduct of a firm in cases where there is a Fair-Wages Clause, what would it be if there were no such Clause?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked what decision has been arrived at by the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee concerning the wages of certain classes of labourers and of skilled workmen at Dowlais engaged on Government contracts?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am informed that the conclusions arrived at by the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee on the matters in question have been communicated to the Departments concerned, with which the responsibility for any action taken will rest.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Advisory Committee has given the Department any advice as to what constitutes a district within the meaning of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India covered the first point definitely. With regard to the second we have not had time to consider the matter, but we will do so as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been before the Advisory Committee some ten days, and unless a decision be given immediately a very large addition to the strike area will follow? Can the right hon. Gentleman promise an answer by Thursday next?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no control over the Advisory Committee. The Chairman is an official of the Board of Trade, but otherwise it is a Departmental Committee representing various departments. I have no personal control over the matter, but I am sure my hon. Friend, as he has already informed the hon. Member, and his Committee will do their utmost to arrive at a conclusion as soon as possible on this very difficult point.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action he proposes taking to secure the enforcement of the Fair-Wages Clause at Dowlais, where the moulders make various parts of the machinery employed in the plate-rolling process, and where the pattern-makers make the patterns for the moulders, and are thus in both cases directly employed in connection with the contracts now being executed by Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold on behalf of the Admiralty?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The doubt whether the Wages Clauses in the Admiralty contracts, mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, can be held to apply to wages paid in making the appliances used for the firm's general business, as well as for the Admiralty contracts, is, I regret to say, not yet elucidated by the report of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee. As regards the further question as to the rates of wages paid at Dowlais, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to-day by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Admiralty will adopt the policy of the India Office and consider that these men, if indirectly employed in connection with the contracts, come within the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause?.
  Mr. McKENNA: As I have stated, the opinion expressed by the Advisory Committee does not exactly cover the Admiralty case. It is not the same as the India Office case. We will have further inquiry made on the point. My hon. Friend will understand that in the case of the Admiralty contracts the steel used in the manufacture of steel plates is made at Cardiff and not at Dowlais, and the plant used by the Cardiff firm is of a different class.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same point exactly arose in regard to the moulders who make the machinery for rolling the plates, and whether the rules of the India Office on this point cannot also be accepted by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may be right, but I am advised that the case of the moulders used in the manufacture of plates is not the same as the case of the moulders engaged in the manufacture of steel rails. So far as the cases are the same, I adopt the answer of the Undersecretary for India, but where they are not the same I must fall back on the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay before the Advisory Committee the fact that the machinery for making the moulds for the shipbuilding plates at Cardiff is made at Dowlais by the moulders now on strike there, and therefore the case is analogous to that of the India Office; the only difference being that in one case it is for rails and in the other for plates.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the cases are not the same, inasmuch as the plant used for the manufacture of steel rails at Cardiff is only used to a small extent for Admiralty contracts. Therefore the opinion of the Advisory Committee does not apply.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rail-making machinery is only applied part of the time to Government contracts, and, in spite of that, the India Office have ruled that the Fair-Wages Clause must apply?
  Mr. McKENNA: According to the advice given by the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, the answer depends on the proportion in which the plant is used for Government contracts and for outside contracts. We have constantly to refer to this particular point in regard to Admiralty contracts.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Does the Admiralty interpret the Fair-Wages Clause to mean that fair wages are only to be paid during the time that the men are employed direct on the Government contract, and that the firm may sweat its workers all the rest of the time except those few hours?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is, I regret to say, the only construction which can be put upon the Fair-Wages Clause.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: May I ask whether, under the Fair-Wages Clause a certain proportion of sweating can be permitted to continue?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, under the Fair-Wages Clause there can be no sweating in the manufacture of the article which is governed by the contract, but it must be a question of law whether the contract is or is not complied with, and the fact that the firm may pay less than the proper rate of wages would not invalidate the particular contract, though it would be a good reason for not giving another contract to the same firm.
  Mr. HUNT: How does that apply to firms in foreign countries?
  Mr. McKENNA: It does not apply at all.

  Government of India (Sanitary Commissioner).
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the office of Sanitary Commissioner to the Government of India was established on the recommendation of the Plague Commission; whether that office is now vacant; and whether, in view of the prevalence of plague, cholera, malaria, and small-pox he will see that this office be not abolished, and that an appointment be made to it at once?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The vacancy in the office of Sanitary Commissioner with the Government of India caused by the death of the late incumbent has not yet been filled, and the duties of the post are at present discharged by the Director-General of the Indian Medical Depart-

  1743
  ment. The Government of India are disposed to think that the creation of a separate Sanitary Commissioner in 1904 has not fulfilled expectations, and are inclined to revert to the arrangement previously existing. The Secretary of State must reserve his decision until the full statement of the views which the Government of India have promised is before him. The Sanitary Commissioner is merely an advising officer to the Government of India. The responsibility for sanitation in the several provinces rests with the Local Governments. The office was not created in 1904 on the recommendation of the Plague Commission of 1898. The Plague Commission's scheme was not accepted.

  India (Midnapur Magistrates).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the judgment just delivered in Calcutta in the Midnapur damage suit was adverse to the same magistrates and the same police officers as those who were censured by the High Court in the Midnapur conspiracy, 1909; whether the judgment of Mr. Justice Fletcher confirms the view taken by the High Court of the conduct of those officers in their treatment of the accused in the conspiracy case; and what course the Secretary of State proposes to take in regard to their position in the Government service, and the titles conferred last year upon the police officers?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Salford on Thursday last.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what number of recruits joined the two London divisions of the Territorial Force during the six months ending 30th June, 1910, as compared with the 2,559 who joined in the corresponding period of 1911?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The number of recruits for the six months ending 30th June, 1910, amounted to 3,130.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to try and get more recruits for the Territorial Force?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, we are doing all we can, and we shall be glad of any help the hon. Gentleman can give us.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken?
  Colonel SEELY: It would take too long at question time to mention the numerous steps which Lord Haldane and the authorities are taking to get more recruits for the Territorial Force. I hope these efforts will be successful.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say the number of recruits necessary to get the force up to its full strength?
  Colonel SEELY: There are over a quarter of a million of men now in the Territorial Force, and, for a new force, I think that is satisfactory. Of course, it would be better if the force were up to its full strength; but, after all, it is satisfactory that a quarter of a million of men are found to give up some of their time and money for the service of the State.
  Mr. HUNT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say the number required to bring up the Territorial Force to full strength?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course, I can give that information at once if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, but I cannot, from memory, give from day to day the exact number of men short of the establishment of the Territorial Force.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anywhere about the number?
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware there is nothing new about the Territorial Force except the title?

  Inhabited House Duty.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the deduction of value of licence from the Inhabited House Duty prior to the payment of the former applies both to on and off-licence holders?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the provisions of Section 8 of the Revenue Act, 1911. These provisions relate to all Excise licences, the duty on which is charged by reference to the annual value of the premises.

  Mineral Rights Duty.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether it is competent for an owner of minerals which were not comprised in a mining lease in April, 1909, to supply one figure as his value of his whole mineral property under

  1745
  Clause 22 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, if not, to what extent are separate and independent valuations required?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question raised by the hon. Member is one on which the Commissioners are taking legal advice.
  Mr. WHELER: Might I ask whether the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown has been given, because the matter is of considerable importance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree the question is of considerable importance. It has been referred to the Law Officers for their opinions, and I will do my very best to get their answer as soon as possible.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether an owner of minerals, when making a valuation under Clause 22 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, of minerals not comprised in a mining lease in April, 1909, is to assume that such minerals can be worked without regard to the support for the surface, or whether this point of valuation is to be considered when the valuation of the surface is made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is open to a person who is the owner of land and also of the subjacent minerals to assume such reasonable restrictions either for the benefit of the surface or of the minerals as he may think best, and the Commissioners, are prepared to deal with estimates of the value of minerals made on this basis, provided that any restrictions so assumed are notified to the Department.

  Income Tax (Married Women).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked upon what statutory authority the Income Tax Commissioners base their claim to tax married women?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act of 1842, 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35.

  Cocoa Duty.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if about fourteen weeks ago he received a communication from a number of cocoa and chocolate manufacturers expressing an opinion that the proposed change in the Cocoa Duty would operate to the disadvantage of their industry and the labour employed in it, and requesting him to receive a deputation from them to lay their views before him; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have made arrangements to see the deputation to which the hon. Member refers, this afternoon.
  Mr. COOPER: Was the right hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension when he said he had received no complaints by letter from the manufacturers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I received an application for a deputation, whom I propose to meet this afternoon. I shall not know what their complaints are until I hear them.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Has not the cocoa and chocolate manufacturers repeatedly demanded the repeal of the Sugar Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very likely.

  Emigration to Australia.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the efforts made by one Richard Arthur, M.D., acting with a firm of shipping agents, to secure the employment in Australia of clerks, shopmen, and boys about to leave school; whether the. Work and employment set out in this letter is guaranteed by the High Commissioner for Australia or by the Agents-General for the several Australian States; whether he can say the amount of commission which those shipping agents receive from the passage money; and, further, whether he is aware of Dr. Richard Arthur's position with regard to the Immigration League of Australasia?
  Mr. HARCOURT: My attention has been called to a letter signed by Dr. Arthur, the president of the Immigration League of Australasia which has recently appeared in the Press. I am not aware whether the employment referred to in the letter is guaranteed by the Commonwealth or State authorities, and I have no knowledge of any arrangements which may have been made with shipping agents.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Dr. Arthur is president, secretary and everything else of this Immigration League; is he aware too that boys are being trapped into going out to Australia and that no provision is made for them when they get there? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to inquire into these matters?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall be glad to inquire into any complaints that may be sent me.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty? What he is paid for?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am paid for many things, but not, I think, to inquire into the proceedings of Dr. Arthur.

  Labour Exchange Clerks.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked when a reply will be made to the representations that have been made regarding the condition of service of labour exchange clerks?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I have already stated, the representations which have been made to me on this subject are receiving my careful consideration. I am not yet in a position to give any reply.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked why a clerk, named Branscombe, until recently employed in the Central Labour Exchange Offices, Caxton House, has been refused a testimonial as to his character, although there is nothing against it or his capabilities as a clerk; and whether there is any proposal to discharge senior clerks in the labour exchanges and substitute boy clerks at lower wages?
  Mr. BUXTON: The typist in question has not been refused a reference, and, in fact, one has been given to a prospective employer. There is no proposal to substitute boy clerks for senior clerks in the Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Did not this clerk consider she was entitled to have the reference personally?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no information on that point.

  Mechanic Writers (Royal Navy).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether mechanic writers employed since before 13th April, 1907, retain their eligibility for establishment in accordance with the assurance given by Admiralty letter, dated 30th May, 1907, A.4671, which stated that no alteration except as regards increment has been made in the conditions of employment of mechanic writers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should be glad if my hon. Friend will allow me to inquire further into this matter, which is one of some difficulty, and not affecting my Department alone, before I give a reply.

  St. Anne's-on-Sea Post Office.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet come to a decision as to what further alterations are
  1748
  advisable with respect to the hours and duties of the staff at St. Anne's-on-Sea post office?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I have made further enquiry in this matter and it does not appear that any further alterations are called for.
  Mr. ASHLEY: What alterations have been made already?
  Captain NORTON: I am not in a position to say exactly.
  Mr. CLYNES: Do the enquiries referred to apply to those who were affected?
  Captain NORTON: The matter has been investigated by the surveyor of the district.

  General Post Office Staff.
  Mr. TYSON-WILSONasked, in view of the fact that correspondence is despatched without examination to the head district offices after 7.30 p.m. in consequence of the inadequacy of the staff, why this practice is adhered to; and, having regard to the fact that a large amount of correspondence was delayed in the Eastern Central section, General Post Office, last June, through insufficient staff to meet the half-yearly pressure, whether the proposed revision and increase of staff for this section will be effected in time to be utilised at the forthcoming Michaelmas pressure?
  Captain NORTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the last paragraph of my reply to his question of the 13th ultimo, in which I stated that the practice of despatching correspondence to the head district offices unexamined, between the hours of 7.30 p.m. and 6.30 a.m., has no reference to inadequacy of staff. No delay results from the present practice, which from a departmental point of view is advantageous, and I do not propose to alter it. The proposed revision of the force of the Eastern Central section will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

  Postal Supervising Staff (Walsall).
  Mr. COOPERasked whether, during the absence of the supervising staff at Walsall on annual leave, their duties are to be made up by the employment of a postman on the duties of the sorting clerks and telegraphists and replacing of the former by temporary labour; whether there is any undue pressure existing, or likely to exist, that would prevent the duties being made up by the staff of sorting clerks and

  1749
  telegraphists; and whether it is usual during the absence of a postmaster and his officials that their duties should be made up by the employment of temporary labour?
  Captain NORTON: At offices not sufficiently large to possess established leave substitutes borne on Supervising classes, of which Walsall is one, it is the practice to provide, as far as possible, for the leave of supervising officers by the employment of established leave substitutes borne on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. If this provision is insufficient it is necessary to have recourse either to extra duty or to temporary force, or to both; and the circumstances of each case must determine the action to be taken. At Walsall there has recently been an amount of extra duty performed large enough to make it undesirable to increase it by refraining from adopting the process of devolution, which I endeavoured to explain in my reply to the question asked me by the hon. Member on 11th May last. Excessive extra duty is not in the best interests of the staff, and in attempting to avoid it at Walsall the local officials have acted in accordance with the expressed distaste of the staff for this form of labour.

  Assistant Masters (Secondary Schools).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the low salaries of assistant masters in secondary schools; and, if so, what steps is he prepared to take to improve their position in this respect?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The question has been engaging my attention for some time. I am not at present prepared to make any statement. I may refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on the 1st August and the 12th April to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford, respectively.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman assent to the statement in the first part of the question that these salaries are low?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that all schoolmasters' salaries are low, but there is a large number—too large a number.

  Teaching of Science.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction
  1750
  aroused by the recent issue of Circular No. 776 abolishing examinations in all stages of natural science and in Stage I. of elementary science; whether he is aware that the issue without notice of a circular of this kind must have a disastrous effect on the teaching of science in technical schools throughout the country; and whether he can see his way to reconsider the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The changes of examinations referred to are not being made without notice, as implied in the second part of the question. Nearly a year's notice of the changes is given. I have no reason to suppose that the changes themselves have been received otherwise than with satisfaction by those best acquainted with the needs of scientific education as given in evening and technical schools, although, as might be expected, a few isolated protests have been received with regard to particular details in the complicated scheme of reorganisation set out in the circular. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. MORRELL: Was not the circular issued in July to come in force in January?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; nearly a year ago.

  Scottish Fishermen (Loans).
  Mr. MUNROasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a meeting of Scottish fishermen, held at Fraserburgh on 29th July, in which it is pointed out that, owing to the introduction of steam drifters and motor boats, which are driving sailing boats out of the market, and which are too costly for fishermen to purchase without help, serious consequences to the Scottish fishing industry are anticipated unless Government assistance is given, and in which the Government are called upon to afford to Scottish fishermen the same facilities as are granted to Irish fishermen by granting loans to enable Scottish fishermen to purchase steam drifters and motor boats; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to giving effect to the reiterated desires of Scottish fishermen in these matters?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has been called to the Resolution referred to by my hon. Friend, but I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave on 2nd March, 9th March, and 3rd April of this year.

  Labour Exchanges (London).
  Mr. HUNTasked how many Labour Exchange offices are now established in London and its suburbs; and what is the number of the officials in these offices and their remuneration?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are twenty-eight labour exchanges open in London and suburbs at the present time with a total staff, including the divisional office, of 239 officers. The annual amount paid in wages and salaries in respect of these officers is about £21,000.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the Government consider that the result justifies the expenditure?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether at the labour exchanges there are separate lists made of temporary and permanent situations found by these offices for the thousands of people who are reported to call at them in search of employment; and do the officials offer employment for less than the trade union rates of pay?
  Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second portion, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 4 of the general regulations made in pursuance of the Labour Exchanges Act which governs the procedure of labour exchange officers in this matter. I am sending him a copy of these regulations.
  Mr. HUNT: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the last question, as to whether the official trade union rates of pay are paid by the Government or not?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is exactly what I have answered. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the regulations.
  Mr. HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman could surely answer the question straight whether the Government do or do not pay trade union rates of wages?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is a very simple matter. If the hon. Member will study the regulations and wishes to ask any further questions I shall be glad to answer them.
  Mr. HUNT: What is the difficulty in answering the question?

  Metropolitan Police Force (Extra Week's Pay).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the strain recently im-
  1752
  posed upon members of the Metropolitan police force both in London and elsewhere, he will recognise the efficient manner in which they have performed their duties by recommending the Government to grant a week's extra pay to all members?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): A grant of three days' pay and three days' extra leave has been recently granted, and it is not proposed to supplement this.

  Royal Dockyard Writers.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury in which other departments of the public service men are employed under conditions of service similar to those of dockyard writers; and what proposals of the Admiralty based on the Macnamara Report the Treasury did not feel able to sanction'?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Persons under conditions of service similar to those of dockyard writers are employed in the War Office and Army Ordnance Department in considerable numbers, and any suggestions for change in their conditions of service have also to be considered in relation to employés of the Board of Education, Probate Registry, and many other Departments. It would not be possible to answer the last part of the question without the publication of the correspondence, a course to which I am not prepared to agree.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether, with reference to the Macnamara Report on the writing staff of the royal dockyards, further communications have been received; and can a date be now given when the Treasury concurrence with the Admiralty proposals will be announced?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  Ministers.
  Mr. BOOTH: A question arises on the Motion for the payment of Members passed yesterday. There is an exemption from the receipt of the payment of the £400 of those who are in receipt of salaries as Ministers. I wish to ask whether, according to the usages of this House, the Patronage Secretary, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretaries are regarded as Ministers of the Crown, and whether they come within the scope of this Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They are certainly not Ministers of the Crown. Whether they are Ministers or not I would not like to say. Better take legal advice, I think.

  White Slave Traffic.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic recently entered into by this and other countries will necessitate the introduction of legislation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The reply is in the negative so far as this country is concerned.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. JOWETTasked on what grounds the pension of Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, who resided until 24th April last at 8, Springfield Street, Heaton, Bradford, was stopped when she left that address and became a resident in St. Catherine's Home, Bradford?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The pension was stopped because on entering the home she became in receipt of a benefit of a yearly value exceeding £31 10s.

LABOUR DISPUTES.

  LONDON AND LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the unrest in labour circles in this country is largely due to the fact that their net wages earned have remained about stationary the last ten years, while the cost of living has largely increased; and will His Majesty's Government consider the necessity of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say more than that this matter in all its aspects is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a Resolution put on the Paper to-day in the name of the hon. Member (Baron de Forest), and is he aware that it has behind it a large amount of support?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has not yet been called to it, but I will look into it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Government considering the introduction of a Bill
  1754
  establishing a 30s. minimum wage as the only effective method of allaying the unrest?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will bear in mind the facts stated in the first part of the question in any action they may take with regard to the current labour trouble?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken all these facts into consideration. I know that he is considering the matter carefully now.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that in the period of ten years' Income Tax shows that the incomes of the employing classes have enormously increased?
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the Government will make a general statement as to the action they may take before Parliament adjourns?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would take some time to consider all the material that is essential before a conclusion can be come to. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement. I know that he is in conference now on the subject.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the Government will give the House an opportunity of discussing the present position of affairs before the House adjourns—I mean the use of the military in Liverpool and other places?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not like to express any opinion on the question of Order. I do not know to what extent it can be discussed on the Appropriation Bill or the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Having regard to the terrible state of affairs in Liverpool, I gave notice to the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask each of these two right hon. Gentlemen whether he will be prepared to take active steps in regard to the labour disputes in Liverpool, and whether he will appoint a special commission to hold an inquiry. May I be allowed to add a few words? I am sure the House will appreciate the terrible state of affairs, and if anything can be done to put an end to it, I feel that the House will be glad to do it. May I say that I believe if the true merits of the dis-

  1755
  putes were more generally known in Liverpool, it would do a great deal towards putting an end to the difficulty? That is the reason why I suggest that a special commission should go down there at once and hold an official inquiry. I am personally—[Interruption]—I hope the House will allow me——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that if he makes a statement, every hon. Member who does not agree with him will also desire to make a statement.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I feel so strongly on the matter——
  Mr. SPEAKER: We all feel strongly.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not in a position at present to make a statement with regard to the matter.
  Captain WARING: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is a fact, as reported, that the troops fired on the crowd at Liverpool early this morning?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am able to inform the House that the information I have received this morning shows that the situation in London has improved. At the docks, I am informed, all sections of the men are returning to work, though not in full numbers. Men are also working at the wharves; and the employés of the Great Western Railway have come back. There are thus grounds for believing that all classes of transport workers are now beginning to realise the advantages which they have secured by the recent settlement and the folly of jeopardising them by any ill-considered action. If no untoward event should occur the Commissioner of Police hopes to continue to maintain order without the necessity of calling in military aid.
  In Liverpool the situation yesterday was unsatisfactory. There was rioting in certain districts. The troops had to be called out, and the Riot Act was read. The statement that volleys were fired, to which currency has been given in the Press, is incorrect, but some individual shots were fired at the windows or roofs of houses from which missiles were being thrown at the troops. This morning the docks are closed and great numbers of men are out of work. The last reports I have received are
  1756
  favourable as regards the maintenance of order and the distribution of necessary food.
  The House might like me to read a copy of a telegram received from the Head Constable, Liverpool, despatched at 11.33 today:—
  "The Under-Secretary of State,
  "Home Office, London.
  "You need not attach any very great importance to the rioting of last night. It took place in an area where disorder is a chronic feature, ready to break out when any abnormal excitement is in force. The object of the riot was purely and simply attack on the police, whom they tempted into side streets where barricades of sanitary dustbins and wire entanglements were placed. The riot began about eight, and the troops were called out with natural reluctance on the part of the police officer in charge at 11.40. The mob pursued the same tactics, stoned troops and police from the windows and house tops, but troops and police worked admirably together, and reduced the neighbourhood to peace about 2.30, and the former returned to quarters. Twenty prisoners were taken from the streets and houses. The troops fired a few shots (officers' revolver shots I think) at the house tops, whence the stones came. Six privates of the Yorkshire regiment and two constables received minor injuries. Both military and police behaved admirably, and the experience of working with the former has been valuable to the officers of the police, who will call the latter out more readily in future. A great deal of damage to houses and shops, especially public houses and provision shops, but food does not seem to have been the object, as the bread was thrown about the street. Troops engaged were Yorkshire regiment—200 of all ranks.
  "HEAD CONSTABLE."
  General McKinnon telephoned at 12.30 p.m., after interviewing all his officers in command of sections, that last night serious rioting occurred in Homer Street, with which the police were unable to cope. As the police requisitioned, four companies of the Yorkshire Regiment were sent to their assistance. The officer commanding showed very great forbearance, and, although called upon by the magistrate to take action, refrained from firing along the street on account of the women and children in the crowd. Bricks and other missiles were hurled from upper windows on the troops, and on further requisition of the magistrate to fire the officer commanding directed single shots to be fired at the most prominent individuals at the upper windows who were hurling missiles. The total number of shots fired were seven revolver shots by officers, five rifle shots. No casualties are reported to have resulted, and the disturbance was at once quieted down. The troops returned to barracks at 3 a.m. Three men were injured among the troops, but nothing serious. Bayonets were fixed, and the troops advanced down the street with their weapons at the "charge," but no bayonet charge occurred, nor did they use their bayonets, as the crowd immediately dispersed down a side street. General McKinnon reports that both

  1757
  officers and men showed the utmost for bearance, and were perfectly calm and collected.
  In Manchester, at the request of the local authority, arrangements have been made for supplying troops if disturbances should develop, but up to now, I am glad to say, there has been no call for them.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Home Secretary say what was the name of this bloodthirsty magistrate who wanted the troops to fire?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly did not intend by my remarks to throw the slightest reflection on the magistrate, who, I am sure, was only doing his duty when he wanted the troops to be ordered to fire.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement in regard to the tramway strike in Glasgow?
  Mr. J. WARD: I would like to know from the Secretary to the Home Department whether he has received any complaints from householders in Liverpool that the action of the police was the cause of the first rioting on Sunday?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have not
  Sir W. BYLES: What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the remark of the Chief Constable, that you need not think seriously of the rioting, which requires soldiers to shoot down unarmed people?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Everything is relative. Of course any injury that may take place is a very serious matter indeed; but the important point is that the riot is not one which originated with the strikers, but that disorder and riots sometimes occur in those parts of Liverpool where sectarian difficulties exist.
  Mr. CLYNES: As regards the railway companies, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first cause of the dispute is the refusal of the employers to leave their men free to appoint their own representatives, and has he taken steps to inform the railway companies of the necessity of the workmen having freedom of choice in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not a question which comes under the scope of the Home Office. It should be addressed either to the Board of Trade or to my
  1758
  right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is immediately concerned in those matters.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade the same question: whether the first cause of the disputes with the railway companies was not the refusal of those companies to leave the men free to appoint their own representatives, and if he will try to secure for these men that freedom of choice in regard to delegates which is necessary?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is it a fact that the directors of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company refused to receive the delegates of the men, and that that is considered to be at present one of the principal causes of the fight in Liverpool?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am sure that the House will agree that it would not do for me to express any opinion in regard to the merits of matters which are in-dispute at present.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I simply ask for the facts.
  Mr. BUXTON: I have asked the representatives of the men and of the railway companies to meet me on Thursday, and I hope that we may at all events do something to get over the difficulties that at present exist.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask whether there will be an opportunity or whether it will be in order on the business to-morrow or on the Motion for Adjournment to discuss certain labour troubles that have taken place?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certain aspects of them will clearly be in order. The words "certain labour troubles" cover a very wide ground, and I would not like to commit myself without knowing exactly what ground the hon. Member wishes to occupy; but with reference to the disputes which are going on and the action of the Metropolitan police, and also the action of the military, I think that those three matters certainly come within the scope of the Appropriation Bill.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BALANCES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK).
Return ordered "of all Moneys in the Post Office Savings Bank standing to the

1759
credit of claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act on 1st July last."— [Mr. George Greenwood.]

