HC Deb 03 March 1911 vol 22 cc735-67

Motion made, and Question proposed,

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the Preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance; that is as to what it is proposed should be done in respect to the dies and stamps. On the last Vote, Sir, you ruled out of order the raising of certain questions of policy which had been decided when the original Vote was before the House. This matter deals with an entirely new question. There was no Vote whatever in the original Estimate for dies and stamps. The reason for this Supplementary Vote is because the Government are embarking on a great change of policy about which nothing, I think, has ever been said to the House or to the public, and which really ought to be very fully discussed. The change of policy is this: Up to the present year postage stamps, and not only postage stamps, but stamps for bills of exchange, and for revenue purposes, have been let out by private contract and made by a private firm. I forget the name of the firm that first undertook this duty fifty years ago, but for the last thirty years the work has been done by Messrs. De la Rue. Their contract terminated in December, and the Government have taken over the work. The Government have decided—and this is where the matter arises on this particular Vote—that the stamps shall be made by the Royal Mint. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse)—not in any spirit of hostility, but because I think we should have the fullest information on the matter—certam questions in regard to the change. Firstly, why have the Government, after having followed for so many years the policy of private contracting terminated the contract, and why are they going to do the work themselves?

Secondly, is it the intention of the Government that the cost of making the stamps shall be less? We are entitled to have some figures laid before the Committee as to the cost of making the stamps in the past by Messrs. De la Rue, and what the cost is likely to be under the new Government arrangement. Is there likely to be any saving under this head? Again, I want to know if the Government really hopes to do the work rather better? I do not think we ought to boast very much of the character of the stamps that we have had up to the present time. The designs, in many respects, have not been good. I am sure that from an artistic point of view they compare very badly with, for example, the French and Swiss stamps, and from the point of view of finish they compare very badly indeed with the stamps of the United States. In addition, I think we are all agreed that a more flimsy, wretched paper than the stamps have been made of could not be conceived. I do not know how many times Members of Parliament, who are always having to put stamps on letters—that seems to be one of our principal occupations!—tear stamps and have to stick them together, or perhaps destroy them, because of the flimsiness of their material. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that now that the making of stamps has been undertaken by a Government Department, that not only as regards the design and the character of the stamps, but in respect to the material of which they are made, there will be an improvement in the future. I am not for a single moment bringing any charge against the Government. nor am I complaining of the Government taking this important matter into their own hands. I simply want details as to what saving there is likely to be. Granted that it is the proper course that the Government should do this work themselves, is the Mint—and this is an important question—the best place to do it? The Government had several alternatives. They could have set up a separate stamp factory, an entirely new department, and could have come and asked for a Vote for it; or they could have followed the course they actually have followed. What do the Government contemplate for the future? Up to the termination of the contract, Messrs. De la Rue have been in the habit of making stamps not only for this country but have made nearly all—certainly the greater number—of stamps for the Colonies and for India. It has been the commonest thing for our Colonies, for our Indian Dependency, and for some foreign countries to come to us for designs without having got the designs for the stamps actually made here. Are the Government going to make provision, now that they have undertaken this duty of manufacturing stamps to supply, not only the Mother Country but also the Colonies? If so I venture to say that the provision in the Estimate is altogether inadequate. Much bigger premises would be required and much more dies and plates and a great deal more in the way of machinery and in the matter of Civil Servants, and so on. We would have to contemplate not a small augmentation of the business of the Mint, but a very large augmentation. Do the Government contemplate that, and as the Mint is the Mint, in most respects, not only for the coinage of this country but for the Empire as a whole, is it also to be the stamp factory not only for this country but for the Empire as a whole. The public and the House of Commons ought to be informed on these matters, and we ought to know how far this expenditure which is placed upon the Votes is going to help us in the future. It is a much bigger question than one merely of postage stamps; there is the whole question of Excise stamps, stamps for bills, legal documents, and contract notes. Whatever reason there may have been to complain of the character of postage stamps manufactured by private contract in the past, certainly the other stamps have been very well done, and if the Government are going to undertake the whole of that, in addition to the postage stamps, the addition to the work in the Mint will be very great indeed.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extraordinary elaboration of these business stamps. It is such that even if the smallest bit of stamp remains actually attached to a document its character can be identified. There was an extraordinary case occurred some years ago arising out of a railway accident in the neighbourhood of Peterborough, on the Northern Railway, when the mail bags were burned and many legal documents were totally or partially destroyed. From some little bits of stamps found in the charred mail bags it was possible to identify the documents to which they were attached. When stamps have to be made with that elaboration it shows the business is a very intricate and peculiar one, which the Government are undertaking in addition to the manufacture of postage stamps. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a full statement of the intentions of the Government in regard to the making of stamps, and I claim the right to do so on this occasion because in the Estimates presented last year there was no mention made of the making of stamps. It is a new departure, and the policy has been embarked on since the Estimates of last year were published, and it is only fair that we should have a full statement from the Government upon the subject.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I want to ask a few questions as to the amounts of some items in the Vote which are not intelligible on the face of them. In the first place—specimen coins and medals—are they all in connection with the new reign and the approaching Coronation, or is there any other explanation for them? There is the item in connection with the last coinage of gold. On the face of it I should have thought that might have been anticipated and provided for in the original estimate. Why are salaries, wages, and allowances greater now than was anticipated; the new reign hardly makes much difference in that connection. Then with regard to coinage, is that old coinage or new coinage in connection with the new reign? Why is there no explanation of how the £48,780 Appropriation-in-Aid was arrived at-There is usually an explanatory foot-note, but there is no indication here of how you arrive at that appropriation. Then there is the item for increased rates and freights on account of the unusually large shipments of silver coins. It is very surprising that should not have been foreseen and provided for in the original estimate. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how these various items arise, and why so considerable an estimate is laid upon the Table at this stage of the Session. The Government pledged themselves in times gone by to reduce Supplementary Estimates as much as possible, and it is somewhat disappointing to see Supplementary Estimates that show no reduction and great slovenliness of finance.

