Commons Sitting of 6 March 1911

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting,
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Weston-super-Mare Gas Bill.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Rotherham Corporation Bill.
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Telegraph (Construction) Bill—Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Telegraph (Construction) Bill.
Furness Railway Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
Tamworth Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Address for Return "showing (1) salaries paid to Members of the Parliaments of the United States and of European countries; and (2) travelling allowances and other privileges of a pecuniary character enjoyed by Members of the Parliaments of the United States and of European countries."—[Mr. Lees Smith.]
ELECTION EXPENSES.
Address for Return "of Charges made to Candidates at the General Election of December, 1910, in Great Britain and Ireland by Returning Officers, specifying the total Expenses of each Candidate (both exclusive and inclusive of Returning Officers' Charges) delivered to the Returning Officers pursuant to The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, and the number of votes polled to each Candidate (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 299, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for Return "showing the names of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation or readmission to British nationality have been issued, and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1910, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised or readmitted, and including information as to any aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 79, of Session 1910."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a provisional arrangement was come to between Germany and Canada last year providing for the renewal of negotiations with a view to an extended trade treaty; if so, whether any steps had been taken in that direction by the Governments of Germany or Canada; would the lower duties in both the Canadian and United States tariffs which are proposed by the reciprocity agreement also be extended to Germany; and, if not, to what extent would the position of Germany be affected in the markets of those two countries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): The Agreement concluded in February, 1910, between Canada and Germany was a provisional one, and the question of a general Convention for the regulation of commercial relations between Canada and Germany was deferred for consideration at a time that might be found mutually convenient. I am not aware that any further steps have been taken in that direction by the Government of Canada or Germany; or whether the lower duties proposed in the Agreement between Canada and the United States will be extended to Germany either by the one or by the other.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the authoritative announcement in America that, if the Canadian Reciprocity Hill passes into law, the American State Department will be obliged to decline to extend to the United Kingdom and the rest of the Empire the same tariff concessions as those given to Canada; and whether we can now any longer, as regards America, rely on the most-favoured-nation clause?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has not been drawn to any announcement of this kind. The interpretation which has sometimes been placed by the United States upon the most-favoured-nation article in commercial treaties has already been a matter of controversy on previous occasions, and may become so again.
  Mr. HUNT: Does that long answer mean that we no longer have a favoured-nation-clause with America?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; but the United States and the British Government differ in their interpretation of it.
  Mr. PETOasked whether, in the event of the United States-Canada reciprocity agreement becoming law, portable engines and traction engines for farm purposes manufactured in this country will, under the rights of most-favoured-nations, be admitted into the United States at the reduced tariff of 20 per cent. ad. valorem, to which such engines will be entitled if manufactured in Canada; and, if not, what duty will be payable on such engines if of English manufacture?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question. At present all steam engines, including portable engines and traction engines, are dutiable on importation into the United States at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem.
  Mr. PETO: Is not the percentage stated in the first part of the question the correct I percentage which, if the Bill passes into law, these engines entering the United States from Canada will pay?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think that is the question. I was asked as to goods entering the United States from Great Britain. I am not confirming or denying the accuracy of the figure.

  Holland (British Steamship Agent's Expulsion).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State whether his attention had been officially called to the recent expulsion of a British steamship owner from Holland; what were the circumstances attending such action on the part of the Dutch Government; and whether any representations have been, or will be, made by His Majesty's Government on the subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has been called to this matter, but I would point out that the expulsion order has not yet taken effect, and that it is the agent of the British company, and not the owner of the steamship, who is to be expelled. As regards the second part, the agent in

  805
  question is alleged to have committed a breach of the Netherlands police regulations in attempting to land return emigrants after this had been expressly prohibited by the police commissioner. I am making inquiries into all the facts before deciding what action should be taken.

  Declaration of London.
  Sir GEORGE ROBERTSONasked whether, if the Declaration of London is not ratified, and Great Britain were at war with a great naval Power, wool, now on the free list, might be declared contraband of war, and, consequently, be liable to be seized by the enemy in neutral bottoms, to the detriment of the wool industry of Bradford, the West Riding, and the country generally?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The acceptance of the Declaration, which places wool on the free list, will obviate the risk which the hon. Member suggests, and which exists at present.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is it not the fact that we have normally a sufficient quantity of wool in this country to render that danger negligible?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that question arises out of the previous question, but it should be put to the Board of Trade.

  Railway Accident (Darlington).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the recent collision at Darlington the engine involved in the accident had been in two previous collisions owing, it is alleged, to the break power being insufficient; whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the brake power of all engines on this particular section of the North Eastern Railway; whether he is aware that no independent investigation was made of the engine in question; and whether he will take steps to have such independent inspections made following railway accidents?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Inspecting Officer who held the inquiry in this case informs me that the question as to whether the engine in question had been involved in any previous collision was not raised at the inquiry either by representatives of the Railway Company or by the representative of the men concerned. I have, however, asked the Company for information on the point and they state that the engine had
  806
  been in collision on one previous occasion owing entirely to the driver mistaking his signals. I am forwarding my hon. Friend a copy of their letter which also deals with the question of brake power on engines of this type. The Inspecting Officer made a personal inspection of the engine before the inquiry, as is usual in such cases; but the brake gear had been entirely broken away by the collision. The brakes had, however, acted efficiently during the journey from Newcastle to Darlington, and the Inspecting Officer considers that the fact that the wheels were skidding at the time of the collision proves that the brakes were then acting efficiently.

  Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had received any representation from the committee of creditors or shareholders in the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society urging the importance of a public inquiry into the affairs of the society; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have not received any representations from creditors of the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society urging the importance of a public inquiry into the affairs of the Society, but I have received several representations to this effect from shareholders. In consquence of the representations received from shareholders I carefully considered the matter and consulted the Law Officers of the Crown. I also laid before the Law Officers the statements and documents submitted by the shareholders who had made representations to me. As a result, the Law Officers advised that in the circumstances there were no steps open to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have asked the liquidator whether he has received a report from the Committee in favour of a public inquiry since he took the advice of the Law Officers?
  Mr. BUXTON: No further facts have come to my knowledge which have a material bearing on the matter. If any do I will carefully consider them.

  Trade Boards (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether of the twelve members of the four Trade Boards set up

  807
  to deal with sweated wages who have been nominated by his Department not one has been chosen to represent Scotland on these Boards; and, if so, can he say why his Department should thus fail to recognise the claims of the workers everywhere?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have already informed my hon. Friend that it is not the function of the appointed members on Trade Boards to represent any particular interest or locality, and that this function is performed by the representative members. I am sending my hon. Friend a short printed memorandum on the Trade Boards Act which I hope will make the matter quite clear.

  Port of London Act.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had yet replied to the complaint of the Maidstone Town Council made under Section 27 of The Port of London Act, 1908; and, if not, when he will be in a position to reply?
  Mr. BUXTON: A reply has been sent to the Maidstone Town Council, and I have directed that a copy should be sent to the noble Lord.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: What redress will the Town Council have in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: Will the Noble Lord kindly put a question down?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is awere that the Port of London Authority have introduced into their tariff differential rates upon sugar according as it is raw or refined, and that it is sought to bring under the latter category yellow crystals and molasses sugars on the ground that these classes go largely into direct consumption; and whether he will draw the attention of the Port of London Authority to the fact that the Customs in this country and other countries have long ago discarded such classification in favour of duties based on polarisation?
  Mr. BUXTON: The matter is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction. But the Port of London Authority inform me that the classification of sugar, and the maximum rates thereon, which are contained in the Port of London
  808
  (Port Rates on Goods) Order, 1910, were agreed upon between the traders and the Port Authority before the Provisional Order was made by the Board of Trade.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are the facts as stated in the last part of the question accurate?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is rather an intricate question. I think those interested, on the one hand, and the Port Authority on the other, agreed to the arrangement which is now being carried out for the introduction of the Provisional Order and of the Act. In the first place I cannot interfere, and in the second place I do not propose to interfere.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Garden City).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Lord Advocate whether, failing any satisfactory scheme being submitted to the Scottish Local Government Board for erecting a garden city within the Rosyth area, the Local Government Board will themselves undertake the planning and erection of the residential portion of the naval base; and whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty works are already far advanced, he will take steps to ensure a housing scheme for the future residents at Rosyth being undertaken forthwith?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first portion of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. So far as the Local Government Board for Scotland are concerned every endeavour is being made to secure the object mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Is the land being held up with a view to getting higher feu duties?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has come when some steps should be taken to establish a housing scheme, and does he not think the housing of human beings is after all more important than the housing of "Dreadnoughts," for which such large sums are so easily voted?
  Mr. WATT: Did the landowner, Lord Elgin, encourage or discourage this garden city scheme?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

  Justices of the Peace (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked whether committees to assist the Lord Chancellor in his appointments of justices of the peace were to be instituted in Scotland; and, if so, when and where would the first of these be set up.
  Mr. URE: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. Several of these committees have already been appointed.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What is the constitution of those committees. Are they nominated?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

  Reformatory Schools.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the fact that reformatory schools are schools rather than prisons, he will make it a reference to the departmental committee upon the subject to consider whether they should be transferred from the Home Office to the Board of Education?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I think there are strong reasons against dividing between two Government Departments the work and responsibility now laid upon the Home Office for children and youths who are criminal or in danger of falling into crime, and the Committee of 1895 refused to recommend the transfer of these schools. But I will not exclude the point from the consideration of the present Committee.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: In order that the question should be discussed from the point of view of the Board of Education as well as the Home Office, will any representative of the Board of Education be on the Committee?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been considering that point.