COTTON SPINNING COMPANIES.
Sir A. HAWORTH: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to better regulate the formation of companies for cotton spinning.
In asking leave to introduce this Bill, I may explain a custom which has prevailed in Lancashire in connection with the erection of cotton mills, which does not prevail anywhere else, and by which great facilities are given for acquiring capital by means of loans rather than by the issue of shares. After times of abnormal prosperity, such as sometimes occur in Lancashire, there is a great development of mill building. Nobody wants for a moment to restrain mill building. But we find that these mills are erected by the money of people who have no intention of taking any interest, or any but the very smallest interest in their future working. The share capital is subscribed by architects, engineers, and others, who want contracts for the equipping of the mill, and have no further interest in the working of the mill after it has been built, and they proceed to unload their shares at the first available opportunity. There is in Lancashire in addition a custom of having loans on mortgage, which is a perfectly fair and proper thing to do on business lines. But when a mill goes up people use that mill largely as depositors. Working people in those mills or in neighbouring mills use them practically as savings banks for their money at a good rate of interest, and practically at call. Then when difficulties come, as they have come in the case of several recently built mills, there is very little if any security for those loan holders, and it means disaster. That is the evil one wants to remedy. The proposal is that there shall be a certificate from the directors of the companies giving their estimate of the cost of the building and equipping of the mill, not taking any account of working capital, and then there shall be 10 per cent. paid on application, 15 per cent, on allotment, and another 25 per cent. within a period of two years. During that period of two years there shall be no sale of those shares other than in such cases as those of bankruptcy or death. That would mean that the shares would be held by people who were legitimately interested
1760
in and intended to carry on the work. The Bill would apply only to future mills, and I believe that it would put the business of mill extension on a sounder basis than it is at present. I need only add that this is an absolutely non-party Bill, backed by all parties in the House. The Bill has been promoted by the Master Cotton Spinners, and has received the unanimous consent of various associations of operatives.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Arthur Haworth, Mr. Barton, Major Stanley, Mr. Gill, Mr. John Rutherford, and Mr. Albert Smith. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th November, and to be printed.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PILOTAGE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Pilotage," presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; supported by Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on Report of Navy and Army Expenditure, 1909–10, and on Report 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, though opposed."
Sir F. BANBURY: I should rather like some explanation of this Motion. I was not hero yesterday, but I have endeavoured in the short time I have been back in London to gain some information as to what took place then, and I find that the Government gave no explanation of their Motion. My hon. Friends on this side of the House, animated by a lenient spirit, or possibly ignorant of the Rules of the House, did not ask for an explanation. There are several reasons why this Motion should not be moved. The first is that this is an allotted day, and by the Rules of the House it is laid down that on an allotted day no other Motion, except Motions dealing with Supply, can be taken, and, therefore, a very large number of Members, who perhaps are not interested in the particular Supply which will be before the Committee when you, Sir, leave

1761
the Chair, do not attend. According to the Standing Orders, as soon as the business of Supply is fulfilled, the House will adjourn. Therefore, I think, that of itself is a very strong reason why this Motion should not be made. Another strong reason is that we are going to have an Autumn Sitting, and if we are going to spend still more of our time in the House, at any rate we ought to have an opportunity of considering before eleven o'clock at night the various Motions which are brought forward by the Government for our consideration. A Motion should not be put clown to be considered in the small hours of the morning, but at a time when it can receive proper consideration. This particular Motion, as far as I have been able to ascertain, deals with the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, authorising the transfer of surpluses on certain Votes of the Army and Navy to deficits on certain other Votes. That is a very important question, but one to which I myself, provided it is carried out in a proper manner, do not object; still, it is a question which demands consideration and a certain amount of explanation. I understand that the Government, not content with making this Motion yesterday and gaining one stage in the matter, now come down to the House and want to gain another stage. I want to know, first of all, what is the hurry for this Motion? Secondly, I want to know why, if we are going to have an Autumn Sitting, we should not discuss these matters, which are extremely important, in that Autumn Session? Thirdly, I want to know why the Government did not give any explanation?
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Government did give an explanation, in reply to an observation made on this side of the House between a quarter past twelve and half-past twelve in the morning.
Sir F. BANBURY: I must apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend for having failed to make my meaning clear, that no explanation was given by the Government of the reason which induced them to put down this Motion. The explanation given does not at all state the reason why, at this late period of the Session, with an Autumn Session in view, they find it necessary to come down to the House and make this Motion. I trust we shall have some satisfactory reason given. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Joseph
1762
Pease) will reply, and I hope we shall have a full explanation, because this is an important point. These Motions should not be put down and treated as if they were not debatable Motions, because the House may be misled, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government, at least as far as I know. Therefore, I hope some real reason will be shown by the Government for submitting this Motion. I have not alluded to the second part of the Motion which deals with the Report of Ways and Means. I do not know whether that is so important; perhaps the right, hon. Gentleman will give some explanation. I hope my hon. Friends around me will support me.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I think I can explain in one minute the necessity for this Motion being made to-day. As the hon. Baronet is aware the Appropriation Bill must be taken stage by stage under the Standing Orders of the House, and it is impossible for the Appropriation Bill to be introduced to-night unless we secure in advance these two formal matters. I call them formal because they are both of them on the Report stage. Last night we discussed in Committee the matters which related to the Army and Navy, and a full explanation was given to the House. If the hon. Baronet refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that a full explanation was given as to the way in which the money has been dealt with. With regard to Ways and Means, of course, that again is a purely formal stage which is necessary before we introduce the Appropriation Bill. By introducing the Appropriation Bill to-day we will be able to take the Second Reading to-morrow, and to rise on Friday, so avoiding a Saturday sitting. I believe it is to the general convenience of the House that this course should be taken, and not with a view in any way to prevent discussion. Most ample discussion will be provided for on the Second Reading, and upon the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays.
Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last night another point was raised to which I would like an answer. It was why he has not brought this matter before the House earlier than now. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General was published in February, and it has been brought before the House only at this last moment. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a large number of his own party last night asked for an explanation

1763
of this matter, and why it had not been brought before the House previously. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell us why.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: So far as I am aware, no representations have been made from the other side that they desired these matters to be introduced earlier; and I am told 14th May was the date the report was before the House.
Mr. WHELER: Why is it necessary to get the Appropriation Bill through if we are going to have an Autumn Session?
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: It is necessary in order that the Army should be paid and that the necessary allowances for the year should be made.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 73.

Division No. 331.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hackett, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Alden, Percy

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Needham, Christopher T.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Hancock, John George

Neilson, Francis

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nolan, Joseph

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beale, William Phipson

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Dowd, John

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Ogden, Fred

Bentham, George J.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Boland, John Pius

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Booth, Frederick Handel

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer, Joseph

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hinds, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brady, P. J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hodge, John

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

Brunner, John F. L.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pringle, William M. R.

Bryce, John Annan

Hughes, S. L.

Radford, G. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, Walter

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Johnson, W.

Reddy, M.

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Chancellor, H. G.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbight)

Clancy, John Joseph

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Clough, William

Jowett, Frederick William

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Clynes, J. R.

Keating, M.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Condon, Thomas Joseph

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Rowlands, James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Rowntree, Arnold

Cotton, William Francis

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

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

Crooks, William

Leach, Charles

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Logan, John William

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

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shortt, Edward

Dawes, J. A.

Lynch, A. A.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

De Forest, Baron

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Doris, William

Maclean, Donald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, James Ian

Sutton, John E.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Essex, Richard Walter

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Falconer, J.

M'Curdy, C. A.

Tennant, Harold John

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Field, William

Millar, James Duncan

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Verney, Sir Harry

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Wadsworth, J.

Gibson, Sir James P.

Mooney, John J.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Gill, A. H.

Morgan, George Hay

Waring, Walter

Glanville, Harold James

Morrell, Philip

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus Cleophes

Webb, H.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Muldoon, John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Munro, Robert

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

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

Wiles, Thomas

Young, William (Perth, East)

Wilkie, Alexander

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Grant, J. A.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Sanders, Robert A.

Baird, John Lawrence

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Balcarres, Lord

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Snowden, P.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Horner, Andrew Long

Spear, Sir John Ward

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John Ralph

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Kerry, Earl of

Stewart, Gershom

Bird, Alfred

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Burn, Col. C. R.

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Cassel, Felix

Mount, William Arthur

Touche, George Alexander

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

Newdegate, F. A.

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Clive, Captain Percy Arthur

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, James Avon

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fell, Arthur

Perkins, Walter F.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Peto, Basil Edward

Younger, Sir George

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Quilter, William Eley C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Sir S. Scott,

Gilmour, Captain John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Goldsmith, Frank

SUPPLY.— [22nd Allotted Day.]—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
    ROAD BOARD.

      Class II.
      Resolution reported, "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 II. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1677.]
      Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      4.0 P.M.
      I move this reduction in order to call attention to the administration of the Road Improvements Fund by the Road Board constituted under the Act of 1909. During the last three weeks an official report has been presented to this House by the Development Commissioners, stating what is their general policy and what are the conditions and terms upon which grants are made by them or recommended by them to be made out of the Development Fund. That is provided for by Section 4 of the Development and Roads Improvements Fund Act. There is a similar sec-
      1766
      tion in the second part of the Act, namely, Section 14, which provides that an official report shall be presented by the Road Board in reference to matters coming under their cognisance. Section 14 is to this effect:—
      "The Road Board shall make to the Treasury an annual report of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament by the Treasury."
      It is extremely difficult to discuss the administration of this new authority in the absence of the report for which Parliament has expressly made provision. It is only due to this House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division (Sir C. D. Rose), who, I understand, is able to speak in this House on behalf of the Road Board, should give some explanation why the considered policy of the Road Board is not brought before Parliament, as contemplated by the Act, and why no report has been presented to the House. In the absence of an Autumn Session, the Session in the ordinary course having come to an end by this time, we should not have received any report while Parliament was sitting until the beginning of another year. Surely that is dilatoriness on the part of this new authority, which is quite inexcusable when it is borne in mind that grants of very considerable sums are being made to various local authorities almost every day.

      1767
      I am bound in fairness to confess that, so far as I know what the policy of the Road Board is and the system they are adopting and recommending for the treatment of the main roads of the country, I for one have no complaint to make. I would emphasise particularly the very advantageous method which they are advising county councils and other road authorities to adopt, of spraying roads with tar, especially where those roads pass through villages. The villager has had great cause to complain during the last few years of the thoughtlessness of many drivers of motor cars. Not only have the roads been largely destroyed as to their surface by these new heavy road locomotives, but dust has been thrown up in all directions. This dust has done a great deal to spoil the cottage gardens, and some of it has passed through the windows of the cottages, causing great discomfort to the occupants. In addition to that there are the very objectionable noises, particularly at night, to which I am glad to see that the Press is at present drawing attention. As regards the spraying of tar upon roads which pass through villages, it is an undoubted benefit for which we have to thank the Road Board. The chief grievance that I and others have against the Road Board is the policy to which they appear to be committed of making no Grants for the purpose of improving great road arteries throughout the country, unless the grant is made subject to a contribution generally of a very considerable amount on the part of the local authority. These contributions appear to vary from about 50 per cent. to something like 25 per cent. of the total cost of the im-improvements. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that in that now well-known Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, published in 1901, there was not one of the many so-called national services which the Commission advised should be paid for entirely or mainly out of national funds, upon which greater stress was laid than the maintenance of the great main roads, which were being used even then for motor traffic, and which have been used for that purpose to a very great extent from that date. I want to refer to the repeated statements which have been made by the Government, especially by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that this new Grant out of the Treasury for the maintenance of main roads would not inflict or be accompanied
      1768
      by any additional burden on the local rates. In order to emphasise that, I will refer to the Debate upon the Budget Resolutions on 20th May, 1909. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:—
      "I think at the beginning of the Session certain figures were given with regard to the enormous increase in the highway rates, and it was generally agreed that part of the increased expenditure was attributable to motors. … The old road will not do now that motor traffic is developing."
      He went on to say:—
      "There is no doubt that motoring has had the effect of very considerably increasing the highway rate throughout the country, and there is a general feeling that there ought to be a contribution from the motors of the country towards the road expenses."
      He said further:—
      "I think the money ought to be devoted solely to the use of the highway authorities of the country. It is intended to be used for the purpose of improving the roads, and to make better motor roads. Naturally, no doubt that will have an effect on the local charges for the simple reason that a great many local authorities now spend huge sums of money in making roads fit for motors, and to that extent grants must reduce the rates in districts where considerable sums of money are spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1909, Vol. V. cols. 685–686.]
      That was his first detailed announcement on the subject. On 9th June, 1909, during the Debate on the Second Reading of that now somewhat famous Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while endeavouring to point out the very great advantage that agricultural property and the rural ratepayers were going to derive as compared with other sections of the community from the provisions of the Budget, spoke as follows:—
      "We are also raising money for the purpose of spending a large sum on highways. It is well known that the rates have gone up, especially in the rural districts. I remember the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Dublin (now the Member fur the Strand), gave a ease on this very point in the Debate on the Address last year, showing the enormous increase in the highway rate, and that is especially the case in the country district where the motors tear up the roads, causing the highway rate to go up."
      Then came these words:—
      "We are raising £600,000 to improve the roads. All that involves great relief to agricultural land, and what is the amount of that relief? I have reckoned it up, and I am prepared to substantiate the figures. It is a moderate estimate to say that there will be a relief of at least 4d. in the £ on the rates on agricultural land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1909, Vol. VI., col. 340.]
      What is the actual fact? So far from there being any alleviation of the local charges for the maintenance of roads in consequence of the provision of this new fund, there is already a prospect of an additional rate in various counties of anything from 1d. to 3d. in the £. If the contemplated scheme of the Road Board is carried out in its entirety, the contribution demanded by them from the local authorities, which is a due proportion of the

      1769
      whole, will not be a matter of from 1d. to 3d. in the £, but will amount in a few years to something much more considerable. Is this carrying out fairly and honourably the expressed intention of this fund at the time it was brought into existence? The Road Board and the Treasury have not acted fairly by the local authorities in this matter. I suppose we shall be given the usual reason in this case as in other cases where the administration of this service, although a national service, is in the hands of the local authority, why some charge should be thrown upon the local ratepayer. It will be said that the responsibility rests with the local authority, and therefore, in order to avoid extravagance, some charge must be thrown upon those who represent the ratepayers. I can say with full confidence, if that is the only answer the Treasury can give, that the local authorities would gladly say in response, "We do not want any responsibility at all as regards these great main arteries of traffic throughout the country. We are quite prepared to have nothing more to do with either their construction or their maintenance, so long as we have not any charge thrown upon the unfortunate ratepayers." I do not believe that the just cause of the motorists will be fairly met, or that these great arteries of traffic will be properly maintained, until you have a central road authority whose exclusive business it is to administer this new road fund, and itself to carry out through its own staff the construction and maintenance of these great arteries of traffic.
      There are other reasons why it is unfair to make the grants from the Road Improvement Fund conditional upon local contributions. One of them is that the work now demanded by the Road Board is very largely experimental. The Road Board themselves do not profess to be able to say what is the most reliable method of constructing roads in view of the traffic which those roads have now to bear, or what is the best preservative for the surface of those roads. Yet they are making it a condition of their grant to these local authorities that various substances shall be used in order to construct or maintain the surface of these main roads, although they themselves are unable to say whether or not in two or three years' time these methods will still be recognised as being efficient methods for making a durable road. The very fact of its being in the nature of an experiment should be an additional reason
      1770
      why the extra charge should not be thrown upon the local ratepayers. In addition to that, may I remind the House of the fact that the local authorities and the ratepayers are already largely chargeable for the traffic for which this fund is intended to provide, and they are only given a small proportion of the fund that is available from the taxes or the duties levied upon motor cars. This fund consists of two parts. It is drawn partly from the taxes upon petrol, and as to the other part from the excess over the receipts of the financial year 1908–9, which may be derived from the issue of motor car licences. The local authorities, although they have to maintain the roads very largely at the present time for the local traffic and the local motor car traffic, cannot by any possibility under the arrangements of the Finance Act of 1909–10 get any of the additional taxation upon motors which that Act provides, or any of the advantages of the additional licences issued since that date, and which will be issued in largely increasing numbers in the future. It would not be fair for the Treasury to say to them, as they may do, that to some extent at any rate these roads, which are now being improved, are being torn up by local traffic and therefore it is only fair they should contribute an additional amount out of local funds. That point is already recognised by Section 90 of the Finance Act, by which the local contribution was cut down to the amount received from those licences in the year 1908–9.
      My main complaint under this head is that this sporadic, piecemeal policy operates most unfairly in those counties where there is a low rateable value and a large mileage of main roads for through traffic. I do not think I can give a better instance than that of the county which I have the honour to represent, the county of Wilts. It is a purely agricultural county, consisting very largely of down-land including Salisbury Plain, but, curiously enough, having two or three of those main arteries along which motors pass between London and the south and the south-west of England, probably to a greater extent than on any other roads in the kingdom, excepting possibly the Bath Road and the Great North Road. That unfortunate county will contribute anything from 25 to 50 per cent. for the purposes of traffic, which is not local at all, on those great road arteries, which are kept up mainly for the purpose of people from London and other wealthy inhabitants who enjoy the privilege of owning motor cars and of

      1771
      taking them considerable distances for purposes of pleasure and amusement. Why it should be thought fair to throw upon such a county 25 per cent. of the cost of a main road for this through motor traffic, I for one am at a loss to know. I would emphasise this further fact that, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the main object of improving those main roads is to provide a benefit for the motorists themselves. I am inclined to think that that benefit is going to be defeated owing to the lack of a comprehensive system under which every part of the same main road will be treated in like manner. What is going to happen at the present time? If a road between London and the south coast happens to pass through a county which is comparatively wealthy, and which thinks it worth while to contribute, say, 90 per cent., of the cost of the improvement, subject to 50 per cent. being paid by the Roads Improvement Fund, motorists will enjoy the benefit on that road of a well tarred and dustless surface. But when the motorist goes along the same main road from that county into a poorer county where there is a low rateable value, and where they cannot, in justice to the ratepayers, accept the onerous terms of the Road Board, he will pass over what may be described as a second class road, and therefore will get no benefit from the additional taxes which have been thrown by the Finance Act upon his shoulders.
      It is an uneven and unfair method of seeking to adjust the benefit to the chief user of these roads, namely, the motorists. At the same time the problem is not quite the same in every part of the country. There are certain counties immediately outside London which not only have a very heavy motor-car traffic but also a very heavy traction engine traffic. These motors and traction engines bring a large amount of produce sold by retail by the large London stores into the remotest corners of these home counties. What is the result? Not merely that the roads are seriously torn up by this traffic, which is carried on mainly for the benefit of London tradesmen, but the unfortunate local tradesman, who loses to a large extent his own custom, has to pay a higher rate in consequence of that traffic. Surely that is one of the very strongest reasons for treating this problem, as it ought to be treated, as a national question. If these roads are to be used for that kind of traffic, radiating from London to the populous centres, the whole improvement and maintenance of these
      1772
      roads for that purpose ought to be thrown upon the national Exchequer, or at any rate those sections which the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division is already administering. There is another, case still, which is a strong case, and was lately brought to my notice, the case of East Sussex. In East Sussex the county council have represented to the Road Board various schemes in respect to which they desire some contribution from the fund in order to improve the roads for motor traffic, and the Road Board have represented to the East Sussex County Council one principal road upon which they desire the larger part of the Road Board contribution to be expended, namely, that section of the road running between Lewes and Newhaven. There are many roads in the country which might be described as national in character, but there are very few roads which could to the same extent be described as international in character as this very road. There is a very large proportion of traffic which is not what you may call British or national traffic. It is traffic which comes from the Continent, and which is in a sense linking up the Continental roads with our own. It is most unjust surely in a case like that that any demand whatever should be made upon the local exchequer.
      I want to ask a few questions of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to certain parts of this Act which apparently have not yet been put into operation. For instance, some emphasis was laid, when these proposals were first brought before this House, upon the desirability of constructing new main roads which would be, as it were, short cuts between various important centres which motorists might desire, for pleasure or business purposes, to visit, and it was suggested that these new roads should be constructed, and not merely constructed, but, after construction, maintained, entirely out of the Roads Improvement Fund, and special provision is made in the Act for that purpose. In answer to a question put to the Secretary to the Treasury on 10th May, this year, he said that no money had hitherto been set apart for the construction of new highways, and no Grants had yet been made for that purpose. I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why this important section of the Road Board work has not yet been embarked upon, and I want to remind him and the House that if this new method of improving roads is going to be economically carried out, in my opinion it

      1773
      would be much truer economy in many instances, to construct a new straight road than to expend a large sum in many instances estimated by the leading surveyors as costing £2,500 per mile, upon improving the surface of circuitous roads, the maintenance of which in the future is likely to be a very serious charge upon the exchequer of the local authority. Surely it must be better policy, a more economic policy, in many, if not all those cases, to construct a new short road in the most approved way, even though it might be more expensive, and at the beginning to provide a durable surface such as the Road Board would put down, than to reconstruct the surface of the old circuitous roads, which would cost a good deal more in renewals.
      I should like to give an instance from my own Constituency. As most soldiers know, there is a very large amount of traffic between Bulford Camp and Tidworth Camp and Salisbury, which is the chief railway centre. That traffic, as between Bulford Camp and Salisbury, comes by a somewhat circuitous route, and the deputy assistant quartermaster-general, or, at any rate some high officer who has the administration of such matters in his hands at Bulford Camp, has already represented to the County Council and to the Road Board the very great advantage that would be derived in that district by taking the road straight through from the Camp to Salisbury. That is where most of the traffic of the district is to be found, and it would cut off about two and a half miles of the existing road. Not only would it take a very much shorter time to carry persons and provisions between Bulford Camp and Salisbury if this proposal were accepted, but, by constructing a new road it would be possible to obtain a far more durable road, to get better value for the taxpayer's money, and substantially to reduce the cost of maintenance of that road. That is only one of the many cases in which the construction of a new road must, in the eyes of anyone who understands the construction of roads and realises the enormous cost that modern methods of construction of roads involves, be true economy. May I ask the Road Board to consider that case among other cases of the same character in which new construction would undoubtedly involve a saving of the finances of the fund which they administer.
      There is another case which I should like to bring before the attention of the Board, a case in my own district, in the
      1774
      Forest of Dean. An application was made by the county council for a grant out of the fund to throw a short bridge across the upper estuarial waters of the Severn. The object of asking for that particular grant was to enable the traffic passing from London into South Wales to avoid the circuitous route which it now has to take through the Stroud Valley, in order to cross the existing bridge in the city of Gloucester. The new bridge would cut off something like seven miles of road now traversed by the main motor car traffic in the county. There again expenditure, although perhaps more considerable than the expenditure which had been authorised by the Road Board in that county, would in the long run be true economy, because the surface to be worn in the future by motor cars, if that bridge were constructed, would be the surface of a very much shorter road. I see that in Part III. of the Act is provided that the construction of new roads may be deferred by the Road Board till such times as in their opinion would involve the employment of unemployed labour. I think it is quite possible that the Road Board have taken this fact into consideration. I am quite prepared to hear that that is one of the reasons why the construction of new roads ought not to be carried out. That may be a reason for not carrying out the construction of new roads all over the country on a very large scale, but it is not a sufficient reason in the interests of true economy and of motorists for not carrying out the construction of new roads in certain districts where circuitous roads would be obviated. I also want to ask why it is that nothing has been done to carry out Section 13 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909. That section provides:—
      "The Road Board may, with the approval of and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, borrow on the security of the Road Improvement grants for the purpose of meeting any expenditure which appears to the Treasury to be of such a nature that it ought to be spread over a term of years, so however that the total amount required for the payment of interest on and the repayment of money so borrowed shall not exceed in any year the sum of £200,000."
      Why is it that the Road Board have not taken advantage of that borrowing power provided by the Act? I ask this especially because, as I understand, the leading