Mr. JAMES MASON

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was necessary to have this extra coinage of £25,000,000 of gold, and in the next item in the Votes will he tell us whether the increased cost is due entirely to the cost of freight, and what freight is meant. Why should it be necessary to send these silver coins about to so very much larger a degree than in former years. If there was an increase in silver coinage there ought to be an increase of profit at the Mint.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The hon. Gentleman who raised this matter put very legitimate questions to me upon the subject of our new departure in the manufacture of stamps. The fact is that about six or eight months ago the contract held by Messrs. De la Rue for many years was due to expire, and the question naturally arose whether we should renew the contract or whether we should ourselves embark upon the manufacture. After a very careful examination of the subject, it was determined it would be better upon the whole that we should ourselves embark upon the process of manufacture, and a Committee which sat and went into all the details came to the conclusion that it could be so done better and more economically. The contract with Messrs. De la Rue expired at the end of the year and we took over the process of making these stamps and dies. The Committee will be glad to know that there has been a very large saving indeed upon former contracts, which we estimate will work out at not less than £40,000 a year. I think this will explain satisfactorily to hon. Members why we allowed the old contracts to run out and why we have embarked upon this new policy. I have been asked some questions about design, finish, and material. I do not think it will be found that in any of these three respects the new work will fall short of the old. On the contrary, I think there will be a great improvement in regard to those points. The old machinery used by the contractors was of a very old-fashioned type, and would probably have been scrapped under a new contract. I have been asked whether the size of the premises at the Mint would allow for expansion, and I think it is a very proper question to ask. I think anyone who considers the point will see that the Mint is undoubtedly the best place for this manufacture. In the course of last you, when preparing for this change, certain small alterations took place which afforded us all the room we wanted, as far as premises are concerned for the future. May I point out that the Colonies are free agents in regard to the supply of stamps. We have not at present actually entered into any undertaking for the supply of stamps to the Colonies, but I think it is very probable they will come to us for them. They have already asked us to supply them with dies, and doubtless we shall supply them with stamps.

Mr. BOSCAWEN

Then you are making the dies now?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

That is so. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has asked me a question as to the loss of coinage under head H. It is very difficult to understand in an estimate for any given year what the exact requirements of the year will be. The demand for gold has been greater than the average.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Why?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I do not think that can be explained in a sentence, but it is due, to a certain extent, to the general demands of commerce. The amount of money generally in circulation is greater. It is obvious that in the manufacture of gold and turning it into coin there must be a certain amount of wastage. That is the simple explanation, and it can be wholly ascribed to the greater amount of money in circulation. The Noble Lord also asked a question about salaries and wages. There has been a certain amount of overtime work, first of all in connection with the change of manufacture in regard to dies and stamps, and on account of the increased amount of coinage. All this acts and re-acts upon the cost. I cannot take one sum and say this is due to stamps and another to gold coinage, but the general work has increased. With regard to the item of the total coinage for the United Kingdom and the Colonies a great deal of this arises on account of the Colonies, and an especially large part goes to West Africa. West Africa is a country the coinage o£ which has altered from time to time and certain coins acceptable in one part do not pass current in the adjacent Colony or in some parts of the Colony itself. From this Colony we get very varying demands as one part goes up in prosperity and the other falls, because the coin is not interchangeable and you have to have a fresh coin. That is the reason of this increase, which I do not think is very large.

Mr. JAMES MASON

Is it silver coinage?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

Yes. With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid which the Noble Lord referred to I am afraid I have not got all the particulars before me. The original Estimate was £169,000, and we propose here to take the sum of £218,000, which leaves a sum, in round figures, in excess of the Appropriations of £49,000. As I am informed, this increase arises upon the general profits of coinage, but the amount is applied in the same way as the original appropriation to the reduction of the nett expenses of the Mint. There is nothing new in these appropriations. I regret that the note has not been added; that is my error, and I offer my regret to the Committee.

Mr. YOUNGER

I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a satisfactory explanation for determining the contract for stamps and taking on the work themselves. I do not know whether it is proposed to improve the paper. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be an improvement in style, but he did not say whether the Government intended to use better paper as I think they ought to do. Surely when the estimate contemplates a saving of £40,000 it will allow for an extra quality of paper. As for the Mint, the desire is to keep the work closer together in order to save the cost of management. The explanation given of the exceptionally large amount of gold coinage to my mind is not quite satisfactory. I would like to know whether the unusual amount of £25,000,000 arose from an exceptional exportation of gold. Were the exports of bullion to a large extent exports of coin, as very often such exports are? It appears to me that the absorption of £25,000,000 by the general business community during the year above the ordinary average is not to be explained by the conditions of trade. It has not increased to that extent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it does not arise from a larger amount of bullion going abroad in the shape of coin.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

One of the reasons for the enormous absorption of gold has undoubtedly been that the shipments of gold to America have been greater.

Mr. YOUNGER

Is that coin gold?

Mr. C. E. PRICE

Yes, a great deal of British gold since the crisis has found its way into the provinces of America, and the banks have been very reluctant to part with it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the saving of £40,000 on stamps?