  Secondary Education (Scotland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the amount voted for secondary education in Scotland in the year ended March, 1910; what is the amount voted for higher elementary schools; what is the cost of inspection, examination, and administration of those two branches; and how is this expense borne?
  Mr. URE: The amount voted for secondary schools in Scotland was included in the vote for "Grants for Continuation Classes and Secondary Schools." The amount spent in grants to secondary schools in the year ended 31st March, 1910, was £35,900. There are no schools in Scotland known as higher elementary schools. The grant for the higher grade schools, which are probably intended, is not separately voted, but is included under the general heads "Annual Grants for Day Scholars," and "Fee Grants for Day Scholars." For the amount expended in State Grants to these higher grade schools I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the point on the 1st instant. The cost of inspection, examination, and administration forms part of the general cost of the inspection and administrative work of the Department, the cost of which is borne by the Vote for Public Education, Scotland. It is impossible to make any allocation of the cost between different branches of the Department's work.

  Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked how the Scottish Office proposes to ascertain the views of all the teachers interested in the superannuation scheme which has been in existence since 1898, but which is now to be closed; and what the Department proposes to do regarding the protests against its present proposals which teachers are sending in?
  Mr. URE: In accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Scotch Education Department have made the draft superannuation scheme public, through the medium of school authorities and the Press, so that all teachers interested will have an opportunity of considering it and expressing their views. Due consideration will be given, in accordance with Sub-section (11), to representations received from teachers and others, but so far no protest from teachers has reached the Department.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked, in view of the fact that the net cost to the Education (Scotland) Fund of the draft scheme of superannuation for teachers must ultimately be borne by school managers in the form of a reduced allocation under Section 17 (2) of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, in addition to the extra burdens recently imposed, what proportion the Treasury Grant may be expected to bear to the total cost

  811
  of the scheme or otherwise, and what slump contribution the Treasury may have in contemplation to make?
  Mr. URE: The contribution by the Treasury under the conditions on which sanction was given to the proposals contained in Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, will be the equivalent of the existing liability of the Exchequer under the terms of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898. The precise amount (which will be an annual contribution), has not yet been determined.

  Mormon Missionaries.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the attention of the Government has been called to the growing activity in this country of Mormon missionaries from the United States; whether he has any official information showing that young English girls are being induced to emigrate to Utah; and, if so, whether the Government propose to take any steps to safeguard English homes from this danger?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the matter, and I am making inquiries. I have at present no official information showing that young girls are being induced to emigrate to Utah.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information that polygamy is still practised in Utah, and whether there is any objection to the girls going there?
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has official information that the United States Senate has reported that the leaders of the Mormon church have practised and encouraged polygamy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the matter is causing a great deal of concern in certain quarters in this country. I am treating it in a serious spirit, and looking into it very thoroughly.

  Birkenhead Public Cemetery.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has had his attention called to the action of the Birkenhead Corporation, which has set apart an unconsecrated portion of a public cemetery and
  812
  has called it the Nonconformist ground; whether he is aware of the feeling evoked in Birkenhead by the application of the term Nonconformist; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the use of this term?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I indicated, in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend on a similar subject, last Thursday, this is not a matter as to which I have any power to take action. I may, however, say that I understand that any action taken by the Birkenhead Corporation in regard to applying the term Nonconformist to the unconsecrated portion of their cemetery was taken with the view of meeting the wishes of persons burying in that portion.
  Mr. KING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the unconsecrated portions of cemeteries have been largely used in all parts of this land not only by Nonconformists of the Free Churches, but by Churchmen, Jews, and members of all churches, and of no church, and if under these circumstances the term Nonconformist when applied to one portion of a cemetery does not raise very difficult questions?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the Birkenhead Corporation, in proposing to use the word "Nonconformist" in place of "unconsecrated," believed it to be acceptable to Nonconformists."

  Dressmakers' Dispute (Swansea).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Home Secretary if he has had brought to his notice the circumstances of the present dispute between a number of women dressmakers and Messrs. Ben Evans and Company, Limited, Swansea; if he is aware that it has been the practice of this firm to work illegal overtime, the women being employed in some cases as late as 11.30 on Saturday night and in other cases from 9. a.m. to 4 p.m. without a break for meals; whether the Factory Department is cognisant of this evasion of the law; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiries into this matter. The Factory Department have no reason to believe that the firm in question make a practice of working illegal overtime. They were proceeded against in July, 1909, in consequence of a complaint made to the inspector for illegal employment of women on the weekly half-holiday, but no complaint has been made

  813
  to the inspector since, and the number of days on which overtime employment was reported by the firm in 1910 was much below the number to which they were entitled. The whole of the premises were inspected in January last, and no serious irregularities were discovered. Any complaints that may be sent to the district inspector will be carefully investigated in the ordinary course, but no special action on the part of the Department appears to be called for.

  Neglect of Children (Case of Mrs. Woolmore).
  Mr. O'GRADYhad given notice of the following question: "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the responsibility of the husband of Mrs. Woolmore, the woman recently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for neglecting her five children, was considered by the Bench; whether at the hearing of the case anything was stated showing that the woman pleaded guilty at the husband's request; and, if so, whether, in consideration of that and also that the neglect for which Mrs. Woolmore is imprisoned arose because the husband frequently earned no more than 8s. per week, which together with the condition and situation of the cottage contributed to make the woman mentally defective, he will order her release, and place her in charge of one, among the number of persons, who have offered to care for and nurse her back to health."
  The HON. MEMBER: It is not necessary to ask the question, as the right hon. Gentleman has already taken action in the way of releasing Mrs. Woolmore.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the question has been put on the Paper, I think it is desirable to answer it. The husband as well as the wife were charged with the offence of cruelty to their children, and the Bench, I understand, fully considered the question of their individual responsibility. The husband was at work all day and brought home regularly his weekly wages of 16s., and the Justices thought that in these circumstances the wife—rather than the husband—was responsible for the deplorable condition of filth in which the family lived. I have no information to show that the husband advised the wife to plead guilty, but it is quite clear from the evidence that she really had no alternative. The only thing that can excuse her offence in any degree is the fact, now clearly established, that she is of weak mind. I am glad to be able to say that a lady who has interested
  814
  herself in the case very kindly offered to receive Mrs. Woolmore into her home and to do her best for her; and I therefore felt justified in recommending the remission of what remained of the sentence. Mrs. Woolmore was released on Friday last to the care of this lady, who will, I trust, be able, with the help of others, to prevent the family again falling into the terrible condition in which they were found.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: As I understand that the mental condition of the woman has been put down to the insanitary condition of the cottage, can the right hon. Gentleman inform us of the name of the landlord?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Formal notice should be given of that question by the hon. Member.

  Vivisection (Royal Commission Report).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection will be published?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in reply to a question on the 16th February, I am informed that the Report is under consideration, and that it is hoped that it may be submitted shortly.

  Spiritualists and Burial Laws.
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a petition from the Spiritualists' National Union praying for an amendment of the burial laws, so as to enable that association to bury their deceased members according to their own funeral rites; and, if so, whether the prayer of the petitioners can be acceded to?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received the petition referred to, but as at present advised, I do not think that any legislation is called for. Section 1 of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, authorises in certain circumstances the burial of persons in consecrated ground without the performance of the Church of England service. Under Section 6 of the same Act, the burial may be either without any religious service or with such Christian and orderly religious service as the person in charge of the burial thinks fit, and "Christian service" is defined as including "every religious service used by any church, denomination or person professing to be Christian." If, therefore, as I

  815
  understand, the members of the Spiritualists' National union profess to be Christian, they are entitled to the full benefit of the Act.

  Measles Outbreak among Naval Cadets.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the uniforms for the naval cadets at Dartmouth and Osborne are made to a very great extent by home-work in the district of Portsmouth; whether he is aware that there have been in that district over 200 cases of children being absent from the schools this year on account of measles; and whether, in view of the recent outbreaks of measles in the Dartmouth and Osborne naval colleges, he will have a searching inquiry made as to whether the uniforms referred to are made under proper healthy and sanitary conditions?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received the following information from the Factory Inspector for the district. About 85 per cent of this work is done by a single firm, which employs thirty-five out-workers. Twenty-seven of these are occupiers of workshops which are periodically visited by the factory inspectors and officers of a local authority and the sanitary conditions of which are satisfactory. Eight are outworkers in the ordinary sense; their premises, which are subject to inspection by the local authority, are frequently visited and the medical officer of health considers them to be satisfactory from the point of view of health. No cases of school children suffering from measles have been reported in connection with any of these premises.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I ask whether the parents of the children will be called upon to notify the disease, although it does not happen to be in the schedule?

  Jurymen's Loss of Wages.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the loss of wages incurred by working men called upon to attend as jurymen; and whether he proposed to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to compensate them for their reduced earnings?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The subject to which the Noble Lord calls attention is one of undoubted importance, and it is certainly very anomalous that while well-to-do special jurors should receive a
  816
  guinea a day, common jurors should be unpaid. There is reason to believe that the class from which both special and common jurors are summoned is unduly restricted, and that the mass of the wage-earning population is in fact, excluded, the duties being mainly discharged by shopkeepers and publicans. I hope the day will come when the actual practice will be reconciled with the theory of our jury system, and I shall welcome the assistance of the Noble Lord when the opportunity offers to improve and widen the basis of jury service.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that wage-earners also are called upon to discharge these duties and can he not hold out some little hope that consideration will be given shortly to this matter?

  Gordon Boys' Home.
  Mr. RAINYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of trachoma at the Dover Gordon Boys' Home; whether he is aware that boys were returned to the home by the emigration authorities as not passable by them as emigrants owing to their suffering from this disease; whether he is aware that attempts were made to draft boys under observation into the Navy and Army unknown to the doctors in charge of the cases; whether he is aware that the segregation ordered by the oculist first called in was stopped and that since that date a new outbreak has occurred; whether he is aware that it is now proposed to dismiss all the boys to their homes without guarantee that they are free from infection of this most cantagious disease; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I had not heard of this matter until my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper on Saturday. The school is not under inspection by my Department, but I will at once see that inquiry is made. I may say that the Home is not connected with the National Memorial Gordon Boys' Home at Woking.