      1775
      road surveyors in the country are of the opinion that in consequence of this new class of very heavy traffic to which our main roads are now subjected it would be good policy to construct our roads from the very bottom on an entirely new system altogether; to treat the mass of our roads throughout the country as being wholly unfit for the purpose for which they are intended, and to commence, as it were, de novo, expending, as I have already said, it may be £2,500 per mile upon making a road which would have a very much stronger and deeper bottoming, and which would be formed on the surface and coated on the surface in such a manner as the Road Board are now indicating as desirable. What these road surveyors have repeatedly pointed out is that if such reconstruction of present roads, or construction of new roads, were to take place the cost of maintenance in the future would be far less than it is at present and far less than it has been in the past, even with the ordinary, normal, county traffic. There, again, if the Road Board are prepared to embark on a bold policy—it is perfectly true at a considerable expenditure of public money—it ought to prove—in the opinion of experts, would prove—true economy in the long run, and the nation would be provided with large main arteries throughout the country of a type well suited to motor traffic, and so constructed as to be far more durable than our present roads.
      I understand that the Grants from the Road Board for all purposes up to date have amounted to £275,390. The receipts of the Road Board to the end of the last financial year, 31st March, 1911, amounted to £862,640. The bulk of these Grants to which I have just referred are Grants, as I understand, which have only been made during the last two or three months. I would like to ask why it is that something less than one-third of the whole amount of the fund which is now standing to the credit of the Road Board, has hitherto been expended for these purposes? Why is it that, bearing in mind that so small a proportion of the total sum which has been provided by Parliament for the purpose of making these particular roads, which are a national concern, so small a proportion has been paid out of the total fund, why the remainder or a good part of it should not be provided from the same source instead of throwing an unfair obligation on local authorities, which, I sug-
      1776
      gest, it was never intended by this House should be thrown upon them? Judging from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the famous Finance Bill was passing through this House, it never entered into his head that the matter should be treated as a local, as distinct from a national, obligation.
      Mr. PERKINS: I beg to second the Amendment, and I desire to do so for the purpose principally of drawing attention to the fact that the Road Board has not issued its Report, which it is directed by Act of Parliament to do. The Road Board was constituted on 12th May, 1910. The Development Commission, constituted at the same time, have issued and published their Report dated 22nd June, 1911. We have no report whatever from the Road Board. It strikes one, in the absence of such a report, that the reason may be that the Board have nothing to report. I feel rather in the position of the ancient Israelites in having to make bricks without straw in attempting to criticise that which has not been done. Curiously enough, however, in the report of the Development Commission—not the Road Board—page 34, there is a reference, and one reference only, to road improvement. We are told there that on 15th February the first application was received for an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land from the Heaton Norris Urban District Council. The land, we are told, proposed to be acquired was for the rounding off of two corners of a street leading out of a road. Its extent is not more than a few square yards. Is it possible that the whole efforts of the Road Board and the somewhat expensive officials who comprise that Road Board have been directed to this one solitary proposal for the acquisition of a few square yards of land? Every Member of the House of Commons will agree with me that if the Road Board have any difficulty in disposing of their money every one of us can suggest local improvements in their roads which will cost a very great deal more than the amount of income which they have to spend.
      I also want to direct attention to another fact. The Development Commissioners by the Act of Parliament are expressly prevented from dealing with road improvements. It is one of the things that they especially are not to do. Yet it is a curious fact, for which Members can look at page 34 of the report, that they claim credit for the solitary improve-

      1777
      ment in road widening. Another point I want to draw the attention of the Road Board to is a matter which I think is of very considerable importance to the people who dwell in the country, that is spraying the road surfaces with tar. We all know that there has been a good many experiments, which are still going on, as to the best method of treating road surfaces. There is a considerable difference of opinion amongst practical people as to whether after all the method of spraying surfaces with tar is the best. I myself, in my Constituency, have had very serious complaints, which I believe are very well founded, to the effect that the tar which is sprayed on the country roads in summer gets washed off by the rain into the adjacent streams, polluting the streams and poisoning the fish. It seems absurd that on the one hand we have a staff of chemists safeguarding the rivers from pollution, and making every effort to keep the rivers clean, whilst on the other hand we have an expensive body of Commissioners superintending the pollution of the rivers. I have no better method to suggest for the purpose of treating the roads, but I think the method of simply spraying with tar is a mistake, and that something foreshadowed by my hon. Friend who spoke last, something much more drastic in the direction of the total reconstruction of the roads from the bottom upwards would be an infinitely preferable scheme. Therefore I beg the Road Board not to spend too much money at the outset on the mere spraying of roads. My object in rising principally was to draw from the Government an explanation of the fact that no report has been published of the work, if any has been done, of the Road Board.
      Sir CHARLES ROSE (who was very indistinctly heard): I happen to be the only Member of the Road Board in this House, and I think it is desirable that I should make a short statement as to the actual work that has been done, and is being done, by the Board since it first came into operation. Although I am the only member of the Road Board present. I am not, of course, responsible to the House for the action of the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Every grant made by the Road Board has to receive Treasury sanction before being paid away. It is quite true that the annual report of the Road Board has not yet been published. It has, however, been before the Board, and it will be issued in a very short time. The
      1778
      hon. Member for Wilton has recited the work of the Board from the beginning, and perhaps I may confirm what he said. We were established in the early months of last year, and we had our first meeting in May. After the ordinary preliminaries had been gone through the first question we had to deal with was as to the possible amount of revenue at our disposal and how that revenue should be disposed of. We were led to believe through the assistance of the Treasury that the amount we would receive for the calendar years 1909–10–10–11 would amount probably to £ 1,000,000 sterling. That forecast has been very accurately fulfilled. The actual amount, I believe, as near as possible, paid to the Road Board up to last year was something like £1,100,000.
      The next problem the Board had to solve was to lay down some general principle as to how the money should be allocated to the different countries. They had to deal with England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, and it was no easy problem to decide on a fair and equitable basis for making this distribution. The Board took into consideration the facts at their disposal. They looked at the position of Ireland and Scotland as compared with England, and they tested the amount that Ireland and Scotland would receive on the basis of the amount of contribution received from those countries from Motor Spirit Duties or Motor Car Licence Duties; they recognise that that would not be a fair basis. Out of these funds, £1,000,000—I am speaking from memory—out of the total amounts received the amount received from Ireland is something like £38,000, and from Scotland something like £74,000. We dismissed that as an unfair bases as between Ireland and Scotland. We then, as far as we could, ascertained the real user of the roads in these countries, and we were quite satisfied from statistics that the burden of traffic in Ireland is very much lighter than in Scotland, and that in Scotland it is immeasurably lighter than in this country, and we came to the conclusion that it will not be fair to allocate the amount in proportion to the users of the roads, so we came to the conclusion taking everything into consideration, that the fair basis of dealing with the matter would be on the basis of population, because after all that was a safer test than anything else we could suggest.
      On that basis then we made an allotment to Ireland of £150,000, and to Scotland of £175,000, leaving the rest for England. Some time afterwards we sent out cir-

      1779
      culars to all the highway authorities and county associations asking them to send in applications for grants which they considered necessary for work of an urgent character. The circulars to Ireland and Scotland indicated in a general rough way some roads on which the Board suggested it would be desirable to have the money spent. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that in the case of this country it would be unwise to give grants broadcast and allow people to spend the money in various parts of the country without any definite scheme. Consultations have been held, and we have discussed the matter with local authorities, and they were in favour, as far as possible, of fixing upon a scheme that would be suitable. In this world you cannot satisfy everybody, but the course we adopted was thought to be the sanest and wisest policy. As regards England it was decided that the best means of making the allocation was to counties, also on the basis of population, through the various county authorities, and advised them of the amounts at their disposal for road improvement, and then inviting them to send in their application. Hon. Members can readily realise that the applications for grants very much exceeded the amounts we had at our disposal. The applications, I believe, as a matter of fact, amounted to £7,500,000.
      The next step was to hold conferences and settle details, and we invited the various authorities of the counties to come up and interview our chairman and to bring with them their scheme so that we might go into the whole of the details. One hundred and thirteen conferences have been held, so that the Board was not by any means idle although it is true they may have delayed in presenting their report. These conferences have been going on continually during the past year, and many of the roads for which applications have been made have been inspected by the chairman and other members of the Board.
      Dealing with the question as to how the Grants should be made, which is, I understand, quite a debatable point, and to which exception has been taken, I may say at once that the question was raised by the County Councils Association malcontents and received practically no sympathy at all, and the matter was dropped. I think it is a very
      1780
      plausible case when you put it before the authority and say to them you will only receive your grant on condition of your spending a certain amount. What is the position of the roads in this country—we have not had sufficient time yet to deal with the whole question—but there is no doubt that whether there is a Road Board or not the local authority would have to increase their rates very considerably in order to meet the ordinary everyday requirements of the new traffic. It would be much more simple for the Road Board to give to each local authority a certain amount to which they are entitled and have no more to do with them. The local authorities will then be much more likely to deal in a casual way with the amount than if they had themselves to pay a contribution which would make them much more careful as to the plans and in which they used the money and would make them see that it was much better spent than it otherwise would be. I may say that in the large majority of cases the local authorities would very gladly have further grants upon the same basis, and we could very easily distribute the whole of the money three or four times over to such authorities.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean they would be satisfied with an additional grant if the grant is made proportionally to the amount spent on the ordinary maintenance of the roads, or to that spent upon the additional improvement of the roads?
      Sir C. ROSE: I was coming to that, I was going to deal with the bases upon which the Grants are made. The basis, as I understand, is this: You first ascertain the amount that would have to be spent by the local authority for maintenance on that portion of the road. Having done that, it is deducted from the full amount and of the balance we control three-fourths. In the case of Ireland they get in the majority of cases 50 per cent. of the gross cost, and that 50 per cent. of the gross is very much better that 75 per cent. of the net. The figure is very likely to be misunderstood. The character of the roads in Ireland differs totally from those in this country, but I am informed that upon that basis the amount is higher in Ireland than the 75 per cent. in England, and that Ireland receives better treatment than England or Scotland. I explained the basis on which we are working. Our policy may be approved or disapproved, but I for one believe it is a sound and a wise policy.

      1781
      In spite of the criticisms that have been made of the new method of road binding, experience has proved, especially in the case of Kent, Notts, and Sussex, that dust is being allayed and that the roads are put into a sound condition, and that very little damage is done to them even by very heavy motor traffic. In time to come the benefits of the new system will be found not perhaps in the reduction of the rates, but in many other directions. With regard to the methods we are adopting of road binding, one hon. Member opposite complained that the tar was washed off by the rain and carried into the streams, and another hon. Member stated that the matter was only in the experimental stage. I think it has got very much beyond the experimental stage, and that is recognised by all the road authorities, and there could be no better authority, as well as our chairman, and I take this opportunity of congratulating the Government on having secured his appointment. No other man in England could have such vast experience of dealing with road matters and traffic problem, and his presence places the Road Board in a very strong position. There are three methods of dealing with roads, and authorities differ in their views as to which is the better, but the treatment of roads and the improvement of roads has undoubtedly passed beyond the experimental stage, as is now recognised by all the highways authorities in the country.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not a fact that in some cases tar macadam is recommended and in some cases granite treated with tarmac? Is that not evidence that this is still in the experimental stage?
      5.0 P.M.
      Sir C. ROSE: No, I do not think so at all, because practically they are the same process. The whole essence of this principle is the use of this bituminous tar. Some of this tar has been down for five years, and it shows no signs of the road being in any way disturbed. We believe this is a wise policy to adopt in the interests of the country generally. We have been devoting our attention to the existing roads, and this will occupy our time for many years to come. We have had many applications for making completely new roads, but the cost is enormous. If every county will adopt the same principle as Nottingham, Kent, and Sussex, in a few years a great improvement will take place.
      1782
      Something has been said about the amount of the grant to the county of Sussex. May I point out that Sussex is only entitled to a certain amount, and if you expend a larger amount there it must come out of somebody else's share. We have thought it wise to deal with this matter on broad principles, and treat all localities practically alike. The remainder of the small amount of money has been distributed. The amount of time occupied in going through all the details and settling all the small points with the various authorities, takes so long that it is difficult to get the details settled. With the exception of about two counties, all the grants have been settled, and a considerable amount of money has been paid away. Probably in a very short time the whole amount due to the counties will be paid. We do not want to lay any proposals before the Treasury until we have got everything complete. I may say that the Secretary to the Treasury has been of great assistance to us, and has not caused one hour's delay in any applications we have put before him.
      With regard to the county boroughs, they are in a very different position. Applications from the county boroughs are generally for widening their own thoroughfares, and hon. Members will recognise that that is a matter of very great cost, and practically deals only with local traffic. I think it would be a waste of money to spend sums in this way. We think it best to assist in improving the means of ingress and egress from the county boroughs where they go to congested neighbourhoods. The Road Board is dealing with this question. No Grants have yet been made to county boroughs, but their problems are at present under discussion. I can assure the House that there is ample opportunity for the Board spending a great deal more money than it has at the present time. We have power to deal with other improvements, such as the widening and cutting off of corners. I have never been in favour of the cutting off of corners, and I am not sure that this policy would not be more dangerous than leaving the corners as they are. The driver of a motor vehicle, under proper control, can turn these corners with perfect safety. The Board have made Grants and received assistance from local authorities, but the total amount applied to cutting off these corners has been practically infinitesimal. I think our policy in this respect has been supported by the highway authorities where there are very sharp

      1783
      corners at the bottom of the hill. Although this is a debatable point, and the Board would be very glad to hear any suggestions as to the injustice of the policy we have laid down, we believe it is a wise and sound policy that we should ask the local authorities to make some contribution towards the improvements they wish to have carried out. The Board believe that by dealing with the intolerable dust nuisance and improving roads they will in this way relieve the extra burden upon the rates that seems inevitable. I am speaking simply as an ordinary Member of the House, and many of the matters which hon. Members have raised are matters which concern the Treasury, and not myself. We adhere to our policy, and we believe that the policy of the Board in asking for contributions from the local authorities for works of improvement is a wise and a sound one.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet for the interesting speech which he has just made, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think it is a little astonishing that two years after this Act has become law there is not a single Member of the House of Commons who can put his finger upon any document which will tell us who the members of the Road Board are, when they meet, how they meet, what they have done, what money they have got or expended, and what schemes they have proposed for England, Ireland or Scotland. I think that is a most extraordinary state of things. I could not believe it when I went into the Library today and hunted about trying to get some information upon the subject. I hope the hon. Baronet will not think that I am attributing any blame to him. As a matter of fact, we are dealing with an expenditure of over £1,000,000, and this House has a right to know how the money has been expended. In Ireland we have special reason for taking an interest in this expenditure by the Road Board. The case of the two countries necessarily is absolutely different. We do not know what a road is in Ireland, because there is not a road in the entire country approaching in character the roads around London. In Ireland there is not a road in character or service to be compared with any of the roads which are within a shilling cab fare of this House. Furthermore, the roads in Ireland were made, not for the advantage of the inhabitants, but for military purposes, or by the landlords at
      1784
      the expense of their tenants to enable seizures of cattle to be made and for the purpose of collecting rents. The result of the policy of the Conservative Government in 1898 has been that the whole of that burden has now to be borne by the general body of the people of Ireland. When you come to consider what it means to the farmer having a bad road and a good one, a road where you cannot haul 10 cwts. when you ought to be able to haul 22 cwts., it makes a great difference in the cost.
      The question of having a good or a bad road is really one of the most important questions that can concern the agricultural people of the country. The hon. Baronet opposite said he was not in favour of cutting off corners. May I say that he does not know what a corner is in London. I do not believe he has ever seen a corner. I am specially anxious to know what the Board are doing in regard to some of our roads in Ireland. Take the road which has become an awful burden, not to my Constituents, but to another county—I mean the Prince of Wales route leading into Killarney. That road consists simply of huge stones thrown down any way. As has already been pointed out by the hon. Member below the Gangway, this road is not for the benefit of the local people, but for the benefit of the tourists from all parts of the Kingdom; and yet the county of Kerry has to bear the expense of maintaining it. It always happens that the most picturesque parts of any country are the poorest, because those parts are generally mountainous, and yet it is upon the poor people of the county of Kerry that the expense falls of what really ought to be a national charge. This route ought to be kept up not merely by the local people, but by all those who enjoy the scenery. In the case of a road of that kind it is absurd to allow it to continue in its present condition, or to demand from the people of Kerry that they should make a contribution out of their local fund towards this road, because practically nobody travels upon it except tourists.
      Sir C. ROSE: I believe that very road has already been scheduled.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Nothing has been done, because I was over the road only last week. What is more, the road is today far worse than it was five, ten, or twenty years ago. The Kerry roads were made fifty years ago by a gentleman named Stokes, one of the best

      1785
      road builders in the whole world, and, if left to themselves, they are absolutely adequate for the local traffic; but the railway companies have put on two huge motors—awful things. I think it is a shame to have them in any country. They weigh at least five tons, and on these they crowd something like fifty or sixty people. Fancy that on a little country road, a thing the like of which was never seen before on land or sea. It only acts as a plough going along these miserable roads. Then you say to the local cottager, a man of £4 or £5 valuation, abutting on what ought to be a great tourist road: "We will give you 10s. for every 10s. you lay on the road." He asks, "Why should I lay 10s. on the road? I have been among this scenery all my life, and I never have anything but a donkey on the road. Why should you expect me to improve the road because men come from England and America. It is perfectly absurd." There is another road in the north, the Rock Road leading practically from Belfast almost up to Giants Causeway. It is a magnificent road. Supposing we had the country in our own hands, we should keep these roads and several roads in Connemara as international roads, and they would be dealt with by means of contributions from the people of the entire Kingdom. It is, in my opinion, an absolute injustice to throw that burden upon the locality.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he held out such an alluring prospect two years ago, said: "If you will pass this Bill"—I think it was the Motor Tax or this Road Development Fund he was referring to—"it will amount to taking 4d. in the £ off your local taxation." I am not saying that the Bill has not done a great deal of good. I am not saying that in richer districts we have not had useful and proper contributions, but, instead of local and poor picturesque districts having had relief from the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however well-intentioned, they have only had an additional burden. It will be very unfortunate if the strictly local people of Ireland get the idea that this Road Board is only being used for the purpose of extracting out of the pockets of the local ratepayers an additional sum, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of an international and tourist traffic, which I suggest it was never intended they should be asked to keep up. Therefore, I think it is most desirable we should have a report from the Road Board setting out what are their
      1786
      schemes as regards the entire three kingdoms. Nobody disputes for a, moment they are doing their best. Sir George Gibb was one of the best selections that could have been made for the chairmanship of the Board. We all know that for many years he was general manager of the North-Eastern Railway, and was managing director of several of the local London railways. I do not suppose, so far as railway traffic is concerned you could get a gentleman better qualified; but here we are at the end of the Session, and we do not know what are his plans. That is a position in which this House should not be placed.
      Apparently in England, as well as in Scotland, there is a considerable demand to know what are the intentions of the Road Board. We have the same curiosity in Ireland, and with much better reason. You spend on Hyde Park, in London, 10d. per square yard, and you spend on Phoenix Park, in Dublin, 1½d. per square yard. That is the view the Government take on the two sides of the Channel. If the hon. Baronet has correctly laid down the policy in saying he expects contributions from local authorities in every case, I would respectfully say I do not concur in that policy. It is a perfectly right policy in dealing with counties like Dublin. There is the great road from Dublin to Belfast, and you say, "We will give you £2,000 if you will spend another £2,000 on the improvement of the road." That is a perfectly right policy in that particular prosperous part of Ireland, and I am with you there, because you have a rather well-to-do county council, and you have a great main road stretching from one Capital to another. You would probably ask county Down and Antrim—fairly well-to-do counties, to make contributions, and in that part of the country it might be very fair to adopt the policy which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but, if you draw a line down the centre of Ireland, and take the west side of the country, I should say, speaking generally, the policy was a wrong one. That is what I may call the sick and delicate part of the country, and the poor and impoverished parts of the country should be subjected to wholly different treatment and should have wholly different consideration.
      I trust we shall never again have an important Vote of this kind brought forward without further information. The Act itself provides that there are to be two paid men in connection with the development part of the scheme. They are to get

      1787
      salaries not exceeding £3,000 a year each. We do not know who they are. We do not know what is the salary. We do not even know who has been selected. I infer Sir Francis Hopwood may be one of the salaried gentlemen, but we are in the dark. I do not think that is a fair way to treat us. We have a report from the gentlemen acting under this Act on the development side, and I rather differ from the view laid down in their report. They apparently consider they should deal with forestry, cattle breeding, and other matters like that. I certainly think we have sufficient Boards in Ireland for dealing with these matters without having them considered by a Board sitting here in London, even although there may be one Irish gentleman, a very competent gentleman, placed upon it. The way in which they deal with this question of the Treasury is not unworthy of note. The hon. Baronet is the first man who, in my somewhat rather lengthy experience, has ever said a word in praise of the Treasury. He has said it, and I am quite sure it must be well deserved. Here is the report of the Development branch of the Commission. They say:—
      "In the first place, the Commissioners themselves have no power to make grants or loans from the Development Fund like other Royal Commissions; they can only recommend expenditure, which must be finally authorised by the Government. Treasury approval is required for every penny spent from the fund. Secondly (again like other Royal Commissions or the majority of them) they have no executive power; the schemes recommended by the Commissioners must be carried out either by a Government Department or by some other body under the supervision of a department. Thirdly, they have no formal and official cognizance of applications from bodies other than Government Departments, and cannot report to the Treasury on them."
      I gather from this report applications have been made to them from one department dealing with cattle breeding, and from another department dealing with forestry. I gather they have not made grants in either case, and I can only say for myself, I think it would be much better if these moneys with which these gentlemen are dealing, instead of going through the circumlocution of being paid first into this Development Fund, were handed direct to the Agricultural Board or to the Congested Districts Board. I think it is somewhat absurd to have this Department taking evidence from Mr. T. P. Gill and other gentlemen of the Agricultural Board as to whether money should be spent on forestry or horse-breeding, instead of the money being paid direct to the Agricultural Board itself or to the Congested Dis-
      1788
      tricts Board without the intermediate intervention of a body which cannot have the same acquaintance with these matters. I think the position of the Road Board stands on a wholly different footing from the position of the Development Board. I respectfully think there is really no necessity whatever for the Development Board. We have Departments enough in Ireland. Still, I am extremely obliged to the hon. Baronet for his statement, and I do hope he will at once press for a report of the Road Board to be laid before the House, for it is a matter in which intense interest will be taken in every part of the Kingdom.
      Mr. SANDERS: I would join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thanking the hon. Baronet opposite for the very lucid exposition which he gave us of the policy of the Road Board so far as it has gone. It is all the more welcome because we have no report to go on up to now. There are just one or two questions I want to ask him if he will allow me, and perhaps he or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) will be good enough to answer. The first is as to the policy of this Road Board in not giving a grant unless a corresponding grant is made by the county council. I want to ask him if every county council has fallen in with that. Are there any county councils who have got grants without having paid themselves, or are there any county councils who refuse to pay, and so get no grant at all? If that is so, and there are some counties which are getting nothing, then I want to know what becomes of the money which would otherwise go to them. Would that be distributed among the counties ready to give contributions? Then I want to ask whether grants have been made to district councils. I know it is a fact district councils have applied for grants in a considerable number of cases, and I should be very much obliged if the hon. Baronet would inform me whether any grants have actually been made to district councils, and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Road Board to make grants to them in future.
      I want to say one word of protest against the assertion of the hon. Baronet that it is a waste of money to pay for cutting off corners. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am afraid the hon. Baronet cannot really know what is a corner. I think if he saw some of the corners, not only in Ireland but in the west country, he would agree that they were dangerous and that everything possible should be