Sir F. BANBURY

Would the hon. Member mind speaking up? We cannot hear him.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long this contract with De la Rue has been in existence. He says he anticipates a saving of £40,000 a year. That seems an enormous saving, and I should like to know how long this contract has been in existence, and whether there were competitive prices sent in when the contract was made? It seems extraordinary that when a Government Department is about to take over work hitherto performed by a contractor, they should say they hope to very materially improve the work and at the same time save £40,000. That seems to me to let in a great flood of light as to the way in which some of these contracts are placed, and I should like to know how long the contract has been in existence, and whether competitive prices were sent in when it was placed?

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—

2.0 P.M.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

I rise to Move to reduce this Vote by £10, in order to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter which, in my opinion and in the opinion of a large number of those who come from Wales, is one of extreme importance. I happen to have a half-crown in my pocket—although I have not yet received any instalment of my salary as a Member of Parliament, which I sincerely hope, with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) will be made retrospective when it does arrive—and I notice there is no emblem or recognition of Wales on the back of the coin. Although we have good reason to believe that the dies of the new coin will not be altered, I should at the same time be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman opposite could say the new dies are going to include an emblem of Wales. The coin as it is represents England, Scot land, and Ireland, but there is no emblazonment of Wales upon it. It seems to me it would be much better for the whole country that there should be some emblem of Wales on it. The point is absolutely most obvious. Great excitement has been caused in the north of Wales, and loyalty has been to an extraordinary extent aroused by the very idea of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales taking place there, and Cardiff has changed her Coat-of-Arms in order to emblaze on her escutcheon the emblem of Wales. This shows it is a matter of the greatest import ance and urgency. If the three countries are recognised surely the Red Dragon of Wales might also be—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley)

Does the Noble Lord suggest that a new departure is being made in this matter?

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

It has not been made.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Then the Noble Lord is not in order.

Lord HUGH CECIL

On a point of Order. This arises on new charges, and my Noble Friend is criticising the manner in which the Government are spending the public money.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I submit it is impossible to criticise a design which, I understand, is not yet in circulation.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know whether what the right hon. Gentleman has said just now will stop the discussion, but may I point out there is no provision in existence, and this is a new Vote. The general policy of the Vote, therefore, may be discussed.

Mr. ESSEX

I think it was an old half-crown which the Noble Lord had.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

We do not happen to have a new half-crown.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) is not able to show me there is a new departure, then it would not be in order in advocating a change.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I do not think you understand what is the nature of the Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] This is a Vote by which public money is being spent on coins of a particular design. Are we not entitled to criticise the design? We are criticising the way in which the Government are spending public money. They are spending public money on what my Noble Lord thinks is a bad design. Are we to be told that is not in order?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I submit the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) has not pointed out on which of these items this particular matter arises.

Lord HUGH CECIL

It arises, of course, on the coinage.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The Noble Lord is not everybody in this House. I appeal to the Noble Lord who raised this Motion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I desired the Noble Lord in addressing the Committee to indicate in what way he says a new departure is being made.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

On Vote A to defray increased charges due to very heavy coinages and to new work connected with the preparation of dies, plates, and stamps, £3,600. My point is this. It is obvious this £3,600 is for this new coinage, and I want to know whether that new coinage is going to have an emblem of Wales upon it.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

As far as my in formation goes the sum of money asked for upon item A—

Lord HUGH CECIL

No.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

Pray let the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) speak for himself. My information is that Vote A upon which the Noble Lord is raising this matter is not spent in connection with the new design of coinage, but in connection with coinage in accordance with the old design.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

Then are we to understand that these dies are for the old coinage?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

That is my information.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

Are we to understand that the new coins are going to be produced from identical dies?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The Noble Lord will pardon me. The item is "dies for stamps," and it is a charge for incidental expenses. According to my information it is not for new coins.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The words are expenses "connected with the preparation of dies, plates, etc., for stamps." Does that mean for the new coinage?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

My information is that it is not the new coinage.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The Supplementary Estimate is for the salaries and expenses of the Mint, including the expenses of coinage.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

New coins from old designs 2

Lord HUGH CECIL

This is new work connected with the preparation of dies?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I have stated the facts as far as my information goes.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Then how are the new coins paid for?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

This Supplementary Estimate is not for new coins.

Lord HUGH CECIL

This is a matter of general public interest. We ought to be told whether the charges for the new coinage are included in this Vote.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

So far as my information goes it is not for that purpose.

Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is included in the Vote?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I said as definitely as possible that this was not included.

Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman created on this side the impression he was not sure whether this matter was included. Is not this reducing the discussion to an absolute farce? We do not know what we are discussing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Cardiff is in possession.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

If we are to understand that the new coinage cannot be taken as included in this Debate, I submit that we ought to be given some information as to the cost of the new coinage. Is it impossible on this Vote to raise the question of the inclusion of the arms of Wales? I am prepared to move to reduce the Vote by £50 in order to raise a discussion on that.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

It is impossible to reduce a Vote for £20 by £50.

Lord HUGH CECIL

We had a ruling from the Chair a fortnight ago that that could be done.

The CHAIRMAN

I would suggest to the Noble Lord he should move to reduce the vote by £10.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I point out that the heading of the Vote embodies the words "including the expenses of coinage."

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I have said the new coinage is not included. My information is that the new designs are not included.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

My colleagues in the Welsh party are particularly interested in this point. We want to know whether on the emblems or specimen coins the Welsh arms are to be put? If that is to be done, I am perfectly satisfied, but in order to draw attention to this matter I beg to remove to reduce this Vote by the sum of £10.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know why the arms of Wales should not be put on the medals or new coins. I quite sympathise with the desire of the Noble Lord in this respect.

Mr. LANSBURY

We only want it on the coinage.