  Royal College of Art.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Royal College of Art has yet made a report; and, if so, can it be made public?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Committee have not yet reported to the Board. I think they may be expected to do so shortly.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sanctioned the suppression of the statement of prices paid by the Board for the acquisition of objects of art for the Victoria and Albert Museum from the descriptive labels attached to such objects; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for giving up a practice which has been in force since 1853 and supplied the public with interesting and useful information?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The former practice, which had been condemned by a very considerable consensus of opinion for some time past, was finally given up on the recommendation of the Committee of Rearrangement. The prices of objects of art are so frequently affected by circumstances unconnected with their intrinsic value that the statement of prices on the labels is liable to mislead the great majority of the public who are not experts in these matters. It is also impossible to price many of the individual objects which have been bought in collections.
  Mr. GRANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his decision?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. I have fully considered the matter.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he will state the reason of the delay in relieving the Court of Reproduction at the Victoria and Albert Museum of its present inconvenient and congested condition, seeing that ample space is suitably available for such reproductions in the main northern corridor of the building?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The rearrangement of the art collections as a whole is not yet complete. The work is not of such a character that it can be hurried, and it appears to be desirable that the many valuable originals in the museum should first be dealt with. I am not sure what space the hon. Member refers to as being available for the reproductions in the main northern corridor; but I can assure him that, as soon as the originals have been
  818
  dealt with, the reorganisation of the reproductions will be proceeded with without unnecessary delay, so far as the available space permits.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the North Court of the Victoria and Albert Museum was not allocated in the official plan of 1909 to the annual exhibition of works from schools of art; and, if so, will he explain why was not the exhibition of 1910 held there?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not understand what plan the hon. Member refers to as "the official plan of 1909." I am not aware that any decision to the effect referred to in the question has ever been authoritatively taken, nor that the matter has ever gone beyond the existence of an understanding that, if the National Competition Exhibition were to be accommodated in the museum premises at all, the North Court should be reserved for this purpose in place of the Octagon Court and West Court, as had previously been suggested. Owing to the rearrangement of the collections and work incidental thereto, the North Court was in any case not available for the purpose in 1910.

  Technological Instruction Grants.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are several schools and institutions whose grants for their technological instruction for the year ending 31st July, 1910, have not been paid; and, if so, what is the reason?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there are some Grants yet to be paid for work done under the Regulations for Technical Schools, etc., in the year in question. I hope that practically all outstanding claims may be settled before the close of the current financial year. A great number of forms of claim for grants are received by the Board of Education at one time. Each form has to be carefully scrutinised by the Board's officers. It is, therefore, impossible to pay out all grants immediately.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the stigma attaching to a man who has been educated in a reformatory or industrial school under the penal control of the Home Office, the excellence of the practical instruction given to boys in

  819
  such schools, particularly where agricultural land cultivated by the boys forms part of the premises, the openings afforded by such instruction for the profitable employment of such boys, the comparative disadvantage suffered by those for whom, owing to more orderly conduct in early youth, the less practical curriculum of the elementary school is alone available, and the desire, with the approval of the Board, of many local education authorities to maks such curriculum more practical, he will negotiate with the Home Office with the object either of placing such institutions entirely under the control of the local education authorities whose areas they serve or of securing that a due proportion of those serving upon their committees of management shall be members of such authorities?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The President of the Board of Education has asked me to reply to this question. The subject of the relations of these schools with local education authorities will be one of the matters referred to the Departmental Committee which I propose to appoint.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Have the inspectors of the Board of Education had access with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to these institutions?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. They have nothing to do with them.
  Mr. HOARE: Is it a fact that local education authorities have the right to inspect reformatory and industrial schools?

  Secondary Education Grants (England and Wales).
  Mr. O' DONNELLasked what are the amounts voted for secondary education in England and Wales in the year ended March, 1910, the amounts voted for higher elementary schools in the same period; what is the cost of inspection, examination, and administration of those two branches; and how is this cost borne?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total Vote for Secondary Education in England and Wales, including the preliminary education of Intending teachers, was, for the financial year 1909–10, £791,800. The Vote for higher elementary schools is included in the total Vote for Grants in respect of public elementary schools which was, for the financial year 1909–10, £11,162,405. The Board are unable to allocate their expenditure on inspection, examination, and
  820
  administration as between the different branches of their service. I am doubtful whether I understand the last part of the question. Assuming that the cost referred to is the cost of inspection, examination, and administration by the Board of Education, it is met out of the total Votes for those purposes as set out in the Annual Estimates.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: How much is actually paid for higher elementary education as apart from primary education?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid it is quite impossible to divide the cost into two separate portions, and to say how much is due to one and how much is due to the other.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do the figures given in respect of so-called secondary education include technical education and all education other than elementary?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. They include secondary education. Secondary education does not refer to technical education at all.

  Small-Pox.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether any inspection of school children attending London County Council schools to ascertain the vaccinal condition of such children has taken, or will take, place; whether it is proposed to exclude unvaccinated children from such schools; whether such action is in accordance with the regulations of the Board of Education; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no definite information as to any action which the London County Council have taken, or are about to take, to ascertain whether children in public elementary schools have or have not been vaccinated. I have several times expressed my view on the matter, and may refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave in this House on 14th October, 1908, when I said that:—"I strongly deprecate any attempt on the part of local authorities to use the machinery of medical inspection for the purpose of enforcing vaccination. Such action is likely to discredit medical inspection in the eyes of many parents who would otherwise be glad to take advantage of it." With regard to the second part of the question, I have no information as to any proposal to exclude unvaccinated children from the schools. In the circumstances the third and fourth questions do not arise.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Seeing that recently there has been an outbreak of small-pox will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his advice to the local authorities, in reference to medical inspection, seeing that that advice may render parents unwilling to go in for vaccination for their children?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. I have no intention whatever of altering my advice. The case of epidemics is fully dealt with in the code.
  Dr. HILLIERasked the President of the Local Government Board how many cases of small-pox there are at present reported in London; and whether he has requested medical officers of health to use every legitimate means to induce all those who have been brought in contact with these cases to be vaccinated?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Up to last night the number of cases of small-pox which have been reported was forty-seven. A medical inspector of the Board has conferred with the medical officers of health and with the officers of the guardians in regard to the steps to be taken for dealing with the outbreak.
  Dr. HILLIER: May I ask if the medical inspector is urging the vaccination of contacts?
  Mr. BURNS: The medical inspector of the Board and the local medical inspectors are, I am glad to say, doing everything that reasonably can be expected in battling with this outbreak.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give definite instructions to the medical officers to urge vaccination wherever they can?
  Mr. BURNS: I shall deem it my duty to leave it to the medical officer of the Board and to the local medical officers of health.
  Dr. HILLIERasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state how many sanitary authorities in the country are proposing the expenditure of ratepayers' money to provide additional hospital accommodation for small-pox on the alleged ground of the danger to the community consequent on the slackening of compulsory vaccination?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no information that any sanitary authorities are proposing to provide additional hospital accommodation on the ground mentioned.
  Dr. HILLIER: Is it not the fact that the Sanitary authorities of Leith and Edinburgh are being urged by the Local Government Board of Scotland to provide further accommodation for small-pox cases on the ground of the slackening of vaccination?
  Mr. BURNS: Leith and Edinburgh are not within my jurisdiction. I would advise my hon. Friend to put that question to the President of the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  Dr. HILLIERasked what was the proportion during last year, relatively to the children born, of those children who were exempted from vaccination under exemption certificates?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not at present able to supply figures for the whole year. During the first half of the year, however, 456,533 births were registered and 110,851 exemption certificates were received.

  Kew Gardens Employés.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board will refer the question of the wages of the employés at the Royal Gardens, Kew, to the Fair Wages Advisory Committee for consideration?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board will be glad to submit this suggestion for the consideration of the Treasury.

  Sugar-Beet Cultivation.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many agricultural colleges will be asked to experiment on sugar-beet growing this year; and what sum of money will be available for the experiments?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The number and money required is under consideration.
  Mr. STANIER: The time is very short for enabling these experiments to be undertaken.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The matter is proceeding very quickly.

  Appointment of Justices.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to adopt the entire recommendations

  823
  of the Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the method of selecting justices of the peace; and whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to enact the course that will be pursued in the appointment of justices in the future?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Lord Chancellor stated in the House of Lords last July that it was his intention to act in substance on the Report of the Royal Commission. It is not practicable to see, until after the result of experience, whether the recommendations in every minor particular case be carried out in all the numerous counties and boroughs. The Royal Commission expressed the opinion, which the Lord Chancellor shares, that the duty of appointing justices should be regarded as belonging to him in his judicial capacity, and it is from that point of view that he is carrying it into effect. There is no necessity for any legislation.

  Ex-Ministers' Pensions.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister if he intends during this Parliament to introduce a Bill to take away pensions from members of the Government after leaving office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, His Majesty's Government have no present intention of introducing such a Bill.
  Mr. WATT: Are these preserves to be left to the Tory party, as in the past?

  Referendum in Foreign Countries.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to obtain full information with regard to the Referendum and its working in Australia, the United States, and Switzerland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Reports on the working of the Referendum in foreign countries will shortly be laid, and I am in communication with the Colonial Office as regards the hon. Member's request for information from Australia.