      1789
      done to shear off those corners, or, if that be not possible, to lower the banks and hedges so that one can see around them. I feel sure he will agree that that would be an eminently desirable improvement, and one that would make the roads very much safer. I wish to join also in pointing out how very much misled have been the people who thought that these development grants of the Road Board were going to do anything to relieve the rates. The grants have not reduced the rates in the very least. I never thought they would. Whenever new legislation is introduced we are told it is going to reduce the rates, although those who have had anything to do with county government know perfectly well that these promises never come to anything and that the rates go steadily up and up. I shall be very much obliged if I can get an answer to the question which I have put. I am sure the hon. Baronet will be glad to hear that my own county (Somerset), when asked what criticisms it had to make in reference to the Road Board, replied that there were no complaints to be advanced. Having made that handsome admission to the hon. Baronet, I hope he will see that in the future the transactions of the Road Board with Somerset shall be such that the county will come off particularly well.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I desire to congratulate the representatives of the rural constituencies upon their repeated demands upon the Treasury. I have listened to the speeches made from time to time on the other side of the House by those who represent rural constituencies, and I must confess I am afraid that the bulk of the money raised under the Budget of 1909 will go to the rural districts which usually do derive the main benefit from Grants-in-Aid. I was rather surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst). I understood him to say that, despite the grant, some of the county council rates for highways had gone up to the extent of from 1d. to 3d.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: No; what I said was that the contributions required by the Road Board would result in an increase of these rates by from 1d. to 3d.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the rates had gone up. I can only affirm, as a member of a highway board for very many years, that I congratulate the Road Board on the fact that they do exact contributions from the local authorities for any
      1790
      grants that they may make; otherwise I am quite certain it would lead to any amount of extravagance on the part of the local authorities if they were enabled to demand that improvements were carried out without themselves having to find a proportion of the cost. The hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket (Sir Charles Rose) commented on the fact that the income of the Road Board only amounted to £800,000, and that they had already had applications from the local authorities representing an estimated expenditure of £7,500,000, and I take that as an indication that if the Road Board did not insist upon some contribution being made by the local authority towards the cost of improving their roads it would lead to great extravagance and to a still greater demand on the part of those authorities. After all, we are fighting practically the same position as the Irish ratepayer. I think it is the duty of the local authority to keep their roads in repair as much as possible. If they are free to place the burden on the Road Board the tendency will be towards a great waste of public money.
      I wish to call the attention of the House to another point in connection with this Grant of £600,000. I understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket to say that circulars had been issued to the county councils informing them of the amount of the Grant in proportion to the population of the county. On this point I want to emphasise a remark which has been made with regard to some of the minor authorities. The Act itself states in Section 8, Sub-section (a) that the Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to county councils or other highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads. But there is nothing in this Act to show that the intention of Parliament when it passed the Act was that all highway authorities should not be treated alike. I understand that the policy of the Road Board is to deal directly with the county councils. I consider that that is a grave injustice to some very important non-county boroughs. A very large number of these non-county boroughs have not applied for any grant under this Act for the simple reason that they have not received the circular which was sent out to the county councils. There are non-county boroughs without any main roads, or with a very small mileage of main roads, within their jurisdiction. They have main roads in their area, but the county

      1791
      councils will not main them. Applications have been made from time to time to have the roads declared main roads, but they have been refused, and, therefore, the cost of maintaining these important through thoroughfares falls upon the local boroughs, which are non-county boroughs. Why should these roads be treated in this way? I disagree entirely with the hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket. I say it would be a great advantage for these roads to be taken in hand, and to have some of their corners cut off. They are narrow, they get congested with traffic, and it is very desirable that these through main roads should receive attention. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Baronet say that in non-county boroughs the intention and policy of the Road Board is not even to deal with them—not to take in hand the widening of these thoroughfares and the rounding off of corners. What is the use, however, of this House voting money to the extent of £600,000 a year, if the whole of this money is to be given to rural districts and none of it to be expended within the confines of county or non-county boroughs, or of important urban district councils?
      Sir C. ROSE: What I said was that the applications from county boroughs had been mainly for grants for the widening of streets in their own boroughs, and that the cost had in many cases been too great.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: But I have no doubt they would be quite prepared to make a contribution towards that expenditure. I know counties where the rates (excluding the Education rate) do not exceed 6d. in the £, and where there is no highway rate at all. On the other hand, you have towns with highway rates amounting to shillings in the £. You have the rates going up to 8s., 9s., and even 10s. in the £. You are practically giving this money to rural authorities whose rates do not exceed 2s. or 3s. in the £, while in the case of important boroughs where the rates vary from 6s. to 10s. in the £ you decline to do anything in the way of helping them to improve their through roads. I think it is time that those of us who represent the towns should make a strong protest in this House against that policy. It is an unfair and a very unjust policy that the towns should be taxed as they are taxed. After all the bulk of the money for this improvement work comes from the towns—the bulk of the money raised under
      1792
      the Budget of 1909 is raised practically in the towns, and not in the rural districts. The Increment Value Duty comes from the towns and not from the rural districts. You have towns like Bristol, Newcastle and Birmingham in this position, and yet it is quite evident there is no intention on the part of the Road Board to make Grants for these large bodies for the improvement of their roads. I have heard demands made on many occasions in this House for advances for the rural districts, yet all the time the claims for assistance in making improvements of large and important towns, practically crushed by their rates, are ignored. I think it advisable to raise my protest against this policy, and I hope that the representatives of the towns generally will also raise their voices in this House by way of protest against a policy of favouritism in giving the money to the rural districts. I hope the Government will take this fact into consideration. I do not wish to say anything about the position of the Road Board. I am pleased they have such a chairman, because he comes from the same district as that from which I come, that is the North of England. I would like to repeat that to send out circulars to county councils inviting them to send in application, and at the same time to ignore the non-county boroughs, is a wrong policy, and I hope the Treasury will see that in the future the towns will have more justice under this scheme than they have had in the past.
      Sir JOHN SPEAR: The House is indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) for raising the question, for there is a feeling in the country that no statement of what has been done by the Road Board has yet been forthcoming, and considerable disappointment has accrued from the fact that, instead of the establishment of the Road Board doing something to relieve the burden on the ratepayer, it has up to the present increased it. But we very much appreciate the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) who, from his experience of what has been done and is being done by the Road Board, takes a somewhat optimistic view, and leads us to hope that even yet some good may come from the establishment of the Roard Board. Up to the present considerable disappointment has accrued. When the Road Board was established it was considered to be a medium through which a larger share of Imperial funds should be used for the maintenance of the main roads, which I

      1793
      think all sides of the House have come to recognise is largely an Imperial responsibility, and should be paid for to a larger extent at least than has hitherto been the ease from Imperial funds. County councils especially, who have been face to face with constantly increasing charges on the ratepayers for the maintenance of roads were hopeful that, in the establishment of the Road Board, the Government recognised the justice of our claim that main roads are an Imperial responsibility, and sets up this machinery with a view to bearing a larger share, at least, of the cost of the upkeep of these roads. But up to the present, at any rate, we have been disappointed, and it is clear that, since the Road Board has decided that they will only make a grant towards the cost of the improvement which they sanction, a considerable balance of the cost of the improvement must devolve on the local ratepayers and consequently, instead of the policy adopted by the Road Board reducing the cost to the ratepayer for the maintenance of main roads, it has had exactly the opposite effect, because the local bodies have to find a considerable sum of money before the Road Board are prepared to carry out improvements which they sanction. I am sure we are all agreed that it is desirable that improvements such as have been hinted at to-day should be made, and we are glad to know from the hon. Baronet that steps are being taken with that end. We also gather that he does not consider it a desirable policy for the Road Board to take off acute corners in roads. If he knew the Devonshire lanes he would change his mind and would agree that one of the first things in the interests of the safety of motorists and the public would be that the Road Board should use some of their money in taking off acute corners and in lowering the fences so that people might have a chance of being aware of approaching vehicles. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) allude to some grant being made by the Road Board towards the spraying of roads. I hope I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Road Board declined to make any grant at all towards the upkeep of the roads. The only grant they made was for improving the roads.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)indicated assent.
      Sir J. SPEAR: The right hon. Gentleman endorses that statement. Then surely
      1794
      the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the Road Board has made any grant towards the spraying of roads. I should be glad to hear that they were doing so. We have been using tar spraying in Devonshire with very considerable advantage, and it would be a branch of work which the Road Board might very well undertake. We, who are local ratepayers and members of local bodies who have to maintain roads, feel a disappointment that the Road Board, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of course honourably thought was going to result in a reduction to the ratepayer ultimately of 4d. in the £, is increasing the burden on the ratepayer, which is already too great. We feel the grievance all the more acutely at present because of the alteration in handing over to the bodies who maintain the roads a stated grant commensurate with the licences received in 1907–8, whereas if we were to receive towards the upkeep of the roads the proceeds of the licences to which we are entitled to-day we should have a very much larger source of income than we have at present. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the arrangement believing it was convenient for public bodies and would do complete justice. In Devonshire alone last year we received £4,400 less than we should have received if we had taken the actual licences collected. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this fact into consideration and see if something cannot be done, either through the Road Board, or by the alteration of the system of handing over local taxation licences to the county body, to relieve the burden resting upon us. At present we have, through the great increase of motor traffic, greatly increased the wear of the roads, which local ratepayers have to find the money to repair, whereas the licences which accrue from the increased motor traffic go to the Imperial Exchequer. That is most unfair. The increase of the motor traffic has greatly increased the cost of the upkeep of the roads, and surely the increased revenue that comes from the increased motor traffic should go to the local bodies and not to the Imperial Exchequer. It is not that we in the country districts want to shirk our fair share of the cost of the upkeep and of the public services, and we do not ask favouritism towards rural districts as against the town, but we appeal to him to consider more than ever in the days of increased motor traffic that the maintenance of the main roads is an Imperial responsibility, and therefore should

      1795
      be met much more than at present from the Imperial Exchequer rather than from the local rates. I trust that the Road Board will go as far in that direction as the Act of Parliament will enable them to do.
      Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) told us the reasons which the Road Board had for adopting the policy of refusing to give grants to local authorities unless a considerable contribution is made by the local bodies. Personally, I think the reasons were inadequate, but whether they were right or wrong in coming to the decision, the hon. Baronet did not answer the question which was so very clearly put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst), namely, why it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward this scheme, not only stated, but definitely promised, that this money was going to be used towards the reduction of the local rates. I hope the Financial Secretary will explain why it was this has not been carried out. It was not only during the passage of the Bill that that pledge was given, but afterwards, because as late as 10th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question, said this:
      "It is within the power of the Treasury on the recommendation of the Development Commission to make advances either by way of grant or loan out of and up to the total amount of the development fund."
      Clearly at that time the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was advocating was that the Road Board should give a grant up to the total amount, and although during the Debate this afternoon certain reasons may have been brought forward as to why County Councils should contribute a certain amount towards the expense incurred in these improvements, I do not think any good reason has been brought forward to show why any charge should be put upon the rural district councils. I would specially urge the hon. Baronet, as a member of the Road Board, to consider the advisability of reconsidering their decision as to not granting contributions to district councils without making it compulsory on them to spend money and increase the rates. One hon. Member opposite said it would not be advisable to do so because it might lead to great extravagance, but the Road Board are masters of the situation, and if they find that the district councils are applying unfairly sums greater than they should get, they can always check that by refusing to give grants. The Road Board
      1796
      can by their surveyors and advisers perfectly well discriminate for themselves as to whether an application is really for what is in the nature of improvement and not in the ordinary nature of the upkeep or everyday expenditure which councils should make. Further, not only in an extra burden thrust upon the local ratepayers if the rural district councils have to spend these large sums in order to get any benefit out of the grants at all, but in addition there is extra expenditure thrown upon the local authorities for the upkeep of these improvements. If an improvement is made in a road the cost does not begin and end with the improvement, but there is the annual upkeep if the road is widened, or is kept in a better state, and so year by year a greater expenditure is cast upon the ratepayers to keep up that improved standard. We all know that wherever a grant is made by the county authority to the district authorities, pressure is put on them to see that the road is kept up to a high standard, otherwise the grant is withheld or reduced, and that in itself is quite sufficient burden to put upon the local authorities. The good which may be derived by this development grant will be not only minimised, but in many instances cannot be taken advantage of if some steps are not taken to reduce this very large demand put on small local authorities by the Road Board, because if this grant is given, as it is intended, entirely for an improvement, that improvement will not come under ordinary expenditure, and indeed may be an improvement which is not necessarily for the benefit of local traffic, and would not therefore be undertaken by the local council.
      6.0 P.M.
      In the Constituency I represent I am chairman of a rural district council, and I know that applications were before the Road Board this year for improvements to certain roads which, under no circumstances, could that district council itself undertake. The rates are already high, and these improvements are only rendered necessary by the fact that, with increasing motor traffic along the south coast, the roads are too narrow in places. I do feel that the hon. Baronet should try to see whether the Road Board cannot carry out the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, namely, that local rates should be relieved, and so enable some benefit to be derived locally from this fund. Otherwise I foresee that the whole of the money will be used in large

      1797
      populous and probably rich districts, and not given to the smaller rural districts, which are most in need of this grant.
      Mr. KING: We have had a very interesting discussion, and incidentally it seems to me to have brought out one or two important principles. I think it has illustrated the extreme difficulty, which is increasingly felt, of retaining control by this House over additional expenditure. The speech of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cambridgeshire, brought out the fact that really the Road Board are in very close contact and agreement with the Treasury. We have also had it brought out in the course of the Debate that that is a very unusual state of things. The hon. Baronet seemed to take credit to himself and his Board that they got on so well with the Treasury. For my part I take it rather as an accusation which he was unwittingly, but very clearly, making against himself. The Treasury exists to carry on the work of the different departments, with as much regularity and lack of enterprise, and with as little couarge and progress as possible, and it seems to me, therefore, that when a new department starts by saying that they have never had a moment's difficulty or doubt with the Treasury, it shows that the department is carrying on its work without courage and enterprise, and without any real progressive principles. That really came out in the course of the hon. Baronet's speech. He said that they were dead against making any new roads at all.
      I understood that this Road Board was going to make new roads where they were necessary. I am sure many of us know many districts in which it is absolutely necessary to have a new road. I may mention just two which are probably familiar to most Members of the House. Any Member travelling by road westward from London, say to Bristol or any of the great towns in the west, must go through Uxbridge. Now there is no more dangerous place for anybody to pass through in any kind of vehicle. I am not sure that it is not even dangerous to pass through that town as a passenger on the sidewalk. I hold that one of the improvements which will benefit not only the dwellers in that locality, but all those living west of London, would be the providing of some substantial improvement in the road communication of Uxbridge. I take another instance in my own locality. Anybody who goes down the Portsmouth Road, whether to Goodwood Races or a Naval Review,
      1798
      has to pass through the town of Godalming, a small town with a narrow High Street, with a sixteen or seventeen feet roadway. That is the main road for something like half a mile on the great Portsmouth highway. It would be perfectly easy, and it would be obviously the right and sensible thing to do, to make a detour road round the outside of that little country town. That would greatly facilitate the whole traffic between London and the south-western districts. I hope that is the sort of scheme which will in future be taken up. Apparently, from the statement of the hon. Baronet, it is a scheme which up to the present has not even been looked at, and until it is looked at I am sure the Road Board will not be fulfilling the duties expected of it by the country.
      I should like to call attention to another matter—namely, the conditions under which the Road Board carries on its work. It is quite obvious from this Debate in which we have had expressions of opinion from a number of Members engaged in the work of county councils and districts councils, that the actual conditions under which the Road Board is giving grants are not fully understood. We ought to be able to go to some public announcement—some Blue Book or report of the Road Board in which the lines of its policy will be distinctly laid down. That may be forthcoming when we get the promised report, but apparently, so far as I gather from the Debate, the rules and conditions under which grants are made are not yet fully and clearly laid down. I want also to add my protest to that made by a number of hon. Members that the amount of money going out is apparently going entirely to the rural counties and the large country disticts on the basis of population. It is quite true that the great increase of traffic on the roads, and motor traffic especially, has hit the rural districts much harder than the town districts. At the same time there are many parts of urban and city districts which are as much in need of improvement as is the case in the country. Moreover, when you want to improve an urban district by widening a road or cutting off a corner— and that ought to be done in many more instances than the hon. Baronet is aware of—it is much more expensive to carry through; in fact, the cost is often so high as to be quite prohibitive.
      I trust that the policy of asking for a pro rata contribution will not always be adhered to. A pro rata contribution from a local authority seems to me to penalise

      1799
      those authorities which are poor, and though I think it is often desirable to insist upon it in dealing with rich authorities, yet I am sure there are many cases in which it would be right, fair and advisable not to insist upon that condition. I hope as a result of this Debate that we shall have more information, and that we shall have greater interest also in the country in the beneficent work which is now only beginning, but which I am sure, will have in future more and more significance.
      Mr. HICKS BEACH: I am sure the House was very much interested to hear what the hon. Member (Mr. King) said in regard to the business of the Treasury. He told us that it was the duty of the Treasury to see that other Departments carried out their business regularly with lack of enterprise, and with as little courage and progress as possible. That is rather a sweeping condemnation of the unfortunate Treasury. I think that the primary duty of the Treasury is to see that other Departments do not spend the money which is voted to them in an extravagant and an unsatisfactory manner. I think it was a satisfactory part of the hon. Baronet's speech in which he told us that the Road Board had not spent even half of the money allocated to it up to the present. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Act has been interpreted totally different to the intention with which it was passed. Let us remember in the first place what were the grounds on which this money was devoted to the purposes of the Road Board. A very large additional sum was to be derived from the increased duties paid by the owners of motor cars, and from the new duty imposed upon petrol. Those representing the motor car industry and the petrol industry relaxed their opposition to the duties when they were told that the proceeds would go towards improving the roads of the country. Upon that ground these new and increased taxes were let through this House in the Committee stage of the Budget in a much shorter time than they would have been if there had been no such promise given. This amounted to £600,000 a year. We were told, when the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act was passed, that this sum was to be devoted to the improvement of the roads of the country, and to mitigate the nuisance which was being caused to the unfortunate residents in
      1800
      the country on account of the dust raised by motor-cars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also led us to believe that the beneficent action of the Road Board in expending this £600,000 a year would have a tendency to diminish and not to increase the actual amount of rates paid to the highway boards of the country, and what I do not understand is how the Commissioners can ask the authorities for and insist upon a definite contribution in order to obtain a grant from the Road Board. Section 8, Sub-section (4), of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act provides:—
      "An advance to a highway authority may be either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and shall be upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Board think fit."
      The Board have interpreted the last part of that paragraph in a very broad way, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury that when that particular Sub-section was passed it did not occur to anybody's mind that the Board would interpret the last two lines in the way they have done. They are most enigmatic, but they have been read to signify that the Board could impose such terms as they thought fit in regard to repayment, the amount of interest, and the number of years that should be allowed to pay off the loan. It never occurred to anybody's mind that in order to obtain any grant at all the local authority would have to spend an additional sum to what they were already spending on roads. I think it was understood that no highway authority would be able to obtain a grant if they diminished the amount they had usually expended upon roads. The whole object, in our mind, of this Road Development Act was to mitigate the nuisance caused by motor-cars to residents of the country where highway authorities do not feel that it is capable of being mitigated with the funds at their disposal; and they, therefore, looked to these funds, derived from the Road Board, to be able to assist them in that respect. I agree cordially with my hon. Friend in thinking that the Commissioners have very much exceeded their powers in the way they have carried out this Act. There is one other point. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) urged that some of this money should be spent on widening streets in some of the big towns.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Widening the roads and cutting off corners.
      Mr. HICKS BEACH: I thought the. hon. Gentleman rather urged the hon. Baronet to persuade the Development Commissioners to spend large sums of this money in widening some of the narrow streets in our towns.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: No; what I said was that we should have an opportunity of making application for road improvements in the boroughs, but each case should be decided on its merits.
      Mr. HICKS BEACH: I venture to ask the hon. Baronet to stick to the terms of his Resolution, and not to devote any of this money to widening streets in towns, because, after all, it is much better to make a new road round the town than to spend a very large sum of money widening streets for the benefit of the town itself. The whole object of the Road Grant is to improve the communication between one town and another. It is not to improve the actual streets of the town. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), who is very anxious to have a new road built round Godalming in order that he might motor down to Goodwood races in comfort. That is a very desirable tiling, and I hope that the next time he goes down to Goodwood he will have a very pleasant time. There is one very important announcement as regards the agricultural part of the work of the Development Commissioners. They contemplate an expenditure of £40,000 a year for agricultural research, and they propose to allocate £65,000 a year for agricultural education in England and Wales. I believe that this £65,000 a year has been sanctioned by the Treasury on the understanding that it shall take the form of a Grant of £325,000, which is not to be exceeded in the next five years. That is quite the same thing as a Grant of £65,000 a year. I quite agree that there is nothing on which the Development Commissioners could spend money to better advantage than on agricultural research, and I very cordially welcome the Grant of £40,000 for that purpose. But I am not quite certain as to what is the method by which this Education Grant of £65,000 a year is to be spent. I have been informed by a Chairman of an Agricultural Education Committee of a county council that they are being told there that they are to start a sort of farm of instruction, and they do not know what is meant. They do not know whether they are to start an ex-
      1802
      perimental farm or a farm which is to be a model for all the farmers round about. These are two very different things, because it passes the wit of man to conduct an experimental farm in a way that will show a profit at the end of the year. After all, I do not think the county council are quite the best people to start experimental farms.
      Nothing is more valuable to an agriculturist than to know what is the actual effect of certain chemicals on a certain soil on his farm, and it is very essential to find out what are the actual experiments which may be of advantage to the soil in that neighbourhood. But if the county councils are to start a farm which is to be a model for farmers in the neighbourhood the first thing the farmers look into will be the balance-sheet of the farm. If the county council farm shows a balance on the right side then farmers may be disposed to think that they do not know everything about farming, and that there may be something for them to learn from a farm of this kind; but if the kind of farm to be started by the county council is to be of an experimental nature and, consequently, does not show a profit, the carrying on of that farm will be absolutely a waste of expenditure, because no farmer will have any respect at all for a farm which is pretending to be a model which does not show a handsome profit at the end of the year. I was glad to see, in reference to forestry, that the Commission are taking a much more cautious view than a Commission which reported not so very long ago. I would venture to suggest that they would make as much use as possible of the existence of a certain number of people who have got a certain number of acres of wood. What they have not got is scientific knowledge; it would be best to tell them how to make use of their wood. It would be a real advantage to the country as a whole if the Commissioners would start a school in which trained foresters would be brought up so that these trained foresters could be used as peripatetic instructors going about advising existing owners of woodlands. This might be done very well, and it would be a great advantage to the State, because the owner would bear the cost of the experiment. What he would get in return would be the trained and skilled advice of someone who really knows his business. A great deal might be done to improve the forestry of the country in that way, and it would be far cheaper to the State as a whole than to set up a large number

      1803
      of experimental stations. If the right hon. Gentleman will answer these points I will be very much obliged.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has raised two important points upon the work of the Development Commissioners, which I do not think come within the scope of the matter which we are discussing, and I am not prepared to go into details of the points which have been raised. It is quite true that proposals have been made by the Development Commissioners for the expenditure of sums, amounting approximately to £300,000, for agricultural education, and that that point is now under the consideration of the Treasury. No decision, so far as I am informed, has been yet arrived at on this point, and therefore it is premature to discuss in this House considerations on both sides which may affect us in our judgment and our decision upon that question.
      Mr. HICKS BEACH: Have not instructions been sent out to the various county councils concerned as to the particular manner in which it is desired that the money should be spent?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I confess I am not prepared to answer offhand. I understand that the question is under discussion, but I would rather, if the hon. Gentleman will not press his point, not discuss it this afternoon. I have, unfortunately, to be responsible in this House for a number of departments, and it is rather difficult to carry the detail of each of them in one's head. I come back, therefore, with the permission of the House, to the subject which we have been discussing, and I think discussing with great profit to all of us this afternoon. We had the advantage at an earlier stage of this Debate of both the first-hand and first-rate exposition of the principles which have guided; the Road Board Commissioners in their policies and views, and it would be really almost superfluous of me to develop this afternoon the sphere of activity of that Commission after the speech of my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Cambridge. But there are certain points on which I may cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" in relation to his speech, if the House will so far bear with me in patience. I think the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) rather complained —and he spoke in unison with Members on that side of the House—that the report of
      1804
      the Road Commission was not before the House. I would beg the House to consider the circumstances in which that Commission worked during the past year.
      It is only fourteen or fifteen months ago, and not two years ago as the hon. Gentleman says, that the Commission was constituted. It consists of five members, of whom Sir George Gibb, whom I need not eulogise, was appointed chairman. The other Commissioners are Lord Pirie, Lord Kingsburgh, representing Scotland, Lord St. Davids, representing Wales, and my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Charles Rose), representing the interests of England on that Commission. I venture to say that a better informed body of men for discussing this kind of subject has not been got together in recent years, and when their names were submitted to the House they commanded general approval and commendation from all quarters; and I am quite sure they have done nothing since that time to forfeit the good opinion which was then held about them. Their field of operations was exceedingly varied and extensive. It embraced the communications of the whole of the three countries. Therefore, it was essential before they entered upon any operation which would diminish the fund at their disposal, and therefore deprive localities which were in need of their assistance, to gain a full knowledge of all the difficulties that it was desired to deal with. Therefore they circularised—and they were very wise in doing so—all the local authorities as I am informed in this country. They did not stop short, as my hon. Friend suggested, at county councils, but I am informed that they sent circulars out to county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs, and district councils.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I simply took a statement of the hon. Member for Newmarket. He stated distinctly that circulars had been sent out to the county councils.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite understand why my hon. Friend referred to the matter. I only place the facts before him so that any misapprehension in his mind may be corrected.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: It is the policy of the Road Board to exempt.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am coming to that. They circularised all the local authorities for the purpose of getting the best information they possibly could as to the requirements of the different localities