Sir F. BANBURY

The point I take is whether the arms of Wales are to be placed on these medals. What is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect? I see there is an hon. Member opposite who nods his head in an approving fashion, and therefore I presume he will support us in this demand. I am very glad to think so, because it shows that there are some questions where there is a feeling of right and wrong which rise above party considerations. I should be glad, therefore, if the Members for Wales would take the lead in this matter. This Motion for reduction is concerned with the whole Vote, and though I shall support the Noble Lord if he goes to a Division, I am also concerned with other details of the Vote, as to which I should like to have some explanation. I understand there is a very important question on the general Vote in regard to Government trading raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to save £40,000 by making alterations in certain stamps and dies. That is a very large statement, and I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that one of two things must have happened, either the contract which was approved of before was a very bad one—

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I agree it was a very bad one.

Sir F. BANBURY

I suppose it was a contract which had gone on for a long time and now he has taken the opportunity of altering it. That is all to his credit, but what I want to put to him is, does he really think that he is really going to make this saving by doing the work by the Government instead of making a better and cheaper contract. My experience of Government work is that it is more expensive than work done by contract. There are many reasons which make it so. No doubt hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will not agree with me in this, but in the case of Government contracts pressure is put upon the right hon. Gentleman to pay more than is necessary for wages, and there are a variety of matters of that sort in regard to which pressure is put upon a Minister. Therefore, instead of making a saving of £40,000, I believe the right hon. Gentleman may make a loss. I do not believe in the right hon. Gentleman taking up a new business of which he knows nothing and embarking upon it. In making that statement, he was obliged to rely upon information given to him, but I think it was his duty to find out whether that information is correct. I think it is quite impossible for any control to be taken over any manufacturing department by any Government whoever they may be. I believe this is a very dangerous precedent, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it, for I cannot conceive that it is possible for any Government department to make a saving in this particular class of business. Further, I do not think it is right that the Government should engage in that sort of trading. I have always been against all sorts of trading by the authorities, because I believe the result is that the particular business costs more, is worse done, and the taxpayers are losers by it. I think the numerous projects which are now in the hands of the Government in attempting to go into business of this kind, instead of being the result of good policy are the result of a very serious error, and one which ought not to be committed. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is right for him at the present moment to go into a big business, and, if he can, get the work done better and cheaper, to do so, by making a proper contract in a proper manner.

Sir FRANCIS EDWARDS

I appreciate the feeling of the Noble Lord in moving the reduction of this Vote, but I should have appreciated it better had I not known that he is a colleague of the Leader of the Opposition in the opinion that Wales and everything relating to Wales may be summarised in the expression de minimus non. I should have been obliged to the Noble Lord if at the previous Coronation he had lent the weight of his authority to the alteration of the coinage. Personally, I am anxious that there should be such a coinage as he suggested, but I do not see how this question arises on the Vote before us. My right hon. Friend has disclaimed that it has any connection with this Vote. In regard to adding the Welsh arms, I think any Welshman would be in accordance with the opinion of the hon. Member for Cardiff, but on this occasion I do not see that the matter arises, although I hope the result of his raising the question will be that my right hon. Friend will see that something is done in the matter of quartering the arms on the coinage. I think it is a good thing that his attention should have been drawn to the matter, and I hope he will use his influence to see that something is done.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I should like to point out what has not been pointed out before, and that is the insufficiency of the right hon. Gentleman's answer as to the question of stamps which is before the Committee. That, I venture to submit, is the worst type of Government trading. Let us take the figures which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. He comes down and the only sum he asks for is a Supplementary Estimate of £3,400. That is for the plant practically for commencing a new business, and then he talks airily about making a saving of £40,000 a year, but he has not given us the figures for the original contract with De la Rue or any of the figures connected with the existing state of affairs. Surely the Committee ought to have those figures before it passes this Vote. He tells us in addition to that that we are making a saving at the present time, but I should like to know the result of the work which is being done. It is very easy to talk, but this is a business of a most complicated measure. De la Rue's have been doing not only the adhesive stamps but the very important embossed stamps. That is an exceedingly difficult business, as it concerns a matter which requires great skill. Anybody who has been connected with cases of forgery must remember the extreme difficulty of dealing with such cases in regard to these embossed stamps. The marks on the stamps by means of which a forger is caught are very intricate and the enamelling and colouring of the stamps is a very difficult and important matter, which you will find will not be well carried out except it is done by people who have worked at it before. This is a highly specialised subject, and ought to be dealt with by people of experience, and by people who are doing the work at the present time. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman will read like a company prospectus, in that it will show a most prosperous state of things in the future, because he says in order to save £40,000 a year the Government only ask £3,400 for plant and that is all they ask for. I think the Committee should know more in detail the way in which this tremendous £40,000 is going to be saved. The right hon. Gentleman let out one little bit about the business management of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) asked about the question of contracts. De la Rue's had the contract for England and for the Colonies as well, and business people. of course, know how much more cheaply you can undertake big businesses of that kind than small ones, and it is exceedingly important to know whether the Government have the contract for Colonial stamps or for stamps for the United Kingdom only. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite fairly, that the Colonies had not given contracts for their stamps, and I understood that applied to India as well. That is a straightforward answer. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, and I could not help smiling, "We have all the dies ready for them in case they want them." Can you imagine any business conducted on business principles solemnly going to the expense which we are voting to-day?