  Unemployment.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to suggestions made in the Report of the Poor Law Commission, and its endorsement in Ministerial declarations, that it is desirable to use the ordinary demands of public departments for works and services
  824
  with a view to minimising unemployment fluctuations and regularising the demand as between the different seasons of the year, and as between the good and bad years of a trade cycle, he will appoint an inter-departmental committee to devise a systematic and coordinated policy whose report should be presented to Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider, in concert with the various Departments concerned, how far the suggestion of my hon. Friend can be usefully adopted.

  House of Lords.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister, whether, in the event of a Bill being introduced in the House of Lords for the reform of that Chamber, he will so arrange the business of this House that the discussion in Committee of this House of the Preamble of the Parliament Bill shall not take place until the first-mentioned Bill has been introduced into this House?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: On a point of Order. Before that question is answered I wish to ask whether, having regard to the fact that any measure necessarily affecting the Prerogative of the Crown or altering the composition of the House of Lords must have as a condition precedent to its passage through either Houses of Parliament the consent of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed with his question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a point of Order.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Owing to the interruption, I must repeat the first part of my question: Whether, having regard to the fact that any measure necessarily affecting the Prerogative of the Crown, or altering the composition of the House of Lords, must have as a condition precedent to its passage through either House of Parliament, the consent of the Crown formally communicated to that House by a Minister of the Crown responsible to the House of Commons, or through the House of Commons to the people, and acting presumably on behalf of the Cabinet, this question relating to the probable action of this House in the

  825
  event of the introduction of a House of Lords Reform Bill in the House of Lords by Members unauthorised by the Crown for that purpose comes under the category of hypothetical questions which are beyond the limits of Parliamentary interrogation; and whether the arrangements suggested by the question that the course of business in this House should be affected by the action of the House of Lords in relation to its own business is without precedent, contrary to the claim repeatedly asserted or maintained by this House to be an independent Estate of the Realm, and an infraction or surrender of its privileges?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the point of Order. Without going into the correctness of the argument of the hon. and learned Member, I must say I see no reason why the question should not be put and answered.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the question is that I cannot give any such undertaking.

  Parliament Bill.
  Captain WARINGasked, in view of the fact that many Members were prevented through lack of time from expressing their views on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, whether the Prime Minister will grant at least as long for the discussion of the Third Reading as for the Second?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I cannot, at the moment, say anything as to the arrangements for the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the fourteen Front Bench speakers had contented themselves last week with thirty minutes each, and the forty-five private Members with twenty minutes each, there would have been opportunity for fifteen additional Members to take part in the discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a difficult sum in arithmetic.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: In the allocation of time for the discussion of this Bill in Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned we do not consider that the pledge of the Prime Minister that ample time would be given is being adhered to.

  Board of Agriculture (Animal Department).
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether the assistant inspector under the Animal Department of the Board, Mr. J. R. Roberts', Reports for the six months ending 1st January, 1911, are available for Members' of the House of Commons to read; and whether this gentleman is now in charge of any district, and, if so, where?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reports of the Board's Inspectors are made for the information of the Board and it would not be in the public interest that they should be made available in the manner suggested. Mr. I. M. Roberts, who is the only assistant inspector of that name in the Animals Division and to whom I think the hon. Member must refer, is not and never has been in charge of a district.

  Bee Disease (Isle of Wight).
  Captain BARINGasked what was the last occasion on which a representative of the Board made an investigation into an actual outbreak of the Isle of Wight bee disease; and whether any recommendation has followed by leaflet or otherwise?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: An investigation by one of the foremost English pathologists was made into this disease last autumn. The result was negative, and no recommendations could therefore be issued.
  Captain BARING: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to make further investigation into this disease, which is rampant in my district?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Gentleman thinks it will have any good effect, I will consider the matter.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there any scientific knowledge at the Board of Agriculture with regard to this disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have just informed the hon. Member that we have made inquiries.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is there any reason why the Isle of Wight should be mentioned?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Reference was made to the Isle of Wight because the disease originated there.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman found authority for that?

  Swine Fever Regulations.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether there are any circumstances which delay the publication of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever Regulations; and, if not, when it will be published?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A draft Report has been circulated to the members of the Committee, who will meet shortly to consider it. There are no special circumstances to cause any delay in its issue.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Government defer the taking of the Votes for the Board of Agriculture until the publication of this important Report?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member must put that question to the Prime Minister.

  Epizootic Abortion in Cattle.
  Mr. SPEARasked what, if any, steps are being taken by the Board to promote scientific research with the object of finding a preventative and cure for the fell and devastating disease of abortion in cattle?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A committee was appointed in April, 1905, for the experimental investigation of epizootic abortion, and in May, 1909, its reference was extended so as to permit of inquiry as to the administrative measures to be taken to deal with the disease. The committee is still sitting, but Reports containing valuable information and suggestions on the subject have already been presented to Parliament [Cd. 4742, 4863, and 5279]. The Board fully concur with the hon. Member as to the serious importance of this matter.
  Mr. SPEAR: When is it likely that the committee will report?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am unable to say.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it the fact that there is only £10,000 on which to draw for the promotion of scientific research of all descriptions in this country?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think that is so.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is there more than £10,000?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not fair to other Members with questions on the Paper to ask so many supplementary questions.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Give the Noble Lord a day to himself.

  Stock Breeding (Scotland).
  Mr. MUNRO - FERGUSONasked whether a communication has been made to the Fife Agricultural Society by the Board to the effect that no money is available in the meantime for the encouragement of the breeding of heavy horses, and that applications in connection with the improvement of cattle, dairying, and pig-breeding are to be dealt with by the Scottish Office and not by the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Such a communication was made on 21st January, but in view of a subsequent communication from the Treasury the whole question is being reconsidered.

  Carriage of Mails (Fort William and Fort Augustus).
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Postmaster-General if the carriage of the mails from Fort William to Fort Augustus has lately been taken from the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Company and handed over to a motor-car service at a considerably higher rate; if he is aware that the service given by the motorcar is very much inferior to that rendered by the railway company, and has caused great dissatisfaction in the district; and that the mails were on five occasions in February from one hour to three hours and five minutes late at Fort Augustus; and if he will, under these circumstances, revert to the conveyance of the mails by train as formerly?
  The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Post Office was compelled to arrange for the conveyance of these mails by a road motor service as from the 1st ultimo, at greater cost to the taxpayer, owing to the railway company having given notice that the line would be closed at the end of January. The decision of the Directors to keep the railway open for the present was only arrived at on the 26th January, too late to admit of the arrangements for the motor service being cancelled. As I have already intimated to the hon. Member and to the local committee who have approached me on the subject, I am quite willing to give favourable consideration to the question of again using the railway for the conveyance of mails, if the company can guarantee a reliable service for an adequate period. The delays to which the Hon. Member refers were due either to accidents or to the impassable condition

  829
  of part of the road caused by excessive rainfall, but I am assured that the motorcar proprietors are doing their best to maintain an efficient service.
  Sir J. DEWAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the roads in this district are quite unsuitable for mail carts, and that for many weeks in winter they are closed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know the roads are difficult, and I would much prefer to send the mails by rail. We did not withdraw the contract from the railway company, but the railway company gave us notice that they were about to close the line. If the railway company will give an assurance to keep the line open for some reasonable period I should be happy to renew the contract with them.

  Telephone Contracts.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether contracts for telephone work are still being placed with the Peel Connor Company, of Manchester; whether he is aware that the firm have continually violated the fair-wage clause of Government contracts; if any inquiries have been made in the matter; and what steps will be taken to ensure the due observance by this firm of the terms of the fair-wage clause?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have made inquiry into the allegations made against this firm, but the point in dispute raises a question of some difficulty and a further investigation is necessary and is about to be made. I will communicate shortly with the hon. Member with regard to the matter.

  Metropolitan Postal Deliveries.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if an ordinary letter takes 6½ hours and a registered letter 5¼ hours in transmission between the City and Crouch End, a distance of about five miles; and, if so, will he, in view of the inconvenience caused to the business community by the length of time occupied, take steps to have the transmission of letters between these two localities expedited?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Noble Lord has not been correctly informed. Ordinary letters posted in the City at the time of a collection would be delivered in Crouch End after an average interval of just under 3½ hours. Registered letters take about half an hour longer. As there are already seven deliveries a day in
  830
  Crouch End, I do not think that the service can be regarded as unsatisfactory.

  His Majesty's Dockyards (Petitions).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he can give the approximate dates when the petitions from His Majesty's Dockyards were received at the Admiralty in the years 1909 and 1910, respectively; (2) if he can say at what date the 1909 petitions were answered; (3) whether it is intended to hold over the petitions received in 1910 for the same period as was done in the case of the 1909 petitions; (4) what time was allowed to elapse between the date of reply to the 1909 petitions and the date at which the Admiralty directed that the 1910 petitions should be sent in; (5) and whether, in the event of a long delay in answering these petitions, he will consider the advisability of granting a longer period of time before the next years' petitions are required to be sent in?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The replies to the several' parts of the hon. Member's question are as follows:—(1) At various dates about the middle of June, 1909, and 13th August, 1910, respectively; (2) 13th July, 1910; (3) the petitions received in 1910 are now under consideration, and will be replied to as early as possible; (4) one month; (5) the desirability of granting a longer period of time will be considered when, the replies to the 1910 petitions are promulgated.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case the interval was only three or four days?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the personal inconvenience and, in many cases, financial loss occasioned to the employees in the Royal dockyards owing to the order to close the yards on 3rd June last being, in certain instances, despatched from the Admiralty as late as the afternoon of the day preceding the official holiday; whether he is aware that at some yards the holiday was observed on 3rd June and at others on 24th June; whether he will consider the advisability of fixing the holiday for the same day at all yards and of making known the date a reasonable time beforehand, so that the employés may be able to make their personal arrangements in time; and

  831
  whether he will, at an early date, make some announcement on the question of the holidays which, following precedent, it is understood, will be observed at the Royal dockyards on the occasion of the forthcoming Coronation?
  Mr. McKENNA: With regard to the first three parts of the question, I would remind the hon. Member of his question on this subject of the 13th June last, and of the answer then given. The circmstances of the holiday given last June were, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, quite exceptional; and I can assure him that there is no intention of departing from the general practice of giving full notice of official holidays to the Royal yards.