      1805
      throughout the country and they have been receiving a vast number of applications from all kinds and sorts of local authorities involving as my hon. Friend pointed out about £8,000,000. It is rather important to see, in view of the complaints of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the kind of applications that were made to the Road Board. Directly from county councils and other authorities within their administrative area there were applications not for the creation of new roads but for the improvement of roads to the amount of £1,700,000. For the widening of roads, £2,500,000; for road diversions, £500,000; for reconstruction and improvement of bridges, £660,000; and for new roads and bridges, £340,000. Therefore, in respect of the opinion of the local authorities, so far as they can be gathered from the applications which these authorities made to the Road Board, what they wanted was the improvement of the crust of existing roads. They also wanted, and mainly in the rural areas and not the urban areas, the widening and improvement of corners in the existing roads. These facts are very important, because they show the trend of the opinion of the country. That is so far as England is concerned. The same proportions are true of Scotland, and the same proportions are true of Ireland. In Ireland there is a desire, not for new roads and bridges, because there was no application from Ireland for that purpose, but entirely for the improvement of the existing road crusts. The result of the applications from all three countries is this:—To improve the road crusts, the applications amounted to £3,500,000; for road widening and improvements, £2,750,000. For road diversions, etc., £500,000; for reconstruction and improvement of bridges, £750,000; and for new roads and bridges for the whole of the country, only £340,000. I think that is a very significant indication of what the public demand in the way of improved communication in the country. The Committee will see that the applications were decidedly in excess of the revenues available, as my hon. Friend behind me has pointed out, which were estimated at £1,200,000, but actually amounted to £1,160,000.
      Therefore, it was clearly necessary that the Board should proceed with great caution and hesitation, and even, if you like, with delay, in allotting the sums which were at their command, not merely because the funds were inadequate to the applications, but in order that the sums
      1806
      which they had got might be devoted to the best possible use amongst all those various local authorities. The Board therefore, in deciding which of the applications they should entertain and which of them they should entertain first, have to lay down certain general propositions for themselves. They have first of all to decide what should be the relative share of the three countries in the sum of over a million—which they thought themselves justified in estimating for. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, they gave £750,000 to England, £150,000 to Ireland, and £175,000 to Scotland. Having done that, taking the sum available for the three countries, and as far as that went, they gave to the local authorities in the three countries amounts based on the possible disposal of each sum in each different country. The hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst) laid stress upon the fact that he has been disappointed in the amount by which the rates have been relieved by the action of the Road Board, and by the disposal of the sums which they have at command.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: I was very careful not to talk about being disappointed. What I laid emphasis upon was the extent to which the local rates would be increased.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was coming to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was saying that he was disappointed that the country was not being relieved in respect of rates, and he was alarmed by the fact that the rates have been raised. I gather that in some localities from what he stated the rates have been raised by 4d in the £.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: I did not say that. What I said was that this contribution demanded by the Road Board from local authorities would have the effect in various localities of increasing the rates in the counties from 1d. to 3d. in the £.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman is alarmed because the rates may not be reduced and that they will even go up. I have had an opportunity of consulting the reference to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion in regard to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend on the 20th May, 1909, said:—
      "I think the fund ought to be devoted solely to the use of the highway authorities of the country. It is intended to be used for the purpose of improving the

      1807
      roads and to make better motor roads. Naturally, no doubt, that will have an effect on the local charges, for the simple reason that a good many local authorities now spend huge sums of money in making roads fit for motors, and to that extent grants must reduce the rates in districts where considerable sums of money are spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1909, col, 686, Vol. V.]
      That was the expectation of my right hon. Friend. I am going to put this to the House, if I may. It is clear, from the applications which I have read from the local authorities that, having regard to the heavy traffic of motors, the roads of the United Kingdom would have to be improved out of all previous knowledge, and, if the Road Board with its funds had not intervened, the whole of that expenditure must have been borne, under existing legislation, by the local authorities. That would have involved not the 1d. or 3d. to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but a very much greater sum, an incalculably greater sum, the whole cost of which would have fallen on the shoulders of the ratepayers all over the country.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the local authorities, in regard to any large scheme, could have borrowed the necessary money, and not paid for it out of the rates?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that objection has very much to do with the point I am arguing.
      Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me——
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in possession.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am trying to develop what I believe to be a perfectly sound general argument, that the communications were not up to the standard required, that the crusts of the roads would have to be improved in any case, and that the whole burden of that improvement would have fallen upon the ratepayers if it had not been for the sum put at the disposal of the Road Board by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, I believe, to be a perfectly incontrovertible proposition. What has happened? An allocation has been made amongst the various local authorities which, of course, does not give satisfaction to every interest concerned. But we have to take into consideration the bearing of the claims of urban authorities and of rural districts, and, in doing that, the Board has wisely come to the conclusion that what it has got to consider
      1808
      is not the purely local needs or requirements of a particular town or particular city, which no doubt desires and deserves that its internal communications shall be improved, but that those internal improvements should be completed, not at the cost of the general taxes but at the cost of the residents in the particular town. The real need of a town or city is the improvement of communication between neighbouring centres of industry and commerce, so that access to the town or city may be made easier, and that communication with its neighbours of all sorts and kinds should be improved as far as the funds are available for that purpose. That, I believe, is the true line to take, and it is the line taken by the Road Board. Once the Road Board arrived at these general conclusions, it had, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a large number of conferences with local authorities, and if hon. Gentlemen will only recall the number of days that the Board has been in existence, and the number of conferences which it has held with rural authorities, they will see that nearly on every other day, certainly on every third day, since it has come into existence, it has held conferences in one part of the country or another, travelling to Scotland or Ireland for the purpose of many of those conferences. The Board have actually on every third day of their existence had a conference with some local authority or other, which is proof of their activity and their thoroughness in going into the questions with which they have to deal. Having settled first of all the kind of improvement which was desired, the Board then had to say what part of the improvement was to be borne by the Road Board and what part was to be borne by the locality which would gain the benefit of the improvement.
      There are two kinds of improvements which may be made in communications if they are desired by the local authorities. One is the improvement of the crust of the road, which it was found by experience in many cases had actually been worn down to the bone, as it were, that is to within an inch or two of the original surface, by the extremely heavy pressure of the traffic during the last two or three years. The Board has, in the first place, to decide that point, and then it has to allocate as between the Road Board and the local authority, how much of the treatment of the road, giving it a new crust, could be fairly ascribed to improvement and how much could be ascribed to repair of the

      1809
      existing road surface. In many cases no doubt that was difficult to do. Supposing, as I think the hon. Gentleman suggested, the whole improvement had been borne by the Road Board: the hon. Member opposite and I are both members of county councils, and he must be aware, as I am aware, that every local authority is exceedingly generous in spending Imperial funds. It does not always consider the best way of spending those funds; it has got a certain amount allocated to it, and is generally in a hurry to get rid of the funds placed at its disposal. When it has to spend its own funds then it is exceedingly careful and economical, and It him administers its own funds admirably. Here we have an attempt upon the part of the Road Board to combine the advantage of both systems—to give to the local authority a generous contribution towards the cost of the improvements, while, on the other hand requiring the local authority to contribute to that improvement such a proportion of the cost as would induce it to produce adequate plans and adequate specifications; in fact, well prepared and well-thought-out plans for the improvement it proposes. They, therefore, fix in some cases, though not in all, a proportion which amounts to about 75 per cent, from the Road Board, leaving the locality 25 per cent. I think the House will consider that the amount which will ultimately be at the disposal of local authorities for a scheme either actually sanctioned, or in the course of being sanctioned by the Board, to meet the requirements of traffic due to general causes will be very considerable, and that amount, but for this grant or subsidy, must have fallen entirely upon the shoulders of the local ratepayers. I read out just now to the House a summary of the applications which were made to the Board. Let me give one or two figures as to the amount of the grants which have been already made to the local authority. For the improvement of crusts to the county councils and subordinate authorities within their administrative areas there have been granted altogether £209,000, for widening £35,000, for road diversion £10,000, for reconstruction of bridges, £10,000, making in all £264,000.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: From information supplied by the Road Board.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why have we not got it?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I was speaking on the subject before.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: I came in the moment I saw the right hon. Gentleman's name on the recorder.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman having been absent. I am only supplying him with information given to the House when he was absent. It is hardly necessary to explain that two years have not elapsed, as the hon. Gentleman alleged, since the Board came into being, but barely fifteen months.
      Mr. PEELmade some remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I thought I had spoken to some effect. The Board had to start an entirely new work and get itself into swing, and until it had been some time in existence it had nothing to report to the House. I am obliged for the courtesy of the interruption. It was also suggested that the policy of loaning sums have been entirely neglected. That is not so. The amount of loan is at present exceedingly small. I think it only amounts to £7,500, some of which is free from interest, and some of which is at 3½ per cent, interest. There have, however, been other sums which are practically settled, and when the final details can be presented to the House, and when the report of the Board is actually printed it will show that a very much larger sum is either actually in contemplation to be loaned, or the whole details of which are complete. There is only one other point in connection with expenditure I should like to deal with. Some hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate suggested that there was a very considerable staff which was swallowing up half of the revenues of the Board. That is not so. The cost of the staff is only £6,660 per year, and the travelling expenses, etc., represent £5,000, and the total ratio of the cost of the staff to the expenditure is only 1.76, a very moderate figure, I think, for the administration of so large a Parliamentary Grant as this. I hope that may reassure the hon. Gentleman opposite that his fears are unreal. I can only say in conclusion, I think, though they have not been able to present to the House before the Adjournment a printed report, yet that which I and my hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) have been able to report to the House, he as a working member of the Board and I as the official responsible to this House for the sums

      1811
      which are placed by Parliament at its disposal, I think we have been able to show to the House that they have done good work; that they have had very difficult considerations to deal with; that they have dealt with them upon a rational basis, and though they have not embarked upon the work of construction of new roads, and though perhaps there may not be even in contemplation by them indirect construction of new roads, that has been due to the fact that the local authorities who are concerned in the introduction of new communication between place and place have, at all events for the present, more earnestly desired the improvement of existing communications than the control of new roads.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is there any intention of specially dealing with what I call the intensely tourist parts of the country, which are really so poor. The Killarney road, for instance; is that to be left in a state of chaos.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand in that particular case one of the local authorities concerned, the Kerry County Council, has refused to accept the terms the Road Board offered.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Naturally.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are refusing terms which are more advantageous to them than the existing state of affairs, because the whole sum may not be adequate or to their expectations.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I respectfully say, by the indulgence of the House, that the road in question is purely a tourist road. It is absolutely of no account to the county, absolutely none whatever. It is purely for the advantage of strangers coining to the district. Of course, it is most desirable that they should come. The road has been reduced to its present condition purely by tourist motors, and not by any local traffic The only local traffic on it consists of a few donkeys. Here is this road ploughed up by tourists, and you ask the local people to pay for it. It is really monstrous, and you cannot expect it.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not pretend to know the road as well as the hon. Gentleman, but I have travelled over some of the world, and it is my experience that tourists bring a considerable amount of money into the districts, and they also cause the creation of a very considerable
      1812
      amount of buildings, which add to the rateable value of the county. That side of the question must not altogether be forgotten in any argument on this particular case. I am sorry to have diverged from the point which I wish to make in conclusion to the House, namely, I think that the Road Board have deserved well of this House for their activities during the time they have been in existence, and that they have accomplished not little, but much.
      Mr. PEEL: I listened very carefully to the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to why the Road Board have not issued any report. I am bound to say, after listening to those reasons, that if my hon. Friend insists on the Amendment and goes to a Division, I shall be very glad to support him, because I am afraid the reasons the right hon. Gentleman gave were entirely inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed rather to resent my interruption, and I should like to put the matter to him in this way. I do not say a word against the Road Board or the composition of the Road Board. I quite agree that the appointments were very admirable and very good ones, but surely it is no argument to say that because you have good men appointed to the Board they should not report to Parliament as to the way in which they spend their money. I think that is a monstrous suggestion. What is the other reason why we are told they should not present their Report. It was that they have only been working fourteen or fifteen months. But the Development Commission have produced a report, and a valuable report, and I do not quite see why one body should be excused from doing what the other did. An hon. Friend calls my attention to Section 14, under which it is provided that the Road Board shall annually make to the Treasury a report of their proceedings. I do say in all seriousness that it is not very satisfactory, where a considerable sum of money is to be spent by the Board, and where they have actually spent a large amount of it, that the only explanation we get is in a sort of semi-casual way owing to the accident that one of the members happens to be a Member of Parliament, and that we get certain information which the right hon. Gentleman gave to us, and which was handed to him by the Road Board. For this reason especially do I think so. I think it is exceedingly important at the inception of this enterprise, and much more important than when they have been some five or six years working,

      1813
      because it is the principle on which the money is to be expended that we have the most right to know in this House and to criticise. It is impossible to make up our minds on these complicated questions if we are not possesed of any thought-out and considered scheme as to the way in which they are going to spend the money.
      Let me say a word about the Chancellor's view about the raising of rates. I think I am the only Member present, so far as I know, who was on the Committee of the Bill dealing with the Road Board. I am bound to say I never did hear any suggestion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be any saving on the rates. I understand what he said in the House was to suggest that indirectly there would be a saving. After all, the saving which is effected, because if something had not been done some other thing would have been necessary is not a saving on which we can pride ourselves. What he did say was this that though the money was not to be expended on the saving of rates, yet that in the construction of these schemes money for expenditure would not fall on the local authorities, and that the only expenditure that could fall on the local authorities was when new roads had been constructed, or alterations had been made, and when the maintenance of those newly-constructed roads or altered roads would fall on the local authorities. I see that the hon. Baronet opposite shakes his head.
      Sir C. ROSEmade some observations which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.
      Mr. PEEL: I think my recollection is quite right. For that reason, I certainly question whether the Board have the right to make those conditions as to the local authorities finding certain money for the construction of roads. The right hon. Gentleman takes a different view. He does not actually say that they have got the right to do it. What he argued was that it was a very wise method of administration.
      Mr. HOBHOUSEmade some remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. PEEL: I must deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was this, that the county council and local authorities, though very careful with their own expenditure were very careless in the expenditure of what came to them from outside. That would have been an admirable reason as to Government grants
      1814
      that are made to the local authorities, and as to money they spend on certain purposes, but it is not a relevant argument as regards money which is administered by the Road Board, because you have got in this case what you have not got in the others—a special Board of very eminent persons whose whole business it is to see that the Grant is properly expended. That makes the whole difference between the two cases. I am not the least surprised that applications to the extent of £8,000,000 have already been received. We are familiar with the fact that when public money is going there will be any number of people very anxious to take advantage of it. But after all, when the £8,000,000 has been sifted, I daresay that not more than £2,000,000 would be found to be necessary expenditure. Still, we must lay stress on the fact that the Road Board are to be the judges of the matter, and they are responsible for seeing that the money is properly expended.
      The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse), in describing how this money was to be expended, said that it was first of all allocated on certain principles between England, Scotland and Wales. That subject was discussed in Committee upstairs, and my recollection is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly deprecated the division of the spoils, as it were, between the different countries. He rather considered that the money was granted to the Board, who had to spend it in the best possible way, irrespective of the county or country in which it was spent. As I understand, the Board have gone even further than that: they are allocating the money assigned to the different countries among the different counties, so that you have the money split up in the different countries according to the population of the different counties. I do not think that that was the principle or the intention of the Act, and I think it a bad principle. You will never have any large scheme undertaken if you follow that principle. You will have the money, not squandered, but frittered away on a number of small improvements, and you will have great difficulties as to the way in which the surplus shall be dealt with. It is quite clear that the Road Board themselves, on their own confession, are not going to indulge in the creation of any new roads. The new roads would probably be between certain counties, and that would upset the whole principle of allocation on which they have proceeded. I

      1815
      submit that that is a wrong principle, and one that ought not to be followed so closely by the Board. I do not want to say anything about corners, because the hon. Baronet has already been put in a corner by almost every speaker. He is very familiar with Newmarket, where there are no corners. I daresay the corner he knows best is Tattenham Corner. Something, however, might be done in reference to corners, though that, after all, is a small matter. But could not the Board consider the question of loop roads round villages? That is a matter of great importance. Many hon. Members know villages where the twists are so great or the cottages are built so close to the road that it is dangerous for a motor to go through at almost any pace. I hope the Board when considering the allocation of this money will keep in mind these difficulties, which might be avoided by making loop roads.
      Reference has been made to the way in which the Grants have been misconceived by some hon. Members. This money was not granted for the general improvement and development of roads. There was something in the nature of an agreement with the motorists and those who use petrol that if this special tax were taken from them it should be applied in a special way, not for the general development of roads, but for the improvement of roads with a view to motoring. As far as I understood the hon. Baronet it has not been so devoted. There has been a general scattering of money among fortunate counties for the improvement of roads in those counties, but the position of the motorists, from whom the money has been collected, has been very largely forgotten. If my hon. Friend persists in pressing his Motion to a Division, I shall vote with him as a protest against public money being spent in this way by a public body without any records being brought before the House except in a purely casual and indirect manner.
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Development Commissioners in connection with afforestation. May I ask whether the Development Commissioners will deal with afforestation in Scotland?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must confess I have not all the details in mind. I cannot say for the moment.
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The Government have settled that there are to be Small Holdings Commissioners in Scotland, who will be responsible for afforestation. At present there are two authorities in Scotland to deal with this question, and I wanted to know which is to be supported by the Treasury.
      Mr. CASSEL: I approach this question from rather a different point of view from that of any Member who has yet spoken. We have heard the views of representatives of rural areas, of representatives from Ireland, and of representatives of county boroughs. I approach the question as a London Member, and I would ask the hon. Baronet what attitude the Board take with reference to the county of London. The hon. Baronet stated that the Road Board were allocating their funds among the counties according to population. If London is to be treated as a county for this purpose I am afraid that statement is almost too good to be true. London has a claim to share to some extent in this fund. I do not base my claim upon private motor cars, because such cars, although registered in London, no doubt largely tour through the country and injure the roads in those districts. But an enormous proportion of the total funds is derived from payments made in respect of motor omnibuses, motor cabs, and trade motors, and London has an infinitely larger proportion of those vehicles than any other part of the country. According to a calculation which has been made, one-tenth of the entire fund is derived from these sources, in respect of petrol used on the road in the county of London. Therefore, I submit that London has a claim to share in the fund. As I gather, London has not yet been made any allocation at all, but there seems to be a large surplus available, and I would ask that favourable consideration should be given to the facts which I am urging. If it be the policy of the Board that the county of London should have no share in the fund, it is a grievous injustice and I think contrary to the words of the Act. The Act clearly contemplates that London should have a share, because Section 15 states:—
      "For the purposes of this part of this Act the expression 'highway authorities' includes as respects the Administrative County of London the London County Council."

      1817
      If the Road Board intend entirely to exclude the county of London it would be contrary to what appears to be contemplated by those words.
      Sir C. ROSE: The hon. Member may reassure himself. London is to receive an allocation, but the method in which it is to be applied has not yet been decided.
      Mr. CASSEL: I thank the hon. Baronet for that statement. It was not our fault that we were not aware of the fact, as we have had no report before us, and that part of the problem in which, as a London Member, I am specially interested, has not been dealt with in any of the speeches which have been made. Having regard to the fact that one-tenth of the fund is derived from trade motors, motor omnibuses, and motor cabs, taking only the petrol used while going along the roads in the county of London, I submit that London is entitled to a considerable allocation from this fund, and I am glad to hear that it is to have a share.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When these taxes were introduced some two years ago, I made certain appeals to the House from the point of view of the motoring community. We have heard to-day a good deal from the point of view of the county councils, the district councils, and the Road Board, but very little from the point of view of the people who really pay these taxes. I am not quarreling with the attitude of the Road Board generally; but I wish to emphasise the fact that a quasi-agreement was arrived at in this House that these people should pay certain taxes on their petrol and motor cars, and that that money should be looked upon as money paid by motorists in order to wipe away the feelings of indignation with which motorists were undoubtedly at that time regarded in many parts of the country, and also the difficulties which motor traffic undoubtedly caused, in many districts. I admit that motor traffic is, or was, distasteful to very large numbers of the community, and we were quite willing to pay these taxes in order to ease the situation and to make it better, not merely for the motorists, but for the inhabitants of the districts through which the motorists ran. What I think the motorists would really prefer is, for the present at all events, that the bulk of the money should be devoted to the crust of the roads, rather than to their widening or to the cutting off of small corners. As a motorist I do not believe that the cutting off of small corners and the rounding of
      1818
      sharp corners, will really be beneficial to the motorists who drive moderately and properly. If you have a sharp corner, properly protected by a notice board, the decent motorist takes particular care in going round it, not to be a nuisance to anybody else and incidentally not to risk danger to himself. If the money of the Road Board is spent in cutting off corners, or in making it easier for the man described as a "road hog" to spin round corners at twenty or thirty miles an hour, the action of the Board will really not be beneficial either to decent motorists or to the community through whom he motors. I believe that the real objection to motorists is not on account of their speed or even of the danger, but on account of dust, and in that matter the inhabitants of the villages and of the countryside have, if I may say so, my most sincere sympathy. During the late hot weather I have dreaded motoring because of the unpleasantness that the dust is bound to create, and I believe that the Road Board would do well if they would consider applications almost as much for crust development as for road widening. If they would devote their attention for a moment to the improvement of the crust of the roads and the diminution of the dust the object of the motorists who are paying those taxes, of smoothing away the opposition to motoring by the general public, would be very largely achieved. I would also say a few words from the point of view of motorists with regard to the main roads. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) gave us certain figures with regard to applications from local authorities, namely, for crust improvement £3,500,000, for widening and corners £2,750,000, but for new roads only £340,000. What is the explanation of that? It is not that new roads are not desirable or are not wanted, but that new roads are so important and so big that they run through the boundaries of various local authorities, so that no one local authority will make application for a new road.
      I am quite sure the Road Board has had carefully under its notice the very able Report of the Board of Trade recently published on the subject of road development and signed by Sir Herbert Jekyll and Colonel von Donop, another eminent authority. It deals with the roads into and out of London. I did not hear the speech of the hon. Baronet who represents the Road Board, but so far as I can understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) nothing definite has yet been decided by the Road Board with

      1819
      regard to that Report, and the new roads recommended by them. There are new roads required, and we may take as an example one which deals with the constituency with which I am now somewhat closely connected, that is in Brentford, what is called the "Bottle Neck" in Brentford, and another road out of the East End of London. I am not appealing for one or other of these schemes. Every motorist knows, without taking the name of the Monarchy in vain, that, from the time of the late King Edward motoring to Windsor, the road is a disgrace as the principal entrance to the capital of this country. The object of the motorists in coming to this agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago was that at all events a considerable proportion of this money should be spent in entirely new roads. Whether this new road is to take the form of widening the old Brentford High Street I am not now discussing. I am quite sure the Road Board will take it into consideration. But, equally, a new road is urgently needed for the traffic in the East End of London. Let any one go down Commercial Road or Whitechapel Road, and he will see that the whole of the traffic is congested by the large amount of heavy commercial traffic, and motorists do desire that some of this money should be spent in making a new monumental road right through Shoreditch to Colchester and to Romford and beyond that. I may say, with the humility characteristic of motorists in general, and of myself in particular, that we do object to our contributions being, I hardly like to say frittered away, but to there being any large proportion of these grants in proportion to the numerical population of any individual county. I do not want to find undue fault with the Road Board, but I do make the suggestion that that is not the real basis upon which the contributions of the motorists should be divided.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I explain for a moment. I am afraid that I left a misapprehension upon the minds of the Committee. When I was speaking about the population basis I meant as between England, Ireland, and Scotland. I am not aware that the population basis entered into the minds of the Committee in discussing the schemes and the claims of different counties. I desire to remove that misapprehension.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I can quite see that the population of the three countries may be a rough basis in regard to them. But I do want to support the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) with regard to the claim of London. I believe London pays more than one-tenth of the whole of this taxation. Certainly the omnibus and cab proprietors pay at least half of the total of the petrol tax, and at present there has been no expenditure, of any moment, at all events, in the county of London in respect to this heavy taxation upon London motorists and London omnibus and cab companies. I can assure the hon. Baronet who represents the Road Board that we are paying this taxation, and paying it willingly, to a certain extent for the benefit of the public and the improvement of the roads. I do ask the Road Board, though I do not want unduly to press them, to take into consideration very strongly the report of the Board of Trade on the subject of new roads through London, and if he can give us any kind of assurance on that subject we shall be most grateful. I hope that when these Grants and the Estimate comes before the House next year the Road Board will be able to show us that they have taken into account at least one of those great monumental improvements, which were the real object, I think the hon. Baronet will agree in that, which made the motorists so willingly and cheerfully two years ago submit to the imposition of this heavy taxation.
      Colonel YATE: I should like to say a word or two in support of what has been said about the report in favour of new main roads in London. I hope we shall have that report duly considered, and that we shall have some assurance that some of these new main roads will be made. I should like also to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) did not tell us anything about any action by the Roard Board with regard to the cutting of high hedges at cross roads. I think that is a very important point. We may travel as moderately and carefully as we can, but if motorists cannot see each other owing to high hedges at the cross roads accidents may happen at any moment. I should like some assurance that the Road Board will take this question into consideration.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that

      1821
      the subject has not been lost sight of. It is one of the greatest reforms that ought to be carried out.
      Mr. MACMASTER: I only desire to intervene with regard to the question of sharp corners, which are positively dangerous, and are not confined to the Division I represent myself. It is not merely the danger of an impact between two motors, it is the danger of motorists coming into contact with vehicular traffic which cannot be observed owing to sharp turns and corners. Sometimes there are obstructions created by hedges, and on other occasions
      by buildings, and it is quite evident that the roads now used by motors have been constructed with reference to different conditions of traffic from those which prevail to-day. I am not speaking for anybody else but myself, but in the general interest it appears to me that many of these sharp corners should be cut off, and many of the hedges should be shorn and cut away to obviate the dangers of accident now existing to ordinary travelling in the country.
      Question put, "That '£1,744,191' stand part of the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 79.