Mr. BOOTH

All businesses would.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The hon. Gentleman has experience in prospectuses and in businesses, and I ask him, as a serious business man, first whether he would invest money on a prospectus of this kind, and, secondly, does he really say a business, except one conducted on the most speculative lines, would have the dies prepared for business which they might never get and which would result in a dead loss if they did not produce the stamps? It might be done by certain people of a very optimistic turn of mind—and people connected with the promotion of companies are of an optimistic turn of mind—but it is a class of business which I do not think a Government Department should go in for. It is not a very safe way of doing business. No doubt the hon. Member's business experience is larger than mine, but I have had larger experience in seeing a large number of businesses than he has, and if there is one thing which spells ruin in business matters it is over-confidence, and not carefully going into your figures before you undertake any particular estimate, and consequently a too reckless method of putting down your plant before you have any chance of getting your customers to deal with. The Colonies and India are a very limited number of customers, and if the die is ready and the Colonies do not come along that is dead loss, and there is no other customer who can take the stamps off your hands

Mr. W. ROCH

I understand this Vote does not include any die for the new coin, but it includes the die for the Coronation Medal. The argument of the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) as to the coinage applies even more strongly to the Coronation Medal this year, when we are going to have the investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon, and whatever happened at the last Coronation, this is a specially suitable occasion on which to bring Wales into the Coronation Medal.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no expenses are incurred in the new coinage is very difficult to understand. I hold in my hand some of the new coins. They were made by someone. Someone was paid wages for making them

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The Noble Lord may hold new coins issued from the Mint yesterday. Are they in accordance with the old design or with the new design? The point raised by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) was that he wished to draw attention to the alleged fact that the arms of Wales were not upon the new coin. The coinage which the Noble Lord has in his hands is, I imagine, struck from the old dies to which you could not, without destroying the die, add the arms of Wales It is a new coin, but not new coinage.

Lord HUGH CECIL

These are coins of George V. They are, therefore, new coins and part of the new coinage of the reign. My Noble Friend's point is that in the new new coinage of the reign there ought to be provision made for the arms of Wales. It is obvious that in making coins which are in existence salaries and wages must be concerned. It is obvious that the workmen who were paid wages must have been concerned in making the coins, and the right hon. Gentleman owes some apology to the Committee for misinforming them. It is an exceedingly grave matter to make a statement of that kind. We are absolutely dependent on the sense of honour of Ministers in telling us the facts. The right hon. Gentleman, after being repeatedly pressed, said no expense had been incurred on the new coinage of the new realm. That cannot possibly be true. I really think the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in a very serious position. He would have no right to complain at all if we gave notice of a personal vote of censure on him for being guilty of conduct unworthy of a Minister.

Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) reflecting upon the loyalty of the people of Wales by saying we took no interest at all in the form of the Royal Arms, or as to whether there was or was not some recognition of the Principality upon the standard or upon the coinage of the realm.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not for a moment venture to say what was the feeling in Wales. I said I did not know whether they did or not. I am very glad to hear that they do.

Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES

I did not hear the hon. Baronet say anything of the kind, but, of course, I accept at once his statement as the statement of his intention. He has always been, as I know from many years' experience, interested in the affairs of Wales, and I thought he might possibly have heard something of the movement which has been made in Wales for the recognition of the claims of the Principality to have their arms upon the Royal Standard and upon the coinage.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have not heard it.

Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES

That only makes me the more surprised at the fact that the hon. Baronet should have made the statement to-day. But I did not rise with any political intention against the hon. Baronet. I wished him to be correctly informed. What I really rose to say was that I am very grateful to the Noble Lord for raising this point. I do not quite see the relevance of the objection taken as to the point. We are not dealing now with the new coinage, we are dealing, I understand, with certain expenses incurred by the Government in regard to past coinage. Speaking as a Welsh Member, I am inclined to agree with the Noble Lord, and I do not want to pay for coinage that has not a representation of the Principality upon it. I do not know what my right hon. Friend is gonig to say, but I am certain, after the protest of the Noble Lord and after what he has heard in this Debate, it will be entirely sympathetic. I hope the action of the Government will not confine itself to sympathetic words, but will be followed by sympathetic deeds,

Mr. HOBHOUSE

At a very recent date there was a report of the Privy Council, dated 12th December, 1910, which dealt with this question of the representation of Wales upon the national coinage. The report was rather that the present usage of emblazoning the arms of Wales upon the coinage should not be departed from, but that the arms should contain a recognition of the fact that Wales was a country in which His Majesty was especially interested, and therefore that it should play a prominent part in the British Arms. I will take care that the representations which have been made by my hon. Friends shall be made known in the proper quarter, and that their wishes, and those of the Noble Lord opposite, shall have due weight and consideration. [An HON. MEMBER: "AS to the Coronation Medal as well."] Of course. The hon. Member opposite rather suggested that we were embarking on a hazardous and unknown experiment. The difficulty which results from not dealing fully with all these questions at ony one given moment is that if you do not get up and answer the first criticism made, one is apt to have a somewhat tardy reply. On the other hand, if you wait until the end of the discussion, you have not afforded that opportunity of information which hon. Gentlemen desire, and which I frankly admit they are fully entitled to have. I pointed out the contract which the hon. Baronet said was a very bad contract has come to an end. I agree with him that it was a very bad contract, but it was entered into ten years ago, when the hon. Baronet's Friends were in office. No competition was asked for when that contract was entered into. I do not know whether, for one reason or another, it was found impossible to obtain competition, or whether it was thought better to dispense with it. I do not know what motives animated the hon. Baronet's Friends.