  H.M.S. "Fox" (Lifebuoys).
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the lifebuoys on H.M.S. "Fox" are foreign made; and, if so, could the same article have been made in Great Britain?
  Mr. McKENNA: Two types of lifebuoys including those specially adapted for night use, are supplied to His Majesty's ship "Fox" and others of His Majesty's ships. One of these types, namely the night buoy, is manufactured in the United Kingdom; the second type is made of reindeer hair, and supplies are obtained from Norway. British firms, however, are also invited to tender for the reindeer hair type, but hitherto samples and prices submitted by British firms have not admitted of an order being placed with them.
  Mr. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that those buoys bear a German name and a German address on them?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further into the point, but my information is that those buoys are supplied from a Norway firm.

  Seamen Pensioners' Reserve.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that from 1870 to 1892 the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve was paid out of Greenwich Hospital funds; whether he can state the total sum thus allocated to the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve; and whether, in view of the fact that so large a number of men of sixty years of age and upwards, many of whom are in necessitous circumstances, are eligible for a Greenwich Hospital pension
  832
  but are unable to obtain one owing to lack of funds, he will consider the advisability of placing a sum on the Navy Estimates, to be used for the purpose of defraying Greenwich Hospital pensions, equal to the amount taken out of that fund from 1870 to 1892 and applied to the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that between the dates stated the age pensions granted to members of the Seaman Pensioner Reserve were awarded from Greenwich Hospital funds. The sum thus charged to those funds was approximately £30,000. Since 1894 inclusive, however, a substantial Grant has been made annually from naval funds towards the cost of Greenwich Hospital pensions, and I am not prepared to recommend any further contribution.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there must be something like a thousand men over sixty years who are suffering from physical infirmities and necessitous circumstances, and who have served their country under promise of pensions?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will put down a question as to the particulars I shall be happy to answer him.

  American Meat.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, according to American statistics, hundreds of thousands of carcases of animals are marked as fit and wholesome for human food by the American Government from which malignant tumours and abscesses, and parts affected by other diseases, have been cut out; and will he say what steps are taken by his Department to secure the detection in this country of imported tinned or preserved meat derived from such carcases?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the American statistics. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to answers which I have previously given on this subject.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not this meat from diseased animals can be detected in a preserved or tinned state? That has not been answered.
  Mr. BURNS: Each case is dealt with on its merits or its demerits, and all I can say, as a general answer to my hon. Friend, is

  833
  that the Liverpool Shipowners, representing 33 per cent. of the shipping of the United Kingdom, are complaining of what they term the excessive stringency and zeal with which we are administering the Food Regulations Act of 1908.
  Mr. HUNT: The question I asked is not answered.
  Mr. BURNS: In certain cases no objection can be raised on health grounds to using as food the carcase of cattle from which some parts have been removed.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that several of the local authorities in England prevent the apparently sound portion of the carcase to be used for human food if any portion of the animal is diseased.
  Mr. BURNS: That may be so.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: It is so.

  Small Holdings (Carnforth, Lancashire).
  Mr. PHILIP MORRELL: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has anything further to report in the case of James Gardiner, of Carnforth, in Lancashire, who is to be evicted to-morrow in consequence of his having applied for land under the Small Holdings Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I only got notice of the question as I was coming to the House, and all I can say is that I will inquire into it. Of course, if the facts are as stated in the question, the action taken by the landlord is strongly to be deprecated.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman accepts the report of his own Special Commissioner that the action of the landlord is in consequence of the application for land under the Small Holdings Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given to the hon. Member.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the Government will consider the question of giving compensation to a man who has suffered loss and hardship in consequence of having availed himself of the provisions of their own Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think my hon. Friend will see that I cannot answer that question straight off. As I have already informed him, this action, if as stated in the question, ought to be very strongly condemned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister would now tell us the arrangement of business on Friday next, and may I also ask when we will have the print of the Vote on Account. I understand it is not yet in the Vote Office, and as it comes on on Wednesday it is rather unfortunate that we should not have it in our hands?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer to-morrow about Friday. With regard to the Vote on Account, I am told it is ready now, but I will inquire about it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Vote on Account will be for the usual period this year, or whether it contains any surprise like the first Vote on Account last year?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the usual period." The period varies from Session to Session. My recollection is that it will be for a period of three months.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. HENRY TERRELL: I crave the indulgence of the House whilst I make an explanation on a matter which affects my honour as a Member of this House. In the course of the Debate on Thursday last I quoted a passage from the "Daily News," stating that the Lords
"broke up the Conference, and that the fact must be driven home while it is fresh in the public mind."
The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) who followed me in the Debate referred to my quotation in these terms. [Quoting from OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1911, cols. 613, 614.]
"In regard to the second point made by the hon. Member that the position had been directly or indirectly misrepresented in the country, I was most surprised that an hon Member occupying his position, especially professionally, should have begun to quote from a paper giving us the name of the paper without telling us that the paper was actually using a quotation from a paper on his own side.
"Mr. H. Terrell: Will the hon. Member kindly tell me what quotation.
"Mr. A. Henderson: The hon. Member quoted from the 'Daily News,' and I wish to suggest that the quotation was included in an article in the 'Daily News' calling attention to what had been said by the 'Daily Mail' and commenting upon it."
I have here the "Daily News," from which I was quoting, which I had not then in my hand. It is in an article which, from beginning to end, does not refer to the "Daily Mail," which does not mention any paper at all, and which does not in any way

835
whatever purport to be making a quotation. As far as anyone reading that statement in the article in the "Daily News" would gather, that was an original statement made by the "Daily News," and was not intended to be or represented to be in any sense of the word a quotation. I thereupon further interrupted the hon. Member and said:—
"The passage I quoted from the 'Daily News' does not purport in any sense to be a quotation from the "Daily Mail.'
"Mr. A. Henderson: The hon. Member distinctly said that the 'Daily News' charged the Lords with breaking-up the Conference. I think I am in the recollection of the House in that statement. Hon. Members on this side of the House threw over the challenge that that was a statement from the 'Daily Mail Now I hold, when it first appeared in the 'Daily Mail,' and when it was being quoted in the leading article columns of the 'Daily News,' that the hon. Member ought not to have thrown the statement to us from the 'Daily News,' but from where it first originated—namely, in the columns of the 'Daily Mail.'
"Mr. H. Terrell: I quoted from the 'Daily News' what appeared in the 'Daily News' as a part of the article of the 'Daily News,' and not as a quotation; and so far as I know—and I may be wrong, as I do not read the 'Daily Mail—it never appeared in the 'Daily Mail.'"
Some of my hon. Friends called on the hon. Member to withdraw, but he declined. He said:—
"When I have got anything to withdraw I will willingly withdraw it, but I again repeat that the statement appeared in the first case in the 'Daily Mail' the morning after the Conference was publicly known to have failed to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that the statement ought to have been traced to its source before it was quoted in this House. I am the more surprised that the hon. Member quotes it when he admits he does not read the 'Daily News,' and did not read the article.
"Mr. H. Terrell: I did not say I did not read the article I read the article in question from beginning to end in the 'Daily News,' not in the 'Daily Mail.'"
The charge against me is a deliberate charge of attempting to deceive the House by quoting from the "Daily News" what was manifestly and what I must have known to have been merely quoted in the "Daily News" from the "Daily Mail." The hon. Member distinctly says that; he says:—
"I wish to suggest that the quotation was included in an article in the 'Daily News' calling attention to what, had been said by the 'Daily Mail' and commenting upon it."
I have pointed out that this article does not call attention to anything in the "Daily Mail," and does not comment upon it in any way whatever. I think that this is a very serious imputation to make upon any Member of this House. I have since gone through the "Daily Mail" and tried to find out whence the hon. Member suggested it came, and the only passage—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—which can possibly be said in any way to
836
refer to this matter is the following in the "Daily Mail" of 11th November:—
"The position taken up by an influential section of Unionist Peers who had not been members of the Conference was this: 'If we are to be deprived of our powers let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference.'"
Hon. Members will see that what appeared in the "Daily News" is by no stretch of the imagination a quotation from that statement. I feel that the hon. Member was not justified in suggesting and stating that I had either intentionally, or purposely, or wrongfully in any way whatever sought to deceive this House by misquoting. I thank the House for permitting me to make this explanation. I hope I have satisfied the House that, so far as I am concerned, I quoted correctly from the "Daily News," and that I had no reason whatever to suppose, as the fact is not, that it was in any sense a quotation from the "Daily Mail."
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I think that those hon. Members who heard the little dialogue between the hon. Member and myself the other evening will acquit me of having said anything approaching a charge of deceiving the House. I thought it was an inaccurate statement—a statement calculated to leave an altogether wrong impression upon those who listened to the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member has not quoted the full point to which we on this side of the House took exception. In the course of his speech the hon. Member said:—
"Another method was adopted for the purpose of getting votes for this Bill. The moment an election became certain, the people were told by the Radical press that the Lords broke up the Conference, and that the fact must be driven home while it is fresh in the public mind."
Mr. HENRY TERRELL: Go on.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I did not interrupt the hon. Member. The point we took exception to was that the hon. Member should charge the Radical Press with something which was stated deliberately in another paper four days earlier than the "Daily News," from which he was quoting. The hon. Member was quoting from the issue of November 15th, and this is what appeared in the "Daily Mail" of November 11th:—
"History of the Conference. Why it failed."
That is in substantial type at the top of the column. I do not know whether the hon. Member and his friends would like me to read the whole article. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I daresay they would if they thought it would take

837
up sufficient time of the House. "Why it Failed,"—and here is the answer given:—
If we—"
This is dealing with the Lords; it has already been quoted without the headline:
"If we are not to be deprived of our powers, let it be done by the constituencies, and not by any Conference."
[An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] The "Daily Mail." I am reading from the "Daily Mail." I am reading an article giving the reason why the Conference failed. Then it goes on to say:—
"Their opposition to the Joint Committee curried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce this decision to Mr. Asquith."
On the following day, 12th November—my hon. Friend opposite did not find it until 15th November—in the issue of the "Daily News" we had direct quotations from the article I have just read. It says here:—
"In inner Ministerial circles the utmost importance is attached to a remarkable passage in the 'Daily Mail' of yesterday. It is there stated that Mr. Balfour, by consent of the Conference, submitted the proposals of the Conference to his more intimate colleagues in his last ministry. This is what followed."
Then the "Daily News" quoted practically the full passage I have just read from the article in the "Daily Mail." Without wishing to say that the hon. Member wished to deceive the House, the point that we took exception to on this
side of the House was this: That the hon. Member was endeavouring to bring a charge against the Press that opposes his party, and that we replied that the statement first appeared in the "Daily Mail." The hon. Member, therefore, ought to have quoted from the paper in which the statement first appeared. That was my case. I have nothing to add and nothing to withdraw.