      Division No. 332.]

      AYES.

      [7.28 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Hackett, J.

      O'Brien Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Hancock, John George

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Alden, Percy

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      O'Dowd, John

      Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

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

      Ogden, Fred

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Barry, Redmond John

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Pointer, Joseph

      Beale, W. P.

      Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Hayward, Evan

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

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

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Bentham, G. J.

      Henry, Sir Charles S.

      Radford, G. H.

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Higham, John Sharp

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Boland, John Pius

      Hinds, John

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hodge, John

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Brunner, J. F. L.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

      Johnson, W.

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Rowlands, James

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Keating, M.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Shortt, Edward

      Clough, William

      King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

      Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

      Collins, G. P. (Greencok)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickland)

      Snowden, Philip

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Leach, Charles

      Sutton, John E.

      Crooks, William

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Logan, John William

      Tennant, Harold John

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Dawes, J. A.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Maclean, Donald

      Wadsworth, J.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Wardle, G. J.

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Waring, Walter

      Essex, Richard Walter

      M'Callum, John M.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Falconer, J.

      M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

      Ferens, T. R.

      Millar, James Duncan

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Morgan, George Hay

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Wiles, Thomas

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Muldoon, John

      Wilkie, Alexander

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Munro, R.

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Gibson, Sir James puckering

      Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Gill, A. H.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Greenwood, Glanville G. (Peterborough)

      Neilson, Francis

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

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

      Nuttall, Harry

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

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Aitken, Sir William Wax

      Fell, Arthur

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Archer-Shee, Major Martin

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Fleming, Valentine

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Pollock, E. M.

      Astor, Waldorf

      Gibbs, G. A.

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

      Baird, J. L.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

      Gretton, John

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Steel Maitland, A. D.

      Bird, A.

      Hamersley, A. St. George

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Boyton, J.

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hills, J. W.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Burn, Col. C. R.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Horner, A. L.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Cassel, Felix

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Cator, John

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

      Cautley, H. S.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Cave, George

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Macmaster, Donald

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

      Clyde, James Avon

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Stewart.

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Mount, William Arthur

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to leave this question of the Killarney Road in its present position. We have not even been told what the offer was that was made to the county council of Kerry. I will not renew the argument I have already put forward, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it in a sufficiently adequate manner. County Kerry generally gets no advantage whatever from these tourist, roads. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this is an extremely large county; it is, I suppose, nearly 190 miles long, and very wide. I very rarely pass over the road; I have nothing to do with the parties concerned, and, therefore, I am speaking with absolute detachment. These counties are not like a fairly rich county, like Cumberland, where people go to the Lakes, and where the road maintenance to a considerable extent falls upon the district. The county; of Kerry stands in a wholly different position. The matter surely is not going to be left in the position in which it is because of this quarrel between the county of Kerry and the Road Board?
      Sir C. ROSE: The views of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be brought to the notice of the Road Board. So far as I can recollect the position of the Board, the cost of the reconstruction of the road was to be £25,000, of which we offered to make a Grant of £4,000.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Quite inadequate.
      Sir C. ROSE: Our own view was that that was very favourable.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: The like of the road does not exist anywhere.
      Sir C. ROSE: The representations of the hon. and learned Member will be brought before the Board.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

      NEW POSTAGE STAMPS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "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."
      For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1696.]
      Mr. TOUCHE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100. I do so in order to direct attention to the question of the new postage stamps and the arrangements made for their manufacture. The House will remember that the Postmaster-General, in his annual statement, promised that the new issue of stamps should be a great improvement on the former

      1825
      issue. I think there is a general consensus of opinion that this promise has not been fulfilled.
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)It was a hope, not a promise.
      Mr. TOUCHE: I regret then that it was a hope which has not been realised. I trust, however, that the Postmaster-General is still hopeful, and that he is taking steps to see that his hope is realised in the future. It is essential that the stamps for postal and revenue purposes should possess great clearness of design and execution, and it is in these respects, amongst others, that the present stamps are greatly lacking. In that way they differ very much from the Victorian stamps engraved by Joubert, to which reference has been made by the Press and by the public in the discussion of this matter. They represent a very remarkable contrast to the present monstrosities. The two chief considerations in connection with the nation's issue of postage stamps are, first, the question of dignity, which, I take it, includes all artistic and aesthetic considerations and good workmanship; and, secondly, protection to the revenue by securing it against forgery and against the removal of the cancellation marks.
      The dignity of the country requires that the postage stamps, which go into every corner of the King's Dominions, and into every foreign country, should be a good likeness of His Majesty, and should be printed in a manner worthy of the traditions of a great industrial country. The protection to the revenue requires that there should be great clearness in the completed form. I am informed that any photographer of average skill could soon prepare the necessary photographic formes, and that from these any lithographer of ordinary experience could print stamps very similar to those of recent issue. The element of protection is therefore lacking, and it is lacking, because recent issues lack that clearness of printing which alone baffles the combined skill of the photographer and the lithographic printer. These facts were realised as far back as 1880 by the then Postmaster-General. There is in the library a very interesting Bluebook, published in 1888, containing a report of a Select Committee appointed to consider the Revenue Department Estimates. Any Member who desires to make himself better acquainted with the many difficulties connected with what super-
      1826
      ficially appears the very simple matter of the preparation of postage stamps cannot do better than read that Bluebook; also the memorandum prepared by Sir Charles Herries and the various documents handed in by Mr. De la Rue. From the evidence of the Select Committee it appears that previous to 1880 stamps nearly as bad as the recent issue were in general use for the lower denominations—that is, for the penny and halfpenny denominations. These stamps did not fulfil the requirements of the then Postmaster-General, and after investigation a public competition was held. The result of that competition was that Messrs. De la Rue, who were then printing the stamps of the higher denomination, obtained also the contract for printing the stamps of the lower denominations. We heard a good deal lately about a saving upon the cost of production. The amount of saving has not been revealed to the House, although it is frequently asked for, but in connection with this it is interesting to recall the fact that the contract then given, as the report shows, was not given solely upon the question of price but even more upon the question of quality. The tender which at that time was accepted was not the lowest tender. The work of the contractors was the only work reported to fulfil the chemical conditions which the safety of the Revenue required rigid adherence to. At that time the method of the manufacture was very carefully examined by the Government. They took the evidence of experts as to the possibility of fraudulent printing and as to the possibility of the removal of the cancellation marks. The contract was only given to the former contractor after the most careful investigation, and I believe up to last year this contractor supplied the stamps required by the Government on the whole very satisfactorily. The consideration to which at that time a great deal of weight was given, and which does not appear to have received the same weight lately, was the ability of the contractor to produce stamps clearly printed from finely engraved plates. It is not work that can be undertaken by any commercial printer, no matter how enterprising he may be; it is necessary, if good results are to be obtained, that an engraver should be engaged who has a knowledge of printing as well as engraving, so that he may be able to determine the exact degree of fineness of line and the exact proximity of line to line which could be worked commercially on the printing press, and it is necessary also that he

      1827
      should have other qualifications; that he should possess sufficient artistic ability to be able to make such alterations in the original design as are necessitated by the transposition from paper to steel and subsequent surface printing on paper.
      The Government, in their new arrangements, have observed none of these considerations, and they have discarded the very healthy past practice of making the contractor completely responsible for the whole process, from the original engraving of the die to the reproduction of the design in the completed stamp. We understand that the plates for the new issue have not been made by the contractors; they have been made at the Mint. I do not wish to reflect in any way upon the ability of those who are engaged in the Mint. I am confident we have engravers of very great skill there, but I would submit that the experience of engravers at the Mint is chiefly in respect of cutting dies for medals and coins in relief, which is totally different to the art of line engraving for surface printing. The remainder of the work has to be done by the contractor, and is given to printers who have not had previous experience in the manufacture of postage stamps.
      I asked the Secretary to the Treasury if they had any experience, and he very courteously told me they had manufactured stamps for one of our small Colonies. That was the limit of their experience, and a very inadequate experience it is for the large and important contract of supplying stamps for the United Kingdom. The Secretary to the Treasury stated that in his opinion the division of the responsibility which arises from the fact that the contractor does not do the whole of the work from start to finish, has worked satisfactorily. I do not think that is the general opinion, judging by the results. It is not the opinion of the Postmaster-General, for he has very frankly expressed disappointment with the new stamps produced under this arrangement. What is the result of this division of responsibility? The result is that neither the Mint nor the contractors can be held wholly responsible for the present abominations. Each of them can, with some measure of reason and justification no doubt, complain of the work of the other. The Government tell us they are disappointed with the work, but if the contractor alone had been responsible, as in the past, then it would have been open to the Government to refuse the work
      1828
      with which they profess to be disappointed. I can well understand, however, it is difficult for them to refuse work when it is impossible to lay the entire blame for the unsatisfactory result upon the present firm of printers engaged in producing these stamps.
      There is a remarkable feature about this supply of our stamps, and it is this, that at the present time, or at least so recently as last month—I have not asked what happened during the present month—but as recently as July, the new contractors were still printing stamps from the plates of the old contractors. I want to know why they are doing that, and why they continue to do it to a very large extent? Is it because the Government are ashamed of the new issue? Is it because the contractors have been experiencing a difficulty with the plates manufactured by the Mint? The Secretary to the Treasury assured me that was not the reason, and I should like to know why, after this long period of time, it is still necessary for the new contractors to use the old plates and the old stamps? And if their difficulty is with the present plates, and if the present contractors feel inability to take entire charge of the work, from start to finish, then I should like to know how are the requirements of the country to be satisfied when the present De la Rue plates are worn out? I should like to know whether the old contractors have been requested to continue the supply of plates until the Mint has learned how to execute the necessary work. Another remarkable feature is that although the old plates have been used, the stamps printed from the old plates by the new contractors are not satisfactory. I am told they can be readily distinguished by the scarcity of gum, by their bad sticking qualities and by the irregularity of the perforation. I am told also the paper is of precisely the same quality, and generally I believe it comes from the same mill, yet you hear people complain of the flimsiness of the new stamp. As there is no difference in the inherent quality of the material, this can. only be attributed to the difference in manipulation. You have the same plates and the same paper, and yet an inferior article is produced. It tears across the face of the stamp and not in the line of perforation. Possibly to some extent, that is due to the machinery used by the new contractors.
      8.0 P.M.
      I elicited the other day that the machinery in use comes from abroad. I believe it is imported, like our new sea law, from Germany. I asked if there was

      1829
      any provision in the contract requiring that the machinery should be British made, and I was told that, owing to an oversight, that provision had not been inserted. The right hon. Gentleman went further and said there were no British firms who were able to produce that machinery. If that were so, it is difficult to reconcile it with the theory of the oversight, because it would be unreasonable to put in such a provision that only British firms were to be employed, if no British firm could supply the machinery. If I am not misinformed, the old contractors did not use German machinery. I have seen, from statements in the Blue Book, that the old contractors made a great deal of their own machinery, and if it was possible for them to make machinery of British origin for the manufacture of British postage stamps, I cannot understand why it should be necessary to enter into an arrangement by which we are now dependent upon Germany for our stamps. The Secretary to the Treasury informed me the other day that a certain number of adhesive stamps are to be printed at Somerset House. The 6d. and 2s. 6d. unified and revenue stamps are to be printed there, and 5s., 10s., and 20s. postage, and all the revenue and fee stamps proper. These are all to be printed by the Government at Somerset House. Might I suggest that, as the work of the new contractors is proved to be of a retrograde character, although stamps of a better quality and more highly finished were promised, the Government should undertake the entire work of the printing of postage stamps? Are they not in a better position to do so than the present contractors? If not, the issue of the higher denominational stamps must be anticipated with grave apprehension from the safety of the Revenue. In times past it was, I understand, the custom to keep six months' supply of stamps in the country. That was done in order to meet any possible contingency, such as fire, or any possible interruption of production owing to strikes. We all know that strikes break out in the most unlikely way. On the 8th March I was told, not that we had six months' supply of stamps in the country, but that we had only two months' supply, and on the 19th July I was informed there was only seven weeks' supply, although the contractors were working day and night in order to accumulate a stock. It is a very serious position that we should be left with such an attenuated supply
      1830
      of postage stamps as that, and if that is the position a year after the contract is given, how can the Government expect to supply the country's requirements in the event of some unforeseen event arising? Formerly, I believe it was an essential condition of the contract, inserted by a late Comptroller, that the contractors should maintain a duplication of the stamp-producing machinery in a fireproof building. But that condition has not been maintained. It has not been required from the present contractors, and the explanation given is that it is not required because the Government have the right, in the event of failure, to go elsewhere. What security is that if the present contract breaks down. There are only a few weeks' supply of postage stamps in the country. It is all very well to say that the Government have, the right to go elsewhere, but you cannot go elsewhere and order stamps like coals or even steel rails. Stamps require a very special degree of skill and experience in their manufacture. They require a very special kind of plant, and it took many long years before the former contractors were able to get over all the difficulties of manufacture. It seems to me idle to tell business men that the position of the country is sufficiently safeguarded by the right to go elsewhere on short notice and order stamps from someone else in the event of the Government contractors breaking down.
      We are told there has been a large saving of £40,000 to place against these obvious disadvantages. That sum has been frequently mentioned, and I believe it has now expanded to £45,000. I suggest that this is a very misleading figure. It may represent the difference between the old contract price and the new contract price, but it does not represent the difference between the new contract price and the tender of the old contractors for the new work. The true comparison is not between the old price and the new price, but between the price which the old contractors would have undertaken the new contract at, and the price at which it was given to the other people. We know in times past there have been many reductions in the contract price as the result of negotiations. There was a reduction on one occasion of £40,000, and upon another occasion a larger amount. These reductions were, to a great extent, made possible owing to the fact that the contractors had invented machinery of their own which cheapened the cost of production. Because the cost of production was cheapened they were

      1831
      able to continue their contract at a lower figure. It would have been a more businesslike procedure to have stuck to those who had turned out good work in the past, provided that by negotiations the Government were able to obtain a substantial saving instead of, for the sake of a few thousand pounds, plunging into all the risks associated with an arrangement with inexperienced people in a matter of so much importance.
      I think the House is entitled to know what the real saving has been, because we have never been informed on this point. We have asked what the difference is between the two tenders and we have been told that both the contractors, although for different reasons, object to the price being revealed. I do not think it will be unreasonable to ask what are the results of all the tenders. That course was followed on a previous occasion, and they are all in print. I notice that many years ago, at the time when the contract was given to Messrs. De la Rue, the results of the different tenders were published and communicated to this House, and if it could be done then I do not see any sufficient reason—and no sufficient reason has been advanced—why it should not be done now. It would be very soothing to our feelings to know the exact amount of the cash savings which we have to our credit against all the disagreeable-ness connected with the present issue of stamps and the manner in which the recent issue of stamps has offended the aesthetic tastes of those who look at this matter from an artistic point of view. I look at it chiefly from a commercial point of view. The complaint which we make against the Government is, that in an attempt at false economy, they have supplied a stamp which is a libel on His Majesty's personal appearance, and which is a national disgrace to the workmanship of the country. I say that the so-called saving of £45,000 is not a true and complete representation of the facts. I doubt whether there has been any very large saving at all if against the cash difference we place all the cost, waste, loss, the necessity for extra supervision and all the disappointments and delay connected with the operation. As I have said before, I believe a very substantial saving could have been effected, and at the same time the country might have been spared the risks connected with the present venture.
      1832
      I say further that the stamps supplied are not so good as those stamps which were condemned in 1880, more than thirty years ago, and this in spite of the advances which have been made in stamp-producing machinery since that date. The stamps ought to be infinitely better now than they were then, The present stamps are open to all the disadvantages of the ante-1880 stamps. They are open to their disadvantages as to sticking qualities. The Postmaster-General informed me only yesterday that the Post Office is recognising claims for a refundment where stamps have been put on letters and parcels before being posted, and have fallen off because of their non-adhesive qualities before they reached their destination. The present stamps are very similar to those formerly used as regards inadequate sticking qualities, and also as to the danger of forgery. That danger is greater now than it was then because in the interval there have been great strides in the photographic and lithographic processes. We complain that the Government have light-heartedly during the last year undertaken a very serious risk—that is, a risk of shortage of stamp supplies—which may cripple the work of the Post Office and paralyse the business of the country. I fear that, notwithstanding all the efforts made to speed-up production by overtime and working all night and on Sundays, there is still no adequate accumulation of surplus stocks, and no adequate precautions have been taken to safeguard a continuous supply. A considerable time must necessarily elapse before a continuous supply can be abundantly secured to place the carrying on of the business of this country beyond all risk.
      Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I rise with very much pleasure to second the Amendment for the reduction which has been moved by my hon. Friend. I think it is not unlikely that many Members of the House may feel that postage stamps constitute so small a matter that really their influence is not very great, and that the design which they bear need not be considered as a matter of any moment. Perhaps some hon. Members feel like that, but if those hon. Members had had the experience many of us have had of collecting stamps in our early days and the charming influence which the designs of those stamps exercised upon our minds away back in those years long since gone they would realise that, especially in certain sections

      1833
      of the community, the design of the native stamp must exercise great educative influence, specially upon the young. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend need make no apology for speaking as strongly as he has done, and I believe that he has placed us under a debt of gratitude for the masterly way in which he has studied this subject. There is no doubt about it if we want a good stamp we ought to have it. We are able to find the money and artistic power for all sorts of things, and clearly such a question, as the supply of an artistic stamp ought to be beyond all cavil and easily accomplished. It is perfectly clear that this has not been done up to the present time. I have in my hand some of our recent stamps. There is a quiet dignity even about the recent stamps of His late Majesty King Edward which is absolutely lacking in the new stamp we are now called upon to use. The representation of His gracious Majesty reminds me more than anything else of some of the earlier productions years ago of the Emperor of Austria. The resemblance is far stronger to him than it is to the King. Anyone who knows His gracious Majesty's face—which is daily becoming more and more known and more and more beloved—must realise that the recent stamp is a grotesque parody of his face. Anyone casually looking at the stamp must realise the patchy design represented upon it, made up of all sorts of little patchy bits of ornaments with no sort of homogeneous design about it at all. Apparently at the foot of the stamp there is some sort of a white patch which looks more like some nude figure than what it really is. It really is a most comic representation of the British lion. Altogether the design is a poor and miserable one, and I cannot imagine how it came to pass that the Postmaster-General approved of it.
      Of course, the design must have been presented to someone, and we must hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible for it. It is a very serious thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have been so badly advised as to approve of this production. Reference has been made by the Mover of this Motion to the altered conditions under which the stamps are produced. I say quite frankly that I know nothing at all about that part of the question, but I have had considerable difficulty at times in making the stamps adhere, and I have also noticed that the perforation is not as good as it formerly was. I suppose the adhesive material is inferior, and
      1834
      whether it is a foreign or British product I do not know. Anyhow, it is not satisfactory. We ought to know where that adhesive material is produced. There can be little question that the present stamps are highly unsatisfactory. If we have reserve stores of stamps, and my hon. Friend suggests that they are inadequate, if we are going to produce a new stamp—I hope to goodness the stores are in a reduced condition—if they can be adequately and speedily replaced by something which would appeal to us all. After all, it is a mere truism to say there is no design used in the country that goes so generally to the homes of the people as a design of our postage stamp. Therefore, I think it is more or less of an outrage on the taste of the country. Certainly the design, far from having any educative or elevating tendency, is just the reverse, and on all the grounds which my hon. Friend has so efficiently brought before us I trust this Motion for the reduction of the Vote may be accepted by the House as a protest against the acceptance by the right hon. Gentleman of this most inferior design, and in order to bring the strongest and most efficient pressure upon the Post Office to replace the present design by something of beauty and a pleasure to us all with the least possible delay.
      Major ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to support this Motion, and I should like to know something more of the supposed manufacture of stamps at Somerset House. On 4th July I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and he informed me two men were employed in the manufacture of adhesive postage stamps in Somerset House, and that the amount of machinery that had been set up for the purpose had only cost £1,500. He also informed me, in answer to another question, that it was not proposed to manufacture the ordinary stamps with the exception of the 6d. stamp. Of course, if two men can really make something like £300,000 worth of face-value of stamps, it is an extraordinary economical factory, and should be encouraged and developed to the utmost extent. Of course, if an official, speaking in this House, gives an answer like that, one is naturally obliged to believe him, but ninety-nine men out of a hundred certainly would not. As a matter of fact, it is very well known these stamps are being manufactured at Somerset House, instead of only the 6d. stamp. The Postmaster-General himself, in answer to another question the other day, stated

      1835
      that stamps of 2s. 6d., 5s., and £1 were also being manufactured. Of course, there is nothing in the fact that stamps should be manufactured in Somerset House, but I should really like to know whether we are getting value for the stamps manufactured. There are rumours that £25,000 of penny stamps manufactured at Somerset House had to be destroyed, or at any rate withheld from issue owing to their inferior quality. We have never had an answer on that subject, although the Postmaster-General has been questioned.
      I also understand the inspector of stamping and another official have gone abroad, I believe at the public expense, to study the methods in vogue in foreign countries. If it is not intended to set up this factory at Somerset House, why should they be sent abroad to study the methods there. I therefore ask that we may be informed whether it is intended to set up this factory for manufacturing stamps at Somerset House. If so, what number of men are employed, and what are the results so far produced at this factory? Has the manufacture of these stamps been carried out in an economical and proper way? If so, why cannot the whole manufacture of stamps for this country be carried out at Somerset House altogether instead of being handed over to contractors? There is one other small question I should like to put. Why is there no Post Office official at Somerset House? I believe it is a fact there is no Post Office official there to check the manufacture of these stamps by the Inland Revenue Department. I may be wrongly informed, but I would like to have some information on that point.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will answer the questions which have been put to me by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down before proceeding to reply to the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Central Finsbury asks why no Post Office official is at Somerset House. The answer is contained in one of those apparent anomalies which are to be found all over the government of this country and Empire. Under the Stamp Act of 1891, the manufacture of stamps is under the control of the Inland Revenue Department. They are responsible for the manufacture and distribution of all stamps, and the Post Office are really nothing more than a sleeping partner. That is haw the law stands. I confess I am very much
      1836
      in sympathy with the view of the Post Office that they ought to be responsible, or at all events equally responsible, for the production of those stamps which are used for general postal purposes. If the hon. Member will look at any postage stamp which has been manufactured in this country, certainly for the last thirty years, he will see they are always marked "Postage and Revenue." Therefore, so far as the manufacture of stamps is concerned, there is no need for a Post Office official at Somerset House. He then proceeded to argue there was some inaccuracy in the reply of my right hon. Friend. The Inland Revenue Department proposed after the dissolution of Messrs. De la Rue's contract to undertake the manufacture of all 6d., 2s. 6d., 5s. and 20s. stamps themselves. They have got a large quantity of these stamps in stock, and until that stock is practically exhausted there is no necessity to begin the manufacture of them at Somerset House. Therefore the number of persons employed at Somerset House when the reply was given was exactly as stated. There was neither inaccuracy nor misdirection.
      Major ARCHER-SHEE: The answer I received was that stamps, representing nearly £300,000 face value, were manufactured, and only two men were employed in the manufacture.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite possible. There has been a certain amount of justifiable complaint on the part of the public with regard to the gumming of the stamps. I wish in respect of that to remove some misapprehension. The contract is for the printing, gumming and calendaring of all postage stamps, with the exception of those which are manufactured at Somerset House. There has been a very large reduction in the cost of manufacture, and I may add, in passing, that through the splitting of the contract we have been saving not only on the manufacture of stamps but also on the stationery—on letter-cards and postcards, the saving on the stationery item representing 33 per cent. of the cost of manufacture. There is a contract now for gumming, printing, and calendaring all postage stamps with the exception of those I have mentioned. The designs from which the stamps were engraved was obtained by the Post Office after a great deal of trouble. Perhaps opinions may differ as to the beauty of the design or the execution of the work, but much trouble was taken in order to arrive at a satisfactory-result, and I hope that, whatever may be