Sir F. BANBURY

I was not on the Front Bench, and I had no means of knowing.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I suppose the contract was entered into by hon. Gentlemen who were his friends. The consequence was that a very bad contract was entered into which, so far as our calculations go, must have cost the country between £40,000 and £50,000 a year. We have not given the whole of that work to the Mint as the hon. and learned Member thought we had done. We have given them the duty of preparing the dies, plates, and stamps; but the work of preparing the adhesive stamps has been left to a firm of contractors. The old contract for that work was £97,000 a year, but under the new contract it will be £50,000 a year, showing an actual saving of £47,000 a year. When from that saving has been deducted that part of the cost which is borne by the Mint, there will be a saving of £300,000 or £400,000. Therefore, the estimated saving, which we have put at £40,000 a year, will be an actual saving of £42,000 a year. This is no experimental undertaking. It is an actual cash saving on this contract of about £40,000. I did not wish to state these figures, or to say who was responsible for the former bad contract. The information has been dragged out of me by' the desire for information on the part of the hon. Baronet opposite. As to what fell from the hon. Member for Oxford University, I wish to say, not only for myself, but for anybody who stands here representing this or any future Government, that a discussion on Estimates must be a discussion strictly in order, and in accordance with the rules of the House. Sometimes that may be to the advantage of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I pointed out that there was a way by which this discussion could be raised, and it has been so raised. I have pleasure in promising that I will represent in the proper quarter the views which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion.

Mr. ESSEX

I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any further information regarding the metals to be used for the coins and medals, and particularly whether there is any probability of bringing about a supersession of bronze by using nickel. We seem to be adhering in this country in the slowest fashion to the use of bronze.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The only provision made at present is for the use of gold, silver, and bronze.

Lord BALCARRES

As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is going to make inquiries, will he postpone the Report stage of this Vote until those inquiries have been made, and he is in a position to give further information to the House?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

If the Noble Lord would look into the Report on this matter he will see that His Majesty, having taken the Report into consideration, has been pleased, on the advice of the Privy Council, to approve thereof.

Lord BALCARRES

Does that carry with it a decision on the part of the authorities to instruct that the arms on the new coins and medals shall include the arms of the Principality of Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make further inquiry, I want to know whether he will postpone the Report stage of this Vote for three or four days until he can make a definite announcement to the House?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I cannot give any undertaking of that sort, for these Supplementary Estimates are necessary for the service of the country. The representations which I have undertaken to make on behalf of hon. Members will not be necessarily dependent upon this Vote. I think the Vote should go forward in the usual way.

Mr. FELL

I would like to ask a question as to the loss on the coinage of gold. The original estimate of loss was £5,000, the revised estimate is £10,250, which is more than double. I take it that that shows an actual change of policy by the Government in the matter of gold coinage made in the course of the year, the explanation given on the next page is that it is to defray the loss on an exceptionally large amount of gold coinage, £25,000,000. I believe we have not coined so much as that for a great many years past. I have got out the figures for the past ten or twelve years. They vary from two, five, seven, nine, and twelve, until 1907, then we get £20,000,000, nearly double what it has been in any previous year. In 1908 it was £13,000,000, in 1909 £14,000,000, and now it is £25,000,000 gold coinage in the past year. In the past four years the coinage was £72,000,000. In the previous four years it was £40,000,000. So that it would be about double now what it has been in recent years. This enormous increase of coinage last year is a matter which probably affects us. A great many people consider it will mean an increase in the price of articles in this country. In America the economists all consider that in the past few years the great increase of gold has materially raised—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr FELL

We are asked to vote £5,000 for increased coinage of gold, which is about double what it usually costs in this country, and I would just point out that that has a great influence in the country. Why was there about twice as much gold coined last year as was estimated for at the beginning of the year? The gold coinage nearly pays for itself, and we have to pay £5,000 more because the Government coined this excessive amount. In answer to some inquiries last year I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who replied that some gold was absorbed, that there was a very large outlet. I would like to have some explanation of how it has been absorbed, and why coinage of gold has been doubled.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I would like to refer to the Welsh question. I understand that he has promised to make inquiries, but that we are to have no further opportunities of making representations on the subject. Is it definitely settled that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the arms or emblem of Wales are included in the new coinage? I would also like some information in reference to the Royal Standard—what is to be included? It is a question of great importance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take action before he consults the Heralds College, and that he will see that Wales is properly represented in the new coinage.

Mr. W. F. ROCH

In reference to the question of Wales and the Royal Standard, I am perfectly ready to admit that there were very good reasons against the suggestion as the flag would have had to be altered everywhere at great expense. That does not apply to the coinage or the Coronation medals. There is no additional expense there. It is purely a matter of design, or of technique, and I really think that the right hon. Gentleman might hold out a little more hope than he does.

Mr. CROFT

In reference to the contract that has been mentioned, may I ask whether it is a British contract, and whether the Government asked tenders from foreign countries as is usual with them?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

It is a British contract, and has gone to a firm on the outskirts of London. In reference to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Noble Lord who sits for Lancashire (Lord Balcarres) I have to refer to an earlier statement I made. I have been able to refresh my memory since I addressed the Committee on the subject. There is no money in this Supplementary Estimate for the new coinage, not a one penny piece. Therefore, on the strict technical law of Parliament, there is no opportunity on this Vote, even if it were held over, for further discussion on this subject. With reference to the question of the medal, I have promised that representations shall be made, and I trust it will be understood that such promises are always made in good faith, and on this as on every other occasion, will be carried out as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has referred to a question of the cost of gold coinage. Had he been in the House earlier he would have heard the whole point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and the explanation, so I think I need not detain the House upon that subject now.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I thank the hon. Member for the very full way he answered my question. He gave an absolutely different impression to those on this side of the House from that which they had previously held. We always understood that the manufacture of stamps would be done at the Mint. I want to get the two things absolutely clear, first that the £3,400 which the right hon. Gentleman is deducting from what he says is the savings on contracts, is to be the whole amount of the extra expense. If it is, it is very peculiar, because this contract has been on for a short time, and this £3,400 is wanted for three months, and are you not likely to want more for the year? Does it include all expenses? Is there to be no other expense? Superintendence at the Mint and so forth will require a very much larger sum than the £3,400 a year, taken from the alleged savings on the contract. In reference to the £97,000 a year, with the exception of the cost thrown on the Mint is it perfectly clear that the new contractors who have entered into the contract of £50,000 a year have to do the entire work, for £50,000 which the £97,000 involved.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