BILL PRESENTED.
  SHOPS BILL.
  "To consolidate, amend, and extend the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904," presented by Mr. CHURCHILL; supported by Mr. Masterman, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Thursday."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTERMoved, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put,
The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 131.

Division No. 34.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Glanville, Harold James

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Adamson, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Goldstone, Frank

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

Clough, William

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Agnew, Sir George William

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Greig, Col. James William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Crumley, Patrick

Hardie, J. Keir

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Barnes, George N.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Haslam, Levis (Monmouth)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Davits, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.).

Dawes, James Arthur

Hayden, John Patrick

Beale, William Phipson

Delany, William

Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

Beauchamp, Edward

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Devlin, Joseph

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Higham, John Sharp

Bethell, Sir-John Henry

Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

Hinds, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Doris, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Boland, John Pius

Duffy, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Booth, Frederick Handel

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Bottomley, Horatio

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Johnson, William

Brocklehurst, William B.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Brunner, John F. L.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bryce, J. Annan

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Esmonde Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Burns, Rt. Hon John

Essex, Richard Walter

Keating, Matthew

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kellaway, Frederick George

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Farrell, James Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Fenwick, Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Byles, William Pollard

Ffrench, Peter

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Carr-Gomm H. W.

Fitzgibbon, John

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

Furness, Stephen W.

Lansbury, George

Chancellor, Henry George

Gill, A. H.

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

Leach, Charles

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Logan, John William

O'Malley, William

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Lundon, Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Lyell, Charles Henry

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Snowden, Philip

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Maclean, Donald

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Spicer, Sir Albert

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

M'Callum, John M.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sutherland, John E.

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Marks, G. Croydon

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Toulmin, George

Martin, Joseph

Pringle, William M. R.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Radford, George Heynes

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Verney, Sir Harry

Mathias, Richard

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Meagher, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Waring, Walter

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Reddy, Michael

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Menzies, Sir Walter

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Molloy, Michael

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Webb, H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

Mooney, John J.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morrell, Philip

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradford)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Munro, Robert

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

Robinson, Sydney

Wiles, Thomas

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Neilson, Francis

Roche, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Nolan, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Norman, Sir Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Young, William (Perth, East)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Scott A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Illingworth.

O'Dowd, John

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

O'Grady, James

Sheeny, David

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Locker-Lamoson, O. (Ramsey)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baird, John Lawrence

Falle, B. G.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Fell, Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

Baldwin, Stanley

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

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

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Mount, William Arthur

Barnston, Harry

Gibbs, George Abraham

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman, John R. P.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Goldsmith, Frank

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Gordon, J.

Orde Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Bigland, Alfred

Goulding, E. A

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bird, Alfred

Grant, James Augustus

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

Hail, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Boyton, James

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hardy, Laurence

Peto, Basil Edward

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Henry Percy

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Helmsley, Viscount

Quilter, William Eley C.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Campion, W. R.

Hiller, Dr. Alfred Peter

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hills, John Waller

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cassel, Felix

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Rothschild, Lionel D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sanders, Robert A.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Houston, Robert P.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Spear, John Ward

Clyde, James Avon

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanier, Beville

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Stewart, Gershom

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sykes, Alan John

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Kirkwod, John H. M.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cripos, Sir Charles Alfred

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshlord

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Croft, Henry Page

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Dairymple, Viscount

Lewisham, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

840

841

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Yerburgh, Robert

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Younger, George

Whaler, Granville C. H.

Worthington-Evans, L.

White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Remnant.

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wolmer, Viscount

Yate, Col. C. E.

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

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS: SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.

    OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS. (CLASS 2.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,900, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    Mr. FELL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I would like some information as to the cause of this increase. The explanation given on the first point (A), where the initial sum is £2,150, is that the growth of business since the original estimate was framed has rendered it necessary to increase the staff of officials as well as to engage temporary assistance. I gather that there has been additional expenditure in the Office of Works in connection with Labour Exchanges, and that that is the real object for which this additional Vote is required. But the explanation does not go sufficiently far to enable us to see fully how the matter stands, and that is also supported by the next item. On this latter I should like to ask this: I presume that this additional sum we are asked to vote to-day is not for the construction of buildings for Labour Exchanges, or for alterations that may be necessary, but for supervision. That would account for the additional travelling necessary. I suppose it is a fact that this sum is not for the actual construction of buildings, but solely on account of the supervision given from the Office of Works and other assistance in connection with the construction of these buildings. In my own place I know it has been done, and done, I believe, efficiently. I suppose a surveyor was sent down from London to supervise the buildings and to say that the work was done efficiently. If I am right in these ideas, I shall not press the matter further, except
    842
    that I would be glad to have some small explanation as to what are the additional works and were they undertaken in connection with the Labour Exchanges? I beg to move.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: The explanatory note given at the foot of the Estimate is quite insufficient. I should like to ask, with regard to Item A, what is the growth of business referred to? Is it a permanent growth, and is it a natural growth? If it is a natural growth why was it not provided for in the original Estimate? I notice it was necessary to increase the staff, and therefore I conclude a portion of the growth of business, at all events, is a permanent growth. The present Government seems to think it necessary to increase the staffs of every Department. We see at the present moment a never-ending increase in the number of officials. There is an item of £300 for outside surveyors. I always understood that this Department had its own surveyors. Has it been absolutely necessary that they should go outside and ask for surveyors to do the work which should be done by their own official? What is the meaning of the £250 put down for contingencies? What are these contingencies? And what is it that makes it necessary to put down a Supplementary Estimate for them? I come to the item for travelling expenses. It appears this Department has been making foreign tours. I did not know that these tours are usual, or why it is necessary to tour in foreign countries. There is no explanation, and I should like to hear one before the Vote is taken.
    Mr. WILFRID W. ASHLEY: I understand that the House of Commons is the body that ought to criticise Parliamentary expenditure. The primary duty of the House of Commons is to provide the finance of the country, and legislation is, after all, but a secondary consideration. If any hon. Member looks at the form in which this Vote is presented, I do not think that he can honestly say that the Votes, or the main body of the Votes, convey the slightest information as to how the money is spent, and therefore the Committee is prevented having any legitimate control over expenditure. The Estimate is thrown at our heads; we are to find this £2,900, and we are graciously told

    843
    that there has been an increase in the staff. That no doubt is very pleasant for those who receive the salaries. With regard to the outside surveyors, we are not told what they are doing—whether they have been looking after this or that building or the Labour Exchanges. There is an item of £250 for contingencies, but we are not told what the contingencies are. It is not so much to the increased demand that I object, as to the form in which the Estimate is presented to the Committee. If any hon. Member looks at the paper he will be unable to say whether the money asked for has been rightly or wrongly expended. Committees are not being treated with proper consideration—I do not say by this Government only, but by all Governments—to enable them to judge fairly of expenditure.
    Captain JESSEL: I quite agree with the protest against the increase of staff. I should like to ask whether the increased staff taken on had to pass any examination. We find from returns presented from time to time that many of the officials taken on by the Government are appointed without any qualification at all. It is most important that the country should have the satisfaction of knowing that the men who are employed are qualified to do their duty. The other point to which I desire to draw attention is, as to whether any provision has been made to carry out the improvements of Buckingham Palace. We were told some time ago that if sufficient pressure were put upon the Commissioner of Works efforts would be made to renovate the Palace, which, as it stands, is a disgrace to London. We hope that in the Coronation year some steps will be taken to bring about those improvements, and I should like to know whether any of the money for the increased staff has been taken for the purpose of making an Estimate in connection with this matter.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: My hon. Friend, who has just spoken, asked some questions about Buckingham Palace, and expenditure for its improvement. I am here for economy, and not to promote further expenditure, and, therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates would be good enough to say that at this moment we do not contemplate the expenditure of any further money. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will see, on reflection, that when we are expending such very large sums, and when we on this side of the House are
    844
    doing all we can to restrain extravagance we should at least be united upon this subject as we are upon all others.
    Captain JESSEL: I think the hon. Baronet will find that we are united.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend will prove one exception. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Estimate, on the last occasion that he was in charge of the Estimates, gave us every possible information he could. He was rather in a difficult position, and was not able to offer very satisfactory information, but that was not his fault, but was the fault of his supporters. He did his best to give us information, and I am sure he will do so again, and we on this side of the House are indebted to him for his kindness and courtesy.
    It is quite true that this Supplementary Estimate is not a very large one, on the original Estimate of £100,000, but it must be remembered that the increase is due to increased work at the Office of Works. I should like to know whether the staff increased is the permanent staff of the Office of Works, or whether it is an increased staff employed in construction or repairs or anything of that sort. The phrase used is rather vague, it might cover permanent officials employed upon these works, and supposing it is an increase in the permanent staff, I ask the hon. Gentleman how it was necessary. Surely in cases like this, where everyone knows what is going to take place, there ought to be sufficient knowledge of the work so that the Estimate first presented to the House ought to be sufficient instead of being obliged to ask for additional money. On the other hand, if it is not the permanent staff but simply people engaged in repairs, I want to know how it was' not foreseen. I do not know whether additional work was undertaken since this matter came up before. If fresh works were undertaken, the Committee ought to be consulted beforehand, because that would be a very easy way of getting fresh work done if hon. Gentlemen were first entitled to push them forward, and then came forward and simply ask for an additional Estimate. I do not say the hon. Gentleman has any desire to evade the control of the House of Commons, but we know that many right hon. Gentlemen opposite do things to evade the control of the House of Commons. I would point out that this mode of proceeding is not altogether a constitutional one, and would not commend