      1837
      said with regard to the printing, there can be nothing said against the design of the stamps.
      The hon. Member suggested that the present contractors for gumming stamps used an inferior article, and that, for that reason, the gum separates itself from the stamp. I can assure him that under the terms of the contract the contractors were required to use the best gum arabic, and that was supposed by the Inland Revenue authorities to be the most adhesive thing that could be used. It is quite possible that, owing to the extreme heat which we have experienced during the last few weeks, there is a defect in the adhesive property in gum arabic. We have made the most elaborate experiments in the Government laboratories on this point. The experiments have been repeated weekly, and I confess we cannot find any reason why the gum arabic is defective. We only know that it is defective. The experiments are being continued. We may have to alter the material the contractors are required to use, and the power given under the contract enables the Inland Revenue authorities to do that. We hope to obtain something which will prove a better article for the public in the point of adhesiveness. Let me say at once there is no blame to be attached to the contractors. They have acted in every way up to the terms of their contract. We may have required them to do something which has not proved a success. If so, it is our fault and not their fault. We are continually experimenting from week to week, and we hope soon to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. I know the hon. Gentleman who raised this question has taken great interest in the matter; he has put a great number of questions from time to time. He has expressed an opinion that it would be better to have left the manufacture of stamps in the hands of the old contractors. But I expect that after a little longer time the production of stamps under the new system will be equally as satisfactory as under the old, while the saving to the public, in the matter of money, will be so great that it will be seen that we have been thoroughly justified in the course we have adopted.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: If it is found to be economical to manufacture certain classes of stamps at Somerset House would it not be equally practicable to manufacture all the stamps required for the Post Office and Inland Revenue?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think I recognise the object of the hon. Member in putting that question. We have undertaken the manufacture at Somerset House of sixpenny stamps, and those of higher denominations, for the reason that these special sixpenny stamps are used in hundreds of thousands of agreements. They are fiscal stamps, and not postage stamps, and they have to be printed in a special manner to prevent the possibility of the removal of the date stamp.
      Lord BALCARRES: I want to say a word about the design of the stamp and its general appearance. I do not think the design is in any way satisfactory or worthy of the country which was the pioneer in the postal stamp movement. The right hon. Gentleman has frankly admitted that the adhesiveness of the stamps is defective, and I can only hope that the experiments his Department are now conducting may prove successful. Everybody in this House must have experience of the fact that the 1d. and ½d. stamps will not now adhere to anything except very smooth envelopes. I would like to utter one word of warning. I do not think the defect in the matter of adhesiveness can be properly attributed to the temperature. Those who have travelled in Algeria, or India, or other countries in which the temperature is much higher than in this country, must admit that there the stamps do stick to the envelopes. With regard to the paper on which the stamps are printed, I understand it is identically the same as that used for the old stamps. But there can be no doubt that the treatment of it has an effect on its quality. The present penny stamp is transparent so far as a blot of ink is concerned. The last penny stamp was not. The last penny stamp was torn pretty easily and was supposed at the time to be the low denomination stamp which tore more readily than any other stamp of its date in Europe, but I am afraid that evil quality applies even more to the King George stamp than to the last King Edward stamp, so that it loses some of the qualities, and they are not very numerous, which the King Edward stamp possessed.
      In the Tea Room this afternoon I had the pleasure of sitting with three hon. Gentlemen opposite and we produced stamps out of our pocket books, and the one thing that struck us, and on which we were all agreed, was the extraordinary variation of colour. The colour of mine was rather pretty cherry pink. The

      1839
      stamp shown me by the other Gentlemen were essentially different. They were very much darker and at the same time of a very much warmer hue. Of course that is all wrong. There should be absolute uniformity in colour. People think that the danger of forgery of stamps is very small. Who would forge stamps in order to retail them in small sheets, or even isolated stamps, at a penny a piece? That, of course, is not the danger of forgery in postage stamps. The danger lies in a different direction. It is the man who forges stamps in considerable sheets and does not buy his small commodities by handing stamps over the counter or selling one or two or half-a-dozen to his friends for as many coppers. The danger is that a man in a big way of trade gets in touch with people who use an immense number of stamps and who, it was shown when the last enquiry took place, are prepared to buy these forged stamps at a figure, of course, substantially below their face value. If your stamps are different in design and in colour the danger of forgery is ipso facto increased, and it is most undesirable that the Post Office should consent to the issue of a postage stamp, still more of course of a revenue stamp, if it contains any feature or any item which increases the temptation to forgery, so that the question of colour is really a material question.
      I should like to say a word with regard to design. One's first impression, of course, is that the design of the penny and halfpenny stamps is a little involved. It is not exactly clear what is the meaning of all the emblems. The halfpenny stamp has what my Friend on the Liberal side at tea time assured me was meant to be a dolphin on either side below the effigy. That may or may not be, but if it is a dolphin it is a type of dolphin with a beak or bill corresponding to that peculiar animal known as the ornithorhynchus or the duck billed platypus. I have no objection to the conventional dolphin at all. The conventional dolphins, as one may see them outside the Admiralty, are beautiful things. At all events, if you are having a conventional dolphin let it be one which does not puzzle the humble individual or suggest odious or ridiculous comparisons. The whole frame-work of these halfpenny stamps is really fantastic, and equally on the penny stamps it is so heavy as practically to dwarf the head of the Sovereign, so that both as regards proportion and
      1840
      decoration, quite apart from the point of colour, perforation, or the nature of the paper, in my opinion the stamp is not one which really conforms itself to our conditions. It is really most necessary to have uniformity of design, and the great technical blot on these stamps is that, for some cause which I will not pretend to explain, either defective printing or the ink not being sufficiently equalised or owing to inexperience on the part of those who have cut the plates, on each of the stamps upon this twelve-stamp sheet there is a variation between one stamp and its neighbour. It applies more to the penny than to the halfpenny stamps. If hon. Members take a dozen stamps in ordinary good daylight they will see how defective the actual printing is. The top left-hand stamp, which I will call No. 1, has got the white mark on the chin. No. 2 has got it on the neck, No. 3 has got it close to the right ear. No. 4 has got it on the nose, No. 5 I cannot see, and No. 6 has got it just below the right ear. It is the white mark where the impression of the plate either fails to strike the paper on a perfectly flat surface or where, owing to some defect in the quality of the ink, it does not reach the paper perfectly evenly.
      The Financial Secretary told us that his colleague was a "sleeping partner," but the sleeping partner has answered most of the questions during the Session about stamps. I do not mind who is responsible. My only interest is to get stamps worthy of the country, and really the stamp is not worthy of the country. Quite recently a friend of mine sent me a stamp produced in Bavaria in memory of the festival of the Prince Regent. It really is a magnificent work of art. It is superb. The Germans, of course, have had this advantage; there have been provincial stamps for years past, and consequently a greater artistic spirit exists, and to some extent, therefore, there has been increased competition. The French develop their stamps magnificently. I would implore the Financial Secretary and his colleague to consider whether some method ought not to be tried to secure better stamps. I know the difficulty, and I know, indeed, the dangers, in putting these things out to public competition. There is always a difficulty about who is to be the judge, and there is always the question as to the expenses of the unsuccessful competitor. The matter has to be settled by a Committee instead of an individual. A Committee is not a very good body to determine a question of artistic merit, but nevertheless I

      1841
      am quite convinced myself that there are dozens, if not scores, of men and women in this country who could produce a design which, though very unlikely in itself to be suitable for translation into postage stamp purposes, could none the less, with the advice and the technical assistance which the Postmaster-General is in a position to give, make a really good, effective, and artistic stamp. It is an experiment. It is not unattended by risks, but you would be creating an interest in the subject among designers. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he would consider that suggestion favourably, I undertake to say that a hundred artists would soon be preparing designs, and some good would come out of this even if it only familiarised those people-many of them students and many of them artists in practice-with the idea that a postage stamp is a great national entity, and that it is a work of art which is more widely used, and which, when good, is more widely enjoyed than any other work of art in the British Empire. It deserves an effort even to the extent of losing a few thousands of the pounds which have been saved over these wretched stamps. It would be really worth while from that point of view that the two right hon. Gentlemen should give their very careful, and, I hope, their sympathetic attention to this suggestion.
      Mr. KING: I rise to express my strong sympathy with the admirable speech to which we have listened from the Noble Lord (Lord Balcarres). I think he has expressed and summed up most admirably what hundreds and thousands of people have been feeling and saying to one another about these stamps ever since they came out. Personally, I looked forward to this issue of new postage stamps as something which might prove worthy of the occasion and of this great nation, so rich and capable in almost every respect, and I must express my feeling of the very deepest disappointment at the extremely inadequate result in the new issue of postage stamps. As to the design, the Noble Lord has spoken with an authority and ex-
      perience in art which I cannot pretend to equal. The design for the halfpenny stamp is confused, inferior, and utterly unintelligible to anybody who has any appreciation of the artistic appearance of a good postage stamp. It is a curious thing that since the early days of Queen Victoria almost every department of national art has advanced and improved, but there can be no doubt whatever that the penny and halfpenny stamps now being issued are entirely inferior to the stamps of the early Victorian time.
      Why that is I do not know, except that a very unfortunate choice has been made in the artist or the person from whom the artistic device has been sought in connection with these stamps. I know that they emanated from an eminent sculptor, but really I think a sculptor is the last person you ought to go to for a design for postage stamps. A design for postage stamps ought to come from an artist who has shown a faculty for simplicity in design, and not complexity. This design is certainly the most complicated and confused that, I suppose, has ever appeared on a postage stamp. I should like to make a practical suggestion to the Postmaster-General. It is that in some form or other he should offer the artists of our nation the opportunity of submitting a new design. I am sure nobody will like these stamps any better, however long they may be used. There is no reason why, after a year's condemnation of these stamps, we should not have a new design either for the penny stamp or for the halfpenny stamp, and preferably for both. If a new design could be produced in different colours, I think it would be the right way to treat the subject. I think that would be distinctly popular; I will even venture to say that it would be a really benevolent act if we could say that we might look forward in a year's time to having the opportunity of using something more beautiful than the stamps recently issued.
      Question put, "That '£15,517,845' stand part of the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 40.

      Division No. 333.]

      AYES.

      [8.55 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Beale, William Phipson

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Beck, Arthur

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Boland, John Plus

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

      Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Barnes, George N.

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Clough, William

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Clynes, John R.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Radford, George Heynes

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Johnson, W.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Crooks, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

      King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

      Rowlands, James

      Dawes, J. A.

      Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

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

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

      Leach, Charles

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Shortt, Edward

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Logan, John William

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Snowden, Philip

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Sutton, John E.

      Gibson, Sir James Puckering

      Maclean, Donald

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Gill, A. H.

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

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Tennant, Harold John

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Macveagh, Jeremiah

      Thorne, G. . (Wolverhampton)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Verney, Sir Harry

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

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Wadsworth, John

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

      Millar, James Duncan

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hackett, John

      Morgan, George Hay

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Wardle, George J.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Waring, Walter

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Needham, Christopher T.

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

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

      Neilson, Francis

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

      Nolan, Joseph

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Whyte, A. F.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nuttall, Harry

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Young, William (Perth, East)

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

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Henry, Sir Charles S.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Hinds, John

      Power, Patrick Joseph

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

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Hodge, John

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

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Fell, Arthur

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Fleming, Valentine

      Pryce-Jones, Col, E.

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goldman, C. S.

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

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gretton, John

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Boyton, James

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hills, John Waller

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Homer, Andrew Long

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Cator, John

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Clyde, James Avon

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Touche and Mr. Cassel.

      Courthope, George Loyd

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Resolution agreed to.

    CLASS I.

      STATUES IN ROYAL PARKS.
      Resolution reported,
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,518,233, 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 I. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1674.]
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Captain MURRAY: I beg to move a reduction in the salary of the First Commissioner of Works of £100, in order to draw attention to the policy which has lately been pursued in respect of the erection of statues in the Royal parks. I do not propose to detain the House at any very great length, because there are other Members who wish to speak, and I desire to give the hon. Gentleman who represents, the office time for a comprehensive reply.

      1845
      I need not enter into details of the history of the Royal parks, and the many changes which have been made within their boundaries during recent years. I wish to refer to the proposal recently made by the Advisory Committee of the King Edward Memorial Fund to place a memorial statue to the late King Edward in St. James's Park, opposite Marlborough House. It is well known that that proposal met with great opposition, not only on the part of Members of this House, but on the part of the public outside. Finally the Advisory Committee saw fit to withdraw that particular scheme and to seek for a site elsewhere. The site which they have apparently now chosen for a memorial statue of King Edward is in the Green Park, at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk. I should like to hear from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Dudley Ward), as representing the First Commissioner of Works, exactly how the position stands. We were told the other day, in answer to questions in this House, that the Memorial Committee had recommended this particular site at the end of the Broad Walk, and either the hon. Member or the Prime Minister, I forget which for the moment, said the Government were prepared to give their assent to that particular site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to inform us when he replies whether the Government has agreed to give its consent to this site. However that may be, there is a very strong body of opinion not only in this House but outside of it strongly opposed to the policy at present being pursued in respect of the erection of statues within the boundaries of the Royal parks. We are told by various people that the particular site selected will be a very good one. That is an opinion with which I for one cannot agree. I have not seen the plans, which possibly have not been prepared yet; certainly they have not been placed in the Tea Room. But I fail to understand how a statue, of whatever size, can be placed at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk without completely, or nearly so, shutting out the view of the Queen Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace.
      That is one objection against the proposed statue in the Green Park. There is another. It would necessitate the cutting down of the tree which now stands at the end of the Broad Walk, next the railing. It may seem to be a very trivial matter to cut down one tree, but I submit that it is far from being a trivial matter, because if the Office
      1846
      of Works may cut down one tree they can cut down many others. There have been in recent years many trees cut down in the Royal parks. I must admit that others have been planted, but they have been planted, generally speaking, in long rows, and they have been planted in the place of trees which gave the parks that rustic and rural appearance which we all desire to see. It is part and parcel of the whole policy of the Office of Works, if I may say so, to meddle with the Royal parks. I urge upon the First Commissioner of Works very strongly, and upon his representative in this House to-day, that they should adopt some definite policy in respect of the erection of statues within the boundaries of our Royal parks. I feel perfectly certain that it is the desire of the majority of the people resident in London to preserve those parks as national parks, together with such rural amenities as they at present possess. I do hope that the First Commissioner of Works will take into consideration the facts which I have submitted before he gives his consent—if it has not been already given—to this proposal to place a statue of the late King Edward at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk.
      It may be said that this evening I am destroying without building up, that I am placing before the House no alternative scheme, and that I have suggested no other site for the statue which is to be erected to the memory of the late King Edward. It would not be in order on this particular Vote to refer in any detail to suggested plans for the statue which have been placed in the Tea Room, and which are open to Members of the House of Commons to see. The advantages of the particular site suggested in those plans, to my mind, lie not only in the fact that the position will be one very much more prominent, commanding, and appropriate than many of the present ones, but, instead of cutting off a. small portion of the park, as the present site would inevitably do, it would, on the contrary, add to the size of the Green Park. The hon. Member for Southampton said that the statue, if erected on the proposed site at the end of the Broad Walk, would not cut off any portion of the Park. I fail to see how it could be erected in that particular position without, at any rate, encroaching upon the grass on each side of the Broad Walk, and it might have the possible effect of levelling certainly one tree. I am not going to enlarge upon this matter, but I do enter a very

      1847
      vigorous protest against the policy of erecting statues within the boundaries of national parks. There are many continental parks with which, doubtless, hon. Members are familiar, where in much the same way as is now proposed a beginning was made with the erecting of statues within their boundaries, until at length those centres of rural life have been devoted to the wholesale erection of statues. It is against any policy of that kind being adopted in this country that I to-night raise my voice in this House.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so for several reasons. In the first place, I do so for the general reason that I am disinclined to support any proposal that may lead to encroachment on either the Royal parks or other parks in the county of London. During the last few years we have had several examples of encroachments upon Royal parks. It seems to me at the present moment that it is of the utmost importance to protest against encroachments taking place. In the second place, I am anxious to reinforce the question that has been put by the hon. Member with reference to the proposed memorial to his late Majesty King Edward VII. I start with the general principle that I am opposed to any memorials in the Royal parks at ail. I am rather inclined to agree with Mr. Ruskin in an answer that I believe he gave to certain gentlemen at Oxford who asked him to subscribe to the erection of a statue. His answer was written on the back of a postcard, and it took this form:—
      "I hate memorials, but I hate statues worse."
      I am not prepared to say that all the statues in the public parks in London are necessarily liable to that condemnation, but I do say that there are examples in the county of London to-day which give us pause when proposals of this kind are made. Further, at the present moment it is my opinion that if a large part of the Green Park is devoted to a statue of his late Majesty a considerable sum will be diverted from other objects, which, I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, would be far more suitable as a memorial to his late Majesty than would be the erection of a statue in the Green Park. It would be out of order to allude to one object in particular in the present Debate, but it is my firm conviction that every penny that is spent on the erection of an expensive memorial in the Green Park will be diverted from what I believe would have pleased his late
      1848
      Majesty far better. I refer to the proposed park at Shadwell, in the East of London. I will not say more this evening, but I do hope that the representative of the Commissioner of Works will be able to satisfy us that the memorial which is proposed in the Green Park is a memorial of a limited description, and that the funds of the national scheme will not be diverted from an object which I believe would have been in absolute keeping with His late Majesty's wishes, and which I further believe would be acceptable to the great body of citizens of London and of the inhabitants in the country generally.
      Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I am somewhat torn asunder in regard to the Amendment, because in some points I am bound to cordially express my thanks to the Works Office and its representative here for notable improvements that they have made in regard to the London parks during the last year, and in particular in regard to the facilities during this present summer for bathing in the Serpentine. I appreciate the extreme delicacy of feeling that the hon. Member for Southampton manifested on more than one occasion on this subject, but I do not think that in overcoming his prejudice and in supporting the extension of facilities which has taken place in regard to that matter, that the action of my hon. Friend and his colleague, the First Commissioner, has had the warmest approval of the people, and has been a really great addition to the amenities for health and for pleasure which the London parks afford. But I desire to support the Amendment, because I think that the matter brought forward to-night is one of still greater importance, of overbearing importance, in comparison with other questions which might be raised on the Vote for the parks. I think that this matter of the memorial in the park, or of future memorials in the parks, must be approached by this House in view of three sentiments which exist in regard to it. In the first place, there is one which none of us will wish to disregard, and that is the wishes of the King and the Royal family. We are not informed of what are the wishes of the King and Queen, but we may assume that there is a natural desire for a very worthy and great memorial. We also join in desiring a worthy memorial, of an architectural kind it may be, in the shape of a statue, as well as a memorial of another kind. We have every desire that the

      1849
      wishes of the Royal family should be considered, and that should lead us to search for a site which is really worthy.
      There is another point of view which has been manifested in this House not very long ago, in the month of March, and that is the aesthetic point of view, the general regard for some sense of beauty in the laying out of London. We had manifested in this House a most remarkable expression of opinion upon the proposal which was made or about to be made by the Memorial Committee. The other day the Leader of the Opposition expressed the view that this House is not an aesthetic assembly. It may perhaps not be an assembly of experts, but in these matters there is in the public mind some fundamental sense, some common sense, of what is fitting and what is good taste, which is not to be disregarded and which is very often found to be a profoundly just sense of what is artistic. I think nobody denies that the opinion expressed in this House on the occasion of that proposal last March was a sound one from the aesthetic point of view, and it was very opportune that this House had the opportunity of expressing it. It was that of the public, which had no other opportunity of expressing it except through the Members of this House who represent the public.
      But there is one other point of view which we must bear in mind, and that is the general fittingness of whatever memorial there may be not merely from the aesthetic point of view but from that of the general advantage of London. The erection of a great memorial is an opportunity for doing something somewhere for the good of the poor, for the increase of the amenities of London, and for the decrease of its immense economic and social disadvantages to those who are not able to live in its pleasanter parts. It would be out of order to speak of the Shad-well scheme, but it is legitimate to say that it would be as worthy as any memorial could be of the memory of the late King, if we were able in connection with that memorial to do something to decrease the immense distance which lies between thousands, or it may be millions, of the people and any possible chance of allowing their children to play about on the grass. Nothing could be more worthy of the memory of a King who was notable for his great interest in the poor and the attention which he gave to the smaller housing property on the Royal estate, than such a scheme as the Shadwell scheme.
      1850
      The Office of Works is to some extent our Ministry of Art, and I like to think that a man of such great taste represents that office in this House. I am sure he agrees that this House has a part to play in the settling of these aesthetic questions. We know, whether it be a board of directors or a meeting of shareholders, the choice between one plan and another must be made by a very small body, but in any case the decision must be submitted to the larger body for final veto or approval. I am glad that it has been admitted finally and exactly during this year that this House is to be consulted on questions of this kind, and is to have an opportunity of negativing a proposal if it does not approve or think it in accordance with the wishes of the public. As to how plans should be selected there may be differences of opinion. Some of us think that free competition has in many cases led to very admirable results, but it is not always easy to arrange. Many gentlemen who have represented the Office of Works are of opinion that free competition is not, on the whole, the most profitable line to follow. Whether it be by invitation of plans from a panel of artists, or by the selection of a single artist, or by free competition—and personally I think there are great merits in the last— the final approval must and ought to lie in the hands of this House. Even if this House is not an aesthetic assembly, it certainly represents in these days a great revival of interest in aesthetic questions. It was a very notable expression of that revival when this House in all quarters and with fervour expressed its opinion upon the proposal to encroach a very little upon St. James's Park. A very great gain was made when, in connection with that proposal, an assurance was offered that for all time the House should be consulted on alterations in the parks.
      With regard to this particular proposal for a site, which I think is not yet fixed, for the King's memorial, the situation appears to me to be this. The House has been consulted on one proposal and has emphatically vetoed it. What proposal is there now before the House? There are before the House no plans or drawings except those to which my hon. Friend refers. Mention has been made of another site, to which it was said the Government could offer no opposition, namely, a site at the north end of the Broad Walk in Green Park. I think it is on that ground that we are justified in complaining of the

      1851
      action of the Office of Works, and in supporting a proposal for a reduction of the Vote, because it is not carrying out the manifest and strong opinion indicated by the House last March. But I am not greatly concerned about it, because it is quite clear that nothing will be fixed until the view of the House has been definitely ascertained. Time may very well be taken to survey the opening for a worthy memorial in London. What I think we may ask is that, in this case and in the case of the erection of public buildings, pains should be taken to get the advice of the greatest experts in the quite modern science and art of town-planning. There are experts who have made a speciality of civic designs. There is in particular the professor of civic design at Liverpool University, not to speak of others who are well-known students and great authorities in this field of art. I am glad to think that my hon. Friend has put before the House a proposal emanating from Professor Adshead, of Liverpool University, which has been so well commended already. It is only fair that we should ask that the beat advice should be taken and the utmost efforts made to arrive at the best selection among the innumerable opportunities of London, before the final approval of the House is asked for.
      Three suggestions are now in the air. One refers to the Green Park. I think if that site should be decided on there would be left in the public mind a certain sense of soreness with regard to another encroachment on the park. What finality is there to these encroachments? There will, perhaps, be a further demand for a memorial; but it may be hoped that with the case of the Queen Victoria Memorial there has been an end to encroachments upon the park. In that case no less than two acres of grass was taken. I have found among working people, whose views I have heard by chance when walking through the park, great indignation expressed at the proposal to take away anything which remains of the open spaces of London. After all, for the size of London, the amount of growing grass is very small. The Office of Works, having the control of the Royal parks, is to some extent the guardian not only of the aesthetic amenities, but of the health of London, and should be very jealous indeed of the smallest encroachments upon the open spaces. With regard to the Hyde Park Comer proposal, which is relevant to this
      1852
      discussion, because it involves not a diminution of but a slight addition to Green Park, it is generally agreed that Hyde Park Corner is not at all worthy of the greatest city in the world. If forms the centre court in the most remarkable chain of parks in the world, and nothing could be less worthy of its position. It is modelled upon the system of a landscape garden, but it is worked in the material of a desert. It is a vast expanse of wood and asphalt. We all know that if you want an architectural garden it must be symmetrical.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): This does not come within the province of the Office of Works.
      Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I will not pursue the point. I suggest that it comes within the province of the Office of Works in that it is part of a scheme involving an alteration of Green Park, and that the Office of Works will be asked to give its consent if the scheme is adopted by the Memorial Committee. In submitting that of the schemes put forward, it is the one most worthy of attention, there is this to be urged in addition to the points put by my hon. Friends. This Hyde Park Corner is somewhat of an eyesore and a scandal in these days, and some opportunity should be taken to improve it, not only to provide what I think is far the best site for the statue of the late King Edward which has been suggested, but also to remove that eyesore and scandal, and in that way to kill two birds with one stone. From all three points of view, from the point of view of a memorial worthy of the wishes of the King, from the point of view of public taste, and again from the point of view of the needs of the poor, because it would leave more money for the Shadwell scheme, I think the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend is one which we may all hope will be adopted by the Memorial Committee, which would undoubtedly receive warm sanction from this House, and would in every way be worthy of the illustrious King whom it would commemorate as well as in the interest and the general good of London.
      The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): I am afraid my reply will hardly be as comprehensive as the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) would desire. In the first place we have very little to go upon. The proposals for the King Edward Memorial are so little advanced that really a