Certainly. In round figures there is a saving of over £40,000.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The point has been made that this contract was a bad one, entered into by the late Conservative Government ten years ago. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was only the continuation of an existing contract which was made for the first time as far back as 188L I wish to be quite frank about the matter; I may be right, or I may be wrong; but was it in 1881 or 1891 that the contract was made? From the business point of view I wish to have some information on the point.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

There is no objection. I should be very glad to show the hon. and learned Gentleman the contract itself, and he will see that everything that was done under the old contract is done under the new one, plus this Vote, which is included in the total that I have named. The expense next year will be no greater than it is this year, proportionately of course. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is only a quarter's expense. There will be no greater expense next year than this year, the sum being £50,000, plus £4,300. In reply to the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me, our information goes to show that Messrs. De la Rue, on the contract for £97,000, were making something between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. profit upon it. That is now we have been able to cut down this eaormous sum. Having given a full explanation to the Committee I trust that we will now be allowed to get the Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY

I only wish to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so enthusiastically in favour of the contract system, that I do not wonder at their devotion to it in view of the explanation we have had from the right hon. Gentleman that the firm who had this contract made more than 80 per cent. upon it in the year. It has been stated on the question of giving contracts to private firms to which hon. Members opposite are so devoted, that the Government have not the necessary information, nor have they the necessary means of knowing how to get the best kind of men, with the best kind of experience, for their purposes. I would point out to the hon. Member who made that statement, that Governments and municipalities can do exactly what joint-stock companies do—that is, they can buy in the open market all the available experience and all the men necessary to carry out any particular piece of work.

Sir F. BANBURY rose.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I cannot allow this to develop into a discussion on the general principle.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am quite aware of that, Sir. I am only anxious to say that this particular contract was entered into by the Radical Government in 1881. It was confirmed, very foolishly, in 1891, by the Conservative Government. It only shows how a Conservative Government should never confirm anything done by a Radical Government. In regard to the other point, there is no one sitting on this side of the House who desires that excessive profits should be made by private contractors. But in this instance these excessive profits were entered into by a Radical Government. If we had known it on this side we should have stopped it.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

Is it the fact that the contract in 1891, to which reference has been made, was not a competitive contract?

Mr. ESSEX

Yes.

Mr. LOGAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the tender was on a lump sum or whether it was on schedule

prices? If the tender was based on schedule prices, I should like to ask him whether we could not see the original schedule of prices and the present one upon which the Government themselves are working, so that we may compare the two.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The hon. Member asks whether the contract was on schedule prices. Yes, it was.

Mr. LOGAN

The original contract?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The 1881 contract. What happened with regard to the 1881 contract was that there was a competition, if my memory serves me rightly, amongst three would-be contractors, and the contract was eventually allotted to Messrs. De la Rue. Ten years ago it was renewed, but without competition. There was no competition upon the tender ten years ago; it was simply said that Messrs. De la Rue were to do this work at proper prices. It was thought there were no competitors in the trade. Last June or July we inquired whether we could possibly get competition. We have got competition, and we have saved £40,000. I do not want to make a political matter of this; it was dragged out of me; I leave it, and I trust that we may now be allowed to get the Vote.

Mr. MALCOLM

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the contract to which he refers on the Table?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I think I must be allowed to consider that.

Sir F. BANBURY

You have quoted from it.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

No; I know that the hon. Baronet has too great a knowledge of Parliamentary procedure to make that mistake.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £10 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 215.