    845
    itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in Opposition.
    I notice the item "Temporary Assistants," what is that for? My hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley) said he could not understand the footnote. I do not think anybody can. It seems to be put there first of all with a pretence of giving information, and secondly with the object of giving no information. I should like to have some further information about this Temporary Assistants. Provision is also required for outside surveyors. I understood that we had a large staff of surveyors. Then there is the item for travelling expenses. I do not see why it was not foreseen if it was necessary to go abroad. That surely ought to have been foreseen, and certainly it should have been foreseen if the expenses were incurred in connection with Labour Exchanges. These Labour Exchanges were established more than a year ago. I cannot in the least understand why there should have been this necessity for travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfactory information upon these points.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I wish to put a question in reference to the unforeseen growth of these Estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) asked whether these outside surveyors were appointed by examination or patronage. I should like that question answered as specifically as possible. I observe from an Order in Council, dated 1870, that the Civil Service Commissioners may dispense with examinations and grant their certificate of qualification upon evidence satisfactory to them that the person appointed possesses the requisite knowledge and ability, and is duly qualified. Can the hon. Member representing the Government assure us that the Civil Service Commissioners have granted those certificates to those who are now employed to increase the staff. With regard to the item for foreign travelling I take it from the comma after the word "travelling" that it has nothing to do with the Labour Exchanges, but has been incurred with regard to Embassies. If that is so, I am bound to say that the money has been very well expended, because our Embassies require to be better looked after.
    Mr. BOYTON: With reference to the expenditure incurred at Buckingham Palace—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask whether there is any money in this Vote for Buckingham Palace?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, Sir.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then that question cannot be discussed here.
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The money asked for in this Vote is required not for the buildings but for supervision and travelling in order to supervise the buildings. The main sum is required for work in connection with the Labour Exchanges. That is a new work. Labour Exchanges have been established barely a year, and the amount of travelling which was necessary in order to choose the sites, supervise the buildings and the alterations of the buildings, made it quite impossible to foresee this expenditure. Another part of the money is required for extra assistance, rendered necessary by the large amount of variations in the contracts. Extra surveyors were required to assist the officials of the Office of Works in this work. The work was so heavy this year that it was found quite impossible to foresee the exact sum that would be required, and this large amount of work has necessitated extra assistance in order to assist those who were already in the office. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked whether there was any increase in the permanent staff. A small increase has been found necessary, and a first assistant engineer, a second assistant engineer, and one staff clerk have been added to the permanent staff, and that is the only increase. With regard to the item for travelling expenses, part of it has been incurred by foreign travel. In one case it was necessary to have a special journey to Mexico. There has been a large amount of Continental travelling this year, which could not be foreseen. The larger part of the sum is required for Labour Exchanges. About £450 was spent upon travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges, and the rest is for foreign travel.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: Why was the Mexico journey undertaken?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The journey was undertaken for the new Embassy in connection with which it was found necessary to send out an officer of the Department to examine the building and the place, and it cost about £130 to send him. A good deal of money was saved in consequence.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: What was the total cost?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I am afraid I do not know, but hon. Members may take it from me that a good deal of money was saved on that account. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) asked whether the surveyors appointed were subject to any examination, and whether they had received a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. The men appointed were fully qualified in their profession, and were specially selected to carry out this work.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are they appointed temporarily?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, they are temporary surveyors. I think I have answered all the questions put to me.
    Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: The hon Member, representing the Government, has tried very courteously to answer our questions, but the real reason for the increase in this Vote has been left almost as vague as it was before. I think this particular item for works and public buildings is one which ought to be most carefully considered by the Committee and this House. Last Session there was no discussion on this Vote because it was closured, and this is the only opportunity we have of raising it. Probably the Committee will be surprised to hear that during the five years the present economical Government have been in power this Vote has gone up from £450,000 to £725,000. Under these circumstances I think it is high time that more details of this expenditure were given to the Committee. It is quite time the House of Commons should have a chance of exercising what after all is its principal function, namely, supervising the expenditure of public money and ascertaining whether there is any waste or not. On these matters we are left very much in the dark. Take for example Labour Exchanges. The hon. Member representing the Government has told us that the greater part of this additional expenditure is due to travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges. I think it is quite time we had a full statement as to what, these Labour Exchanges are costing.
    The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise upon this Vote. The general question of the cost of Labour Exchanges does not come under this Vote, which is a Vote for buildings, part of which were required for Labour Exchanges.
    Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I was dealing with the special point of the amount required for Labour Exchanges, and I was referring incidentally, as we are dealing with this particular point, with the cost of Labour Exchanges, because I thought it was at least pertinent to inquire whether the Government could not give us a full statement as to what Labour Exchanges are costing.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is precisely the point that does not arise on these Estimates.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it not reasonable to point out what is the general financial state of this Vote before we are asked to increase it? Surely the financial aspect of a Vote must be known before we can judge of the extra expenditure. It is evident that you cannot check extravagance if you are not to regard the whole amount of the Vote without going into the question of policy. Unless you do this you cannot judge whether a Supplementary is extravagant or economical.
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if your ruling does not merely exclude the general cost of Labour Exchange buildings, and that it does not exclude the discussion of the part relating to buildings which is included in this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be in order. It was only because the hon. and gallant Member was asking for a general statement as to the cost of Labour Exchanges, including many items not in this Vote, that I interfered. In reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, it would be in order to argue that Labour Exchanges have already cost so much and ought not to cost any more.
    Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: That was very much the point I was coming to, but, unfortunately, I was unable to conclude my statement. I was going to point out that Labour Exchanges had already cost, according to the Estimate of last year, nearly £250,000. I am taking the entire cost of buildings and salaries, and apparently both those items are included here. I was going to ask whether we might have a statement on this Vote in order to see whether we were really getting value for our money. I am not opposing Labour Exchanges, because I believe as a matter of policy they are good as far as they go, but, after all, you can

    849
    buy things too dear. If this expenditure had been foreseen it would not have been necessary to ask for this additional sum. When we see the expenditure constantly growing in an unforeseen manner, I think we are entitled to call attention to it and ask what the Government really anticipate will be the full cost of Labour Exchanges in the future. Upon the question of salaries and wages, the hon. Member opposite really gave us no information. I am sure he told us everything he knew, and was most anxious to oblige as far as he could, but I wish to know what are the particular works unforeseen which have caused this large increase in the expenditure during the last twelve months. The question of Buckingham Palace has been mentioned, but I understand from the hon. Member that no money is asked for in connection with that on this Vote. May I ask if any money is included in the item under discussion for the Mall extension. In all Departments there seems to be a want of an intelligent anticipation of expenditure, and that appears to me to be a reason why practically on every Vote the Government have to come here and ask for these Supplementary sums. This occurs under a Government practically pledged to abolish Supplementary Votes altogether. I must press for a little more detailed information both in regard to the additional cost of Labour Exchanges and as to what particular works the additional sums for salaries and other expenses can be attributed to on the present occasion.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The plea why more money is wanted for unforeseen expenditure on supervising the building of Labour Exchanges might be more impressive if we found any supplementary moneys were being asked for for unforeseen expenditure on building Labour Exchanges, but when we turn to the Supplementary Estimate already passed, we find, it is true, a large sum taken for unforeseen expenditure not upon Labour Exchanges, but rather upon Royal Palaces. It may be, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has not informed the Committee that the bulk of this expenditure was occasioned by this expenditure on Royal Palaces which the House perfectly well understands in this particular year was quite to be expected, and I think the Committee is entitled to be told how it is, when no additional work has become visualised in the shape of the building of Labour Exchanges, we are to pay a lot of money on clerks, surveyors, and the like. It is more interesting to pursue this
    850
    subject when the Committee already bears in mind that we pay one Principal Architect and Surveyor in England and another in Scotland; seven Architects and Surveyors, fourteen Assistant Architects and Surveyors of the Third Class, and twenty-three Architects and Surveyors of the Second Class, totalling forty-six in all, with salaries aggregating already to £19,400. In the Engineering Division, to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion, we already pay one Principal Engineer, two Assistant Engineers of the First Class, four Assistant Engineers of the Second Class, one Senior Sub-Engineer, seven Sub-Engineers, and one Officer in Charge at the Generating Station at South Kensington, totalling sixteen officers, whose salaries aggregate £4,400. The public is already paying a good deal, and, as we are not getting any more in the way of concrete and substantial matter it seems rather strange that such little explanation should be given in respect of the Supplementary item for Labour Exchange buildings.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am sure we all acknowledge the care and courtesy with which the hon. Member has answered the questions put to him. There are, however, just one or two points I should like to mention. He said the increased cost was largely for the special work of surveyors and architects. There has certainly, so far as London is concerned, been no special difficulty in the building of public offices since 31st March last. The latest buildings were finished by that time, and something has not taken place which might, I think, have been expected to take place. Six months ago a large space of ground, about five acres, on the north side of the Great George Street was cleared. For six months it has remained unoccupied, so that now it has reverted to agricultural uses, and it is going back to prairie value. Surely, when the Office of Works pulled down the houses and cleared the whole five acres, losing rents amounting to something like £150,000, they must have expected they would begin at once with their building and require a large amount of surveyors' and architects' work. They must, therefore, have made a very large saving on their Estimates, because they did absolutely nothing during those six months, from 1st July to the end of November. Why did not that saving go to help to prevent this Supplementary Estimate? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that is

    851
    quite a pertinent question. They must have contemplated building on that very large and valuable space of ground. When they did not, their expectations were not fulfilled, and they had no surveyors' and no architects' expenses. They must, therefore, have saved on architects' and surveyors' expenses, instead of requiring a Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. PEEL: There are just one or two points in the reply of the hon. Member which require some sort of investigation. He told us a good deal of these expenses were travelling expenses. I presume officials were sent down to the provinces from the Central Office. I do not quite gather what they were to do. He said they were to consider the question of sites, but in several places with which I am familiar they have not built at all; they have simply started the Labour Exchanges in hired buildings. I do not quite see, therefore, why, in those cases, it should have been necessary to send down these officials. You want a very different degree of ability and experience to go and see whether a site is available and to say whether these rooms or premises will suit temporarily for the purpose of Labour Exchanges. I think it would be in order to ask where these Labour Exchanges have been built, and where the Government have contented themselves with merely hiring buildings, because I should be rather hurt if we in the country with which I am familiar were to be put off with merely temporary, hired buildings, while in some more fortunate places they were to have regular sites and more suitable premises built for their Labour Exchanges. The Office must have foreseen they would be necessary. Possibly, it is the usual practice to send down persons who have experience to make investigations of this kind as regards sites and buildings, but surely in some of these centres there are individuals on the spot perfectly capable of reporting both as to the accommodation and as to sites. If, instead of sending down no doubt some competent officials from head quarters they were to content themselves by getting the temporary services of some official on the spot, there would be some chance of economy. Speaking of some of these cases, I am sure the matter is a simple one, and, after all, the position and suitability of sites and buildings and a hundred things of that kind can be judged far more wisely by some individual familiar with
    852
    the needs and requirements of the place than by some no doubt extremely scientific, competent, and highly trained official sent down from London. I make that humble suggestion for effecting some economy.
    I am still puzzled as to why this was unforeseen, unless, of course, there has been a change of policy. If this were the usual practice and knowing a certain number of Labour Exchanges were going to be set up, I should not have thought it beyond the ability of some of the competent financiers in this Department to have foreseen some sort of expenditure on travelling expenses. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman had told us that within the year they changed their policy and decided, instead of merely hiring buildings, to have sites and build themselves, that to some extent would have accounted for the further expenditure, but the hon. Member has not told us so; he rather assumed the policy was decided beforehand. Surely the effects of the policy ought to have been far better anticipated than they were. I suppose the hon. Member was not supplied with full information on the question of contracts. He said a great deal of expenditure was due to variations in contracts. That, after all, is not a thing which should have taken the Department by surprise. It occurs very frequently in contracts; in fact, there is hardly any large contract or even smaller contract which is carried out without some variation, and in estimating for this sort of work you always allow for variations. Why, then, is there this year this special amount for variations? I think the hon. Member might answer this point, and he might tell us on what class of contracts the variations occurred. Hon. Members familiar with these things know that, according to the class of building and contract variations are likely to occur one way or the other. It is a thing well understood in the building trade and by all those who have to deal with large contracts.
    When I look at the Supplementary Estimate I find that the information afforded is meagre, but, when I look at the larger Estimates, I find more information, including the number of clerks, surveyors, their salaries, and so on. You know what they are paid, how many there are, and to what particular classes they belong. You get nothing of that sort in the Supplementary Estimate. The whole is lumped in one sum. One would have supposed that greater accuracy and more care would have been shown in the Supplementary

    853
    Estimate than in the general Estimate, because, after all, the Government, I suppose, are not boasting of these Supplementary Estimates. I suppose there is some lingering degree of shame on their part. There ought to be, considering the demonstrations they made some five or six years ago on very humble Supplementary Estimates. I presume, therefore, there is some sort of lingering feeling that Supplementary Estimates are not the right thing, and I think we ought all the more to have full and detailed information upon them. It ought to be far more full and fare more detailed than in the general Estimates. I make this appeal to the hon. Member with all sympathy for the position in which he is placed, and in the hope that he will really consider most favourably whether we should not have these Supplementary Estimates in a form far more simple and in more detail, so that we shall not be compelled, as we have been this afternoon, to ask a number of questions, and, I am afraid, inflict on the hon. Member a great deal of trouble.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to say a word in support of this request for more detailed information on these Supplementary Estimates. It is impossible to fail to recognise the fact that the Supplementary Estimate is drawn as barely as possible so far as the giving of information is concerned. I will take, for example, the expenses incurred on buildings. Everybody acquainted with building matters is aware that they afford one of the most fruitful opportunities for extravagance in public expenditure. We hear, indeed, very remarkable stories of gross extravagance incurred in connection with public buildings. We are not given enough information in these Estimates to know whether there is extravagance or not. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill no doubt has given all the information in his power, but that is different from having it on the Estimates, and we do not know whether it is a case or not of spending money unreasonably. We have to form our judgment on the information we elicit in the course of debate. Now Supplementary Estimates are confessedly a great financial mischief, and in view of that fact would it not be possible to submit them in greater detail, or to have some sort of Select Committee to go through them before they come under consideration in the House of Commons. If something of that kind were
    854
    done on these occasions it might save much time.
    The CHAIRMAN: That obviously opens up a rather wide question
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I have finished all I had to say on that question. I hope nothing has been said which will lead the Government to build Labour Exchanges where they can possibly hire them. There is no greater source of waste of money than the putting up of new premises on some plan supposed to be theoretically better when existing premises are available. I believe that in matters of National Finance we should adhere rather to the second best. Let us have the thing which is adequate although not ideal. I hope that in this matter the Government will be satisfied to hire whenever they can possibly do so, and will not incur the great expense of pulling down existing buildings and erecting others on the same site.
    Mr. IAN MALCOLM: There is a small permanent increase in the staff of the Office of Works, and although the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote told us that these officials had got certificates from the Civil Service Commission we want to know a little more about it. The Order in Council only allows the Civil Service examination to be dispensed with if the Lords of the Treasury are assured that the qualifications of the persons appointed are particular and not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service, and if the Chief of the Department considers it will be to the public interest that the examination shall be wholly or partially dispensed with. No one can say if the permanent engineers and the surveyors added to the staff hold qualifications of such a very peculiar kind that it is in the public interest they should be appointed by certificate and not by examination, and it seems to me that in dispensing with the examination the authorities may have, unconsciously, of course, overriden the Order in Council. They are thereby opening a way to a real abuse of public patronage in various Departments. It seems necessary the Order in Council should be adhered to in the letter, otherwise a very large number of appointments now in the hands of Public Departments may be given by patronage where they ought to be given by examination to those who have spent a good deal of money in preparing for these examinations. I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that in the case of these permanent engineers they have

    855
    high qualifications which justified the Chief of the Department in having them appointed by certificate instead of by examination.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I must say that the answer of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government was unsatisfactory. No doubt he has done his best, but, owing to circumstances over which he has no control, his explanations to my mind were the reverse of satisfactory. The first of those explanations was that there had been a large amount of variation in contracts. I consider that to be a most unsatisfactory explanation. I have not had much experience in building, but what I have had has shown me that the moment you begin to vary the contract you add enormously to the expense. Whenever I have done any building for myself I have first said to the architect: "Let us be quite certain, before we ask for tenders, that we have made up your minds as to what we want. We do not want to go to the contractor and suggest a variation in regard to which we must accept practically what he chooses to charge for the work." When I have been building for myself or for other people my endeavour has been to get full value for the money I spent, but you cannot get full value if you start so badly as to find, when you get halfway through the work, you have to alter your whole plans and specifications. I think that is really one of the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate. There is not sufficient care taken in preparing the original plans and specifications, and it may be that an extravagant clerk or some other permanent official, while the work is in operation, asks the Office of Works for some improved accommodation, and the Office of Works, instead of maintaining an unbending front, and saying: "We have got our plan prepared and our specifications made and are not going to alter them," remark: "Oh, yes, there will be no discussion in the House of Commons; our serried ranks behind us will go into the Lobby with us; they will not dare to get up and criticise us, for all their professions of economy are merely vote catching professions; therefore you shall have better room or accommodation." Thus we get a Supplementary Estimate. We on this side are anxious to see economy and good management, which are identical and go together, and we view these increasing Supplementary
    856
    Estimates, on almost every item on the Votes, with apprehension. We therefore come down here and endeavour to inculcate habits of economy and business management in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I regret that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) who is fond of talking about a business Government, is not here in his place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote will not only take what I have said to heart but will impart it to his official superior, who, by some extraordinary coincidence, happens to be in another place Why the Government should have put the Chief Commissioner of Works in another place which they are going to abolish, I do not know.
    The next reason given by the hon. Gentleman was that there was an increase of three permanent engineers on the staff. We have been told that at the present moment there are sixteen engineers receiving a salary of over £4,000 a year. What do we want three more permanent engineers for? Surely if it were necessary the existing engineers might put in a little extra time. Perhaps, however, overtime is objected to. Still it