      1853
      discussion upon them at this moment is hardly profitable, except in this sense that it will give some idea to the Memorial Committee of what this House does or does not desire. What I think hon. Members would seem to forget is that the Government is not concerned with the memorial at all; it is a memorial to be erected by funds raised among the people of London. There was a Government contribution towards the Queen Victoria Memorial, but there is no contribution from the Government towards this Memorial. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not think that anybody does believe, that it is possible to please everybody. In fact, when it is a question of art, it is very difficult to please the majority. The difficulty the Memorial Committee, as I understand it, had to face, was to find a suitable site for that Memorial. I believe every available site in London has been examined by them, and the position now is that they have been reduced to four, which are the only sites that are possible—two in Trafalgar Square, one in Waterloo Place, and one in Broad Walk. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Shadwell?"] It is the sites I am talking about. They were all objected to. I think the Broad Walk site in Green Park is the one least open to objection. The proposal to erect a statue on that site is, of course, subject to certain considerations. The hon. Member for Kincardine-shire asked me if the Government had given their consent to that site. The answer of the Prime Minister, I fancy, was that the Government would raise no objection subject to the approval of the plans. I think the statue, if it is ever placed there, should, in the first place, be not too large, it should not be a large statue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), that the more money you pay for the statue, the less money there will be for that worthy object in the East End of London. But that does not concern the Government. That would not give them reason for refusing the site. The only reason the Government could give for refusing that site for a large statue would be that it would hide or would compete with the Queen Victoria memorial at the other end of the walk. Again, I quite agree, the statue should not be an encroachment upon the park.
      I think hon. Members have made too much of the encroachment upon the park. The Broad Walk is 65 ft. broad. You can put even a very large statue within 65 ft. The mention of 65 ft. doe's not convey very
      1854
      much. I took the trouble to visit a statue well known to the majority of people, the statue of the Duke of Cambridge in Parliament Street. The pedestal upon which that statue is placed measures 8 ft. by 14½ ft. In the middle of the Broad Walk of 65 ft. a statue would not be much encroachment upon the park. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the width of Parliament Street?"] I do not know what the width of the roadway is in Parliament Street, but a statue of that size would not be an unworthy statue, and would not encroach upon the park. The Member for Kincardineshire is afraid it would involve the destruction of one tree. I am sorry he has got an affection for that particular tree. I am sorry to tell him that tree is dying. In fact, its fellow tree which has stood alongside of it, for many years is already dead. I am afraid he will have to lose his tree anyhow. I think the discussion of the scheme for the erection of the statue at Hyde Park Corner would hardly be in order. I would just like to remind hon. Members that in the year 1883, I think, a considerable part of the Green Park was taken away and thrown into the roadway in order to relieve the great congestion of traffic at the bottom of Hamilton Place. That was not found sufficient, so in 1902 a further encroachment was made upon the Green Park, and it is now found that that arrangement is as good as can possibly be devised for the relief of traffic going out of Hamilton Place. This proposal is to put back that part of the park into the same state as it was before the alterations. If the traffic was congested in the year 1882 I think hon. Members will agree that it would be far more congested at the present time. I think that any further discussion on this subject, in view of the fact that we have so very little before us, would hardly be profitable, and I hope the House will be content if I repeat the assurance already given that nothing will be done during the Recess and that nothing will be done without the plans being put before Parliament for approval.
      Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could give some explanation of the defect in the Queen Victoria Memorial beside Buckingham Palace? The Scottish quartering is defective, it has the Scottish lion rampant, but it is not in proper form. I do not like to be looking a gift-horse in the mouth, but it is very important that it should be put in proper form, and I

      1855
      should like his assurance that this defect will be quickly obliterated. Before we pass from this Vote I should also like to say how glad I am to see the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Harcourt) here, and to take advantage of this opportunity of thanking him for the many services rendered by him during the time he occupied the office of Commissioner of Works. So far as that is concerned he left a great record behind him, and I refer particularly to what he did in the Botanical Gardens. I should also like to say that I was glad to see the hon. Member (Mr. Dudley Ward) present in Edinburgh. At Holyrood Palace there are one or two defects that might be put right at very little expense. From the Holyrood Palace the hon. Gentleman would notice that on one side of the King's park there is a long row of very objectionable tenements seen from the windows of the park. Something should be done to plant a belt of trees running alongside the wall in the King's park. I am quite sure it would do a good deal to make the place look very much more satisfactory than it is. A very small expenditure made in the park would make is vastly better than it is. It has many natural beauties. In fact, I should say from the point of view of natural beauties it perhaps excels any other park in the world. I think, therefore, if something could be done to plant trees there and in other ways to improve the appearance of the park it would be very acceptable, not only to the people of Edinburgh, but to Their Majesties, who will, I trust, occupy Holy-rood Palace on many occasions in the future.
      Mr. ESSEX: May I inquire whether anything has been done with the improvements contemplated between the end of the Victoria Tower and Millbank? The
      demolition of buildings is going forward very, very slowly. Can anything be done to accelerate the matter?
      Mr. DUDLEY WARD(whose reply to Mr. Essex was inaudible): The planting of trees at Holyrood Palace is already occupying the attention of the First Commissioner. I was not aware of the defective details of the Scottish quarterings referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Price). I will see that the design is examined.
      Captain MURRAY: In view of the courteous reply of the hon. Gentleman below, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS III.
    Resolution reported,
    4. "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 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
    [For Services included in this Class, see OFFCIAL REPORT, 14Th August, 1911, cols. 1681–1684,.]
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 91.

    Division No. 334.]

    AYES.

    [9.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Brady, P. J.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dawes, J. A.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Falconer, J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clough, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gibson, Sir James P.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gill, A. H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Cotton, William Francis

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

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

    Rowlands, James

    Hackett, J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hancock, J. G.

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Snowden, P.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Sutton, John E.

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Higham, John Sharp

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hinds, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Verney, Sir Henry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, H.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Johnson, W.

    Ogden, Fred

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, George

    Radford, G. H.

    Williamson, Sir A.

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

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Leach, Charles

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gretton, John

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

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Ashley, W. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hills, J. W.

    Starkey, John R.

    Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Swift, Rigby

    Bigland, Alfred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Boyton, J.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cassel, Felix

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cator, John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cautley, H. S.

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

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Cave, George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Younger, Sir George

    Croft, H. P.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Fell, Arthur

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Captain Gilmour and Mr. J. E. Gordon.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    Resolution reported,
    5. "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 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
    [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1685–1688.]
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I rise to call attention to the entire neglect of Scottish education during this Session. We have a grievance of a very serious kind, in which I expected to have the alliance of my colleagues from Scotland upon the other side, but that alliance has entirely failed. We have failed to get any discussion of the most important grievances of Scottish school masters, and the only chance I have of insisting upon this grievance, though we have no chance of getting an answer from the Lord Advocate, is at this moment. This is the only occasion open to us for a discussion on Scottish education during the whole of this Session, and I should have expected that not one Mem-
    ber, but that every Member from Scotland would have risen to protest against this treatment. I did expect, and I fancy-Scotland also will expect, that some sort of stand should have been made on this occasion by Scottish Members. They know perfectly well the hardships suffered by Scottish teachers. We have been able to vote money for our own salaries, but we have not been able to give the very moderate sum that will be necessary for the superannuation to these hard-worked teachers, and not one word in their behalf is uttered at this moment by Liberal Members opposite. None of them rose-when the opportunity occurred. They had not insisted that the Government, of whom they pretend to be supporters, should adhere to the exigent wants of Scotland. Hon. Members opposite know very well the feelings of the Scottish teachers upon this subject.
    And it being Ten of the clock, Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 118.

    Division No. 335.]

    AYES.

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Hackett, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hancock, John George

    Alden, Percy

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Beale, W. P.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dawes, J. A.

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Hayward, Evan

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Falconer, J.

    Hinds, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Hodge, John

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Hughes, S. L.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Johnson, W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Jones. W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Chancellor, H. G.

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Snowden Philip

    Lansbury, George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Leach, Charles

    Ogden, Fred

    Sutton, John E.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Logan, John William

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wadsworth, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

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

    Walters, John Tudor

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Radford, G. H.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wardle, George J.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Waring, Walter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Montagu, Hon E. S.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Munro, R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Neilson, Francis

    Shortt, Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. G. Howard.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldman, C. S.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gretton, John

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Balcarres, Lord

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hohler, G. F.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Horner, A. L.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Bird, A.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stewart, Gersham

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Swift, Rigby

    Boyton, James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.

    Campion, W. R.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lonsdale, Sir. John Brownlee

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cator, John

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Macmaster, Donald

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, George

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Arthur

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Croft, Henry Page

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. D. S.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Craik and Col. Burn.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

    And, it being after Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant of Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put forthwith the questions. That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of certain of the Civil Service Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates.

    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
      CLASS II.
      1. "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."

      CLASS V.
      6. "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 the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1689–1690.]

      CLASS VI.
      7. "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 the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1693.]

      CLASS VII.
      8. "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."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1694.]

      NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
      9. "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 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1695–1696.]

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
      10. "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 day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1695–1696.]

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1909–10 [14th August].
Resolution reported,
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1910, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated

1865
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."
[For Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1711–12.]
Resolution reported,
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."
[For Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, cols. 1717–1718.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolution reported, "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.
WAYS AND MEANS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolution, and that the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hobhouse do prepare and bring it in.
  Mr. HOBHOUSEaccordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament. Bill read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will this Bill be printed to-morrow?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Usually it is not printed, but I will see if that can be done.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I want to see the Resolution for the payment of Members.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I understand that.

COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Gulland.]
PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir F. BANBURY: There has evidently been some desire on the part of the Opposition to assist the Government in getting through their business, and I think the least we can expect is that there should

1867
be some explanation of this Bill. I am not quite certain what the Bill is, but I believe it is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government of India Act Amendment Bill."] That makes it all the more necessary we should have some explanation. The Government of India Act, passed in 1858, has lasted extremely well, which is more than can be said for the Government of England since the House of Lords measure was passed, because we seem to be generally involved in a civil war at the present moment. Therefore, before we put India, which is still a well-managed dependency of the British Crown, into the hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite we ought to have some knowledge of what is in this Bill. The Under-Secretary is generally extremely courteous and anxious to inform the House upon questions before us with regard to India, and I sincerely trust he will enlighten us a little upon this Bill. There is no desire on this side other than to give the Government every assistance. At any rate we ask to be treated with the ordinary courtesy with which any Government treats an Opposition however humble it may be. Therefore I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give us some information.
Mr. CLYNES: Before the hon. Gentleman replies I should like to take occasion to repel the statement made by the hon. Baronet in respect of the existing state of civil war, and I wish to say that if that observation was meant to involve the men in some share of blame there is an equal share to be accepted by the hon. Baronet himself.
Sir F. BANBURY: I accept no share.
Mr. CLYNES: I want to allocate the blame, and I will say that the hon. Baronet has a personal responsibility as a railway director.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill before the House is the Government of India Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2) Bill, and the observations to which reference is now being made were not relevant.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I did not say anything on the Third Reading of this Bill because the objects were explained on the financial resolution, and if the hon. Baronet will be so good as to read the
1868
memorandum on the first page of the Bill he will see that its high sounding title accords in no way with the very innocent nature of the Bill itself. Under the Act of 1858 the India Office have power to make-regulations for the payment of pensions to persons who have been on the staff of the Secretary of State for India. The Superannuation Act, 1909, empowered the Treasury to give pensions to the widows of officials who died while in the service, but the same power was not extended to the India Office, and the object of this Amendment Act is to make the regulation applicable to India. We want to harmonise in this respect the proceedings of the India Office with those of other departments, and we have, therefore, brought in this Amending Bill. I hope the hon. Baronet will be satisfied with that explanation.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Sir F. BANBURY: This is an allotted day for the business of Supply. Is it not the custom of the House, Supply having been disposed of, to at once adjourn? I think the Standing Order says that as soon as the business of Supply is concluded Mr. Speaker is to adjourn the House, and, that being so, may I ask why the House has not been adjourned?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Supply Rule has come to an end. The days allotted to Supply concluded when the last Vote of Supply was taken, and, therefore, the Supply Rule is no longer effective. It was designed for the purpose of enabling Members who desired to discuss Supply to do so during the whole night, and so that other matters should not be interposed to take up the time of the House. But all Supply now being at an end, the House can go on with other business.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Rule says that on an allotted day, as soon as the business of Supply is concluded, the House shall adjourn. I have always understood that if other business was taken the allotted day was lost. This is the 22nd day. If other business is taken on the 22nd allotted day that day will be lost, because it is still a day. The day has not finished. The day is before eleven o'clock.
Mr. SPEAKER: The allotted day came to an end at Ten o'clock when I rose to put the Question. That is the end of the allottted day. The other allotted days lasted till Eleven, but the last allotted day only lasts till Ten.
Consideration of Bill deferred till tomorrow (Wednesday).

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir F. BANBURY: I shall be most anxious to come to an arrangement. What does the Patronage Secretary gain by doing this sort of thing? Owing to a misunderstanding the Government have got their Votes before the time. He has never done any harm by coming to an agreement, and he has never done any good by trying to force business through the House. He will not lose anything by adjourning the House.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): I do not know where the misunderstanding arose.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid it was intended to divide, but, as a matter of fact, the Votes were not challenged, and so this situation has arisen. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to go on we must go on. I have been nineteen years in the House, and I never yet heard the proceedings on the Third Reading of a Bill declared null and void. I was sitting on the steps of the Chair three or four days ago when the Motion was made at the commencement of business, "That the proceedings on this Bill be declared null and void." I did not like to rise—the only place I could have come forward to was the Front Bench—to ask how it was that the proceedings on a Government Bill should be declared null and void. Now, at the last moment, having declared the proceedings on this Bill null and void, the Third Reading is brought forward again without a word of explanation. I should like to know why the Third Reading of a Bill of a Government consisting of the greatest talents that the world has ever seen, in their own estimation, had to be
1870
declared null and void. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting below the Gangway, what would have happened if a Conservative Government had asked that the proceedings on one of their Bills should be declared null and void, and then brought forward for another Third Reading. What guarantee have we that this is not going to be declared null and void to-morrow without a word of explanation when the whole Front Bench is filled with Secretaries of State and right hon. Gentlemen all enjoying themselves, but not condescending to say one word which would give an ordinary Member of the House like myself a chance of knowing what is meant by these extraordinary proceedings? If we are to have Single-Chamber Government, and if this House is to be the arbiter of the destinies of the nation, we might at any rate conduct our proceedings with decency. [Cheers.] I am glad that hon. Members below the Gangway agree with me in the remark I have made. We ought at any rate to have facilities for discussion. All power is now in our hands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear." Very well, being all-powerful we ought to know at least what we are going to do. I challenge hon. Members below the Gangway to say why the proceedings were declared null and void. I challenge anyone to get up and give an intelligent explanation of that. I say this is a farce, and the House ought not to proceed with the discussion of the Bill until an explanation is given why the proceedings on the Third Reading were declared null and void. If I cannot get any explanation, I will, under the circumstances, move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. SPEAKER,being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
Mr. BOOTH: I see the hon. Baronet's severe and unwonted difficulty, and this will not be the first time that I have proved to be his true friend. It is quite true that the proceedings on this Bill a few days ago were declared null and void. I think the hon. Baronet has established that entirely to the satisfaction of the House, but I do not think he quite realises exactly what the Bill refers to. The National Gallery is situate in Trafalgar Square, but if the hon. Baronet would give his mind to this important Bill he would see that there is to be a transfer of a very small amount

1871
of land. I am not always in favour of the transfer of land, especially when there is no revenue to be derived therefrom for the State. I think the hon. Baronet would say that under the transfer the Exchequer ought to benefit. I am glad that the hon. Baronet agrees with me.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the hon. Member has rather missed my point. What I want to know is why the Government declared the proceedings on the Bill null and void. That is where I think the hon. Gentleman has made a slight mistake. If he will explain to me why the Government declared the proceedings null and void, I will be very pleased.
Mr. BOOTH: I do not know that we can get any enlightenment by going back to the proceedings which have taken place. We are now discussing the Bill before the House. I took some little trouble, as a pupil of the hon. Baronet, when this Bill was put on the Paper, to make some inquiries, and I am sure he would like to know the result. I inquired of the hon. Member for Southampton, who represents the First Commissioner of Works. Like most Members of the Government, he was very patient with me, and he explained that this was a fair exchange, that one small bit of land was given up in connection with one of these properties in exchange for another, and that no public interest suffered. There is no story connected with either of these properties, unless it be that some of the tubes go under it, which I believe the hon. Baronet does not take under his special care. The hon. Member for Southampton expressed his willingness to give any information on the matter to any Member of the House. I asked him if any other Member of the 670 Members of this House had taken the trouble to inquire for him, but could get no satisfaction on that point. I was very much concerned because I did rely on one other Member as well as myself examining all these Bills; but various idols get shattered as we grow older, yet such is my admiration for the hon. Baronet that it has survived this rude shock. This piece of ground was of very peculiar shape, and could not be used for any other useful purpose, and the idea occurred to the First Commissioner of Works, under the able advice of his junior officer, who, I believe, is equal to any emergency, as the hon. Baronet himself is, that these two pieces of land could be exchanged. The hon. Baronet in thinking that there is some
1872
underlying party motive is entirely mistaken. It is with a great deal of diffidence that I have undertaken to explain a Government Bill. I know that the intentions of the Government are not always clear to those of us who sit on the Back Benches, but still I think that this is a case in which we are justified in entertaining the very maximum of suspicion with regard to their action. Of all the Bills on the Paper I think that this is the one which may most easily be passed without a Division, and I think that if the hon. Baronet pressed his opposition to a Division he would be in a position of extreme difficulty. I would like to point out to him that he would be giving another vote—he has given many before, I believe—in which he did not quite understand whether he was right or wrong. I hope I do not do the hon. Baronet an injustice. I was rather persistent in the matter, but I did not exhaust the temper of the hon. Member for Southampton, and he satisfied me that this piece of land at the back of the National Gallery, used for the St. George's Barracks, and another piece in St. James's Park have been exchanged, and that it was one of those transactions in which an officer of the Household might take part. I appeal to the hon. Baronet, in the interests of the progress of Government business, to allow this Bill to pass in the ordinary way.
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I think the House will agree with me that I have had very little opportunity so far of getting in a word at all. This Bill deals with Crown property, and certain forms have to be gone through before a Bill dealing with Crown property can become law. The Royal Assent has to be given, and the House has to be notified that Royal Assent has been given. Last Friday I forgot to tell the House that the Royal Assent had to be given, or to have it signified to the House that it had been given. In those circumstances it became necessary to declare the proceeding on the Third Reading null and void. I now ask the House to read the Bill a third time. I think it would be considered redundant in me to explain its provisions after what has been said by the hon. Member for Pontefract, but I may state to the House that at the back of the National Gallery there is a vacant plot of land where are the St. George's Barracks. The vacant land is under the Office of Woods and Forests, and the land on which St. George's Barracks stand belong to the War Office. The Secretary of State for

1873
War has been provided with new buildings to take the place of St. George's Barracks in Scotland Yard. Therefore the site of St. George's Barracks at the back of the National Gallery is no longer required for military purposes. The land belonging to the Office of Woods and Forests is not required for any purpose connected with that Department. It is of the utmost value to the First Comsioner of Works if on any future occasion the National Portrait Gallery required to be enlarged. Therefore, it is quite expedient that the First Commissioner of Works should have the whole of the property in his hands. The first part of the Bill proposes that a transfer of the land should be made from the Office of Woods and Forests and the War Office to the Office of Works. The second part of the Bill deals with a small plot of land at the east end of the Mall, which was required in order to make one side of the Mall level with the other. There was a certain amount of land which the Office of Works did not require, and an arrangement has been made with the Office of Woods and Forests in reference to it. They are very small plots of land, and do not amount to half the size of the floor of this House. The fourth Clause of this Bill provides for the land being transferred from the Office of Woods and Forests to the Office of Works. These are the whole contents of the Bill. It is rather difficult to explain. The plans have been in the Tea Room, but I can assure the House they were not visited for two or three weeks. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will take that explanation.
Sir E. CARLILE: I would like to ask whether since the previous stages of the Bill were declared null and void, it is competent to bring in the Bill without going through introduction, second reading and other stages again?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is on the Third Reading it was null and void.
Sir E. CARLILE: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the previous stages were null and void.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion that was taken the other day was that the proceedings, on the Third Reading of the Bill, be null and void, and that it be set down for to-day.

LABOUR DISPUTES.
MASTER of ELIBANK: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for War if he can give the House any information with regard to some deplorable events which have occurred, or which are represented to have occurred, in Liverpool?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I regret I have no information to give the House with regard to the occurrences in Liverpool to which I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division refers. There is a Press telegram, which I think most hon. Members have seen, stating that there have been serious riots and loss of life. I have endeavoured to get through to the Chief Constable in Liverpool on the telephone in order to verify the statements made in the Press paragraph, but I have not yet succeeded in doing so. Under the circumstances, I regret I can give no information to the House. I may add that I saw the principal officials of the War Office twenty minutes ago, and they had then no positive confirmation of the deplorable circumstances which it is alleged have taken place. I would not like it to be taken from that as saying that no disaster has occurred. I can only say that I have no confirmation of the statement given in the Press telegrams.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his place, and I should like to know what information he has in regard to the report of a national strike on the railways. I hope that the Department will be prepared, when questions of this kind arise, and that they will be able to tell us something definite?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant):My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the officials of our Department have been engaged, not only to-day, but yesterday and nearly everyday for the last fortnight in endeavouring to settle these most disastrous disputes, and they have met with a considerable amount of success, I think the House will agree, in settling them with the representatives of labour and capital; but, unfortunately, those settlements have not always been acted upon by those who are usually and who ought to be guided by their leaders. With regard to what my

1875
hon. Friend has asked me, I am afraid I can give the House no further information than that which has been given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board.
Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. I asked him About something which has happened within the last five hours, as to a national railway strike having been declared on the railways. Has he any information?
Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I think the information which has reached my hon. Friend is premature. I do not think anything of that nature has occurred so far as I am aware, but I would like to guard myself as to that statement.
Mr. PEEL: Can the Home Secretary or his subordinate give us any information about what has happened in Liverpool during the last two hours? We have had information through the Press; have the Government no information or knowledge whatever on the subject which they can give to the House?
Colonel SEELY: It is only by leave of the House that I can speak again, but since I spoke before I have received a telephonic message from the War Office stating that a party of the 18th Hussars were attacked to-night in Liverpool and one man was killed and three wounded. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hussars?"] Who they were who were killed and who were wounded, I have no definite information; but I have this information direct from General MacKinnon, so that I think it may be taken as certain that the number of casualties is not greater than I have now stated.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I ask the representative of the Home Office whether, having regard to this further terrible information from Liverpool he does not see his way now to take some more definite steps towards intervening there with a view to bringing the parties together? I received an answer when I asked a question earlier to the effect that it was not possible, but I think if anything were required to show the Government that it really was necessary to stir themselves in this matter the information which ha3 come to hand since ought to be sufficient to do it.
Mr. TENNANT: I do not think I can add anything to the answers given by my right hon. Friend at question time.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: How does the hon. Member understand that the report which has been circulated within the last four hours to the effect that a universal railway strike has been determined upon, is not authentic? Has he no information at all with regard to it?
Mr. TENNANT: I cannot give any further answer.
Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the business for Thursday and Friday, has any definite decision been come to?
MASTER of ELIBANK: A statement will be made to-morrow.
Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes before Eleven o'clock.