Division No. 29.] AYES. [3.6 p.m.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Cassel, Felix
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Bennett-Goldney, Francis Clive, Percy Archer
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Bigland, Alfred Clyde, James Avon
Balcarres, Lord Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- Cooper, Richard Ashmole
Baldwin, Stanley Boyton, James Courthope, George Loyd
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burn, Colonel C. R. Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Barnston, Harry Campion, W. R. Craik, Sir Henry
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Carlile, Edward Hildred Croft, Henry Page
Dairymple, Viscount Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Fisher, William Hayes Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Fleming, Valentine Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Spear, John Ward
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Stewart, Gershom
Foster, Philip Staveley Malcolm, Ian Talbot, Lord Edmund
Gibbs, George Abraham Mallaby-Deely, Harry Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Goldsmith, Frank Mason, James F. (Windsor) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Gordon, John Morrison-Boll, Major A. C. (Honiton) Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Harris, Henry Percy Mount, William Archer White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Helmsley, Viscount Neville, Reginald J. N. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) Newton, Harry Kottingham Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Hill, Sir Clement L. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) Weimer, viscount
Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Pole-Carew, Sir R. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Worthington-Evans, L.
Hope, Harry (Bute) Rawson, Col. Richard H. Yate, Col. c. E.
Houston, Robert Paterson Remnant, James Farquharson Younger, George
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Ingleby, Holcombe Ronaldshay, Earl of TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord
Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Rothschild, Lionel de Ninian Crichton-Stuart and Mr.
Kerry, Earl of Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Ormsby-Gore.
Kimber, Sir Henry Sanderson, Lancelot
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Marshall, Arthur Harold
Acland, Francis Dyke Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Martin, Joseph
Adamson, William Essex, Richard Walter Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Esslemont, George Blrnie Mathlas, Richard
Alden, Percy Falconer, James Meagher, Michael
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Farrell, James Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Fenwick, Charles Meehan, Patrick, A. (Queen's Co.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Ffrench, Peter Menzles, Sir Walter
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Fitzgibbon, John Molloy, Michael
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Gianville, Harold James Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Goldstone, Frank Morgan, George Hay
Barton, William Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Morrell, Philip
Beale, William Phipson Greig, Colonel James William Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Beck, Arthur Cecil Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Muldoon, John
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Munro, Robert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Boland, John Pius Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Booth, Frederick Handel Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nolan, Joseph
Bowerman, Charles W. Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Norman, Sir Henry
Brace, William Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Brigg, Sir John Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brocklehurst, William B. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brunner, John F. L. Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, Thomas
Bryce, John Annan Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) O'Dowd, John
Burke, E. Haviland- Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Grady, James
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Henry, Sir Charles S. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Higham, John Sharp O'Malley, William
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Hinds, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Byles, William Pollard Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Shee, James John
Cameron, Robert Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Sullivan, Timothy
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) Parker, James (Halifax)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Chancellor, Henry George Johnson, William Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Clough, William Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Pointer, Joseph
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Power, Patrick Joseph
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts,. Stepney) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jowett, Frederick William Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Joyce, Michael Pringle, William M. R.
Cotton, William Francis Kellaway, Frederick George Radford, G. H.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Kilbride, Denis Rainy, A. Rolland
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot King, J. (Somerset, N.) Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Crooks, William Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Crumley, Patrick Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Reddy, Michael
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lansbury, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Dawes, J. A. Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th) Richards, Thomas
Delany, William Leach, Charles Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Logan, John William Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Devlin, Joseph Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Dillon, John Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Donelan, Captain A. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robinson, Sydney
Doris, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Duffy, William J. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Callum, John M. Rowlands, James
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) Sheehy, David
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) M-Micking, Major Gilbert Sherwell, Arthur James
Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Wadsworth, John Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Waring, Walter Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Soares, Ernest Joseph Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Spicer, Sir Albert Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) Watt, Henry A. Young, William (Perth, East)
Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Webb, H. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Sutherland, John E. Wedgwood, Joslah C.
Tennant, Harold John White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Toulmin, George White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whitehouse, John Howard
Verney, Sir Harry Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I put a number of questions to the right hon. Gentleman in no controversial spirit, and the answers I have received are, in my opinion, by no means satisfactory. It appears to me that on some of the points the right bon. Gentleman seems to be badly informed. For example, I asked him a question as to whether it was really intended to undertake the manufacture of stamps. The first answer was that they were to do so, and, subsequently, when I was out of the House, I understand the right hon. Gentleman gave a different answer, to the effect that stamps would not be manufactured but that only dies and plates would be manufactured. That makes a very great difference. When a right hon. Gentleman comes down in order to defend a complete change in public policy, the least we may expect is that we should be informed of the facts, and be able to inform the House and the country precisely what it is the Government intend to do. I feel, therefore, that we ought to try and obtain further information from the right hon. Gentleman because I assure him the whole country are absolutely in the dark, and, at the same time, very much interested in this change of policy. There are several other points upon which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to enlighten us. A great deal was said about the contract with Messrs. De la Rue. I think I was the first person to mention in the House that for over thirty years there had been a contract with Messrs. De la Rue. A great deal of discredit was thrown on this contract by several speakers, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite unable to tell us either the exact terms of the contract or when the contract was first entered into, or when it was renewed. Here we have a great change of public policy, justified by the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that a great saving would be made, and he ought to have been able to give us the details that were asked for. I also complained—and I still complain very bitterly—of the character of the paper of which the present stamps are made. In common with most Members of this House, I spend a great deal of time ill putting stamps upon envelopes. We all have to do it. It is one of the penalties of being a Member of this honourable House. But our time is constantly wasted, as also is our money, by the fact that the present stamps are made of such indifferent material that it is very diffcult to put them on envelopes in an artistic way. Another question which I asked in no spirit of hostility, but for the advantage of the public generally, was whether under the new arrangement, whereby the Government, as I understood, were going to manufacture the stamps, the stamps would be made of better material. The right hon. Gentleman gave no answer on that point. We can see now why he did not. He at first led us to believe that the Government were going to make the stamps, whereas now we learn that they are going to put them out to contract. They are only going to make the die. I asked whether there is to be any stipulation as to the character of the paper. The right hon. Gentleman does not know, and, not knowing, he cannot say. We understand that this departure in public policy is justified on the ground that it will result in a saving of £40,000 in a year. Is that £40,000 a year to be made by the use of inferior paper to that which is used at the present time? I very much doubt whether you could find inferior paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Gum."] I doubt if you could find inferior gum. In view of the great change of public policy involved, I think the public—and especially the House of Commons—are entitled to fuller information than has yet been given.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I do not think the hon. Member has put any point that I did not deal with at considerable length in the course of the discussion when the hon. Member was out of the House. He com plains that he spends a good deal of his time—

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON

In licking stamps.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

In putting stamps on envelopes. The hon. Member can buy envelopes with the stamps already affixed at the post office, and by so doing he would save both his own valuable time and that of the House.

Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

What about the character of the paper?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I think I have dealt with every point that was mentioned. If there be any difficulty in separating one

stamp from another, it is not a question of paper. It is the perforation.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON

He can avoid that by buying stamps separately, at a penny apiece.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

As this matter has been discussed for nearly two hours, I would ask that we might be allowed now to pass on to the next business.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 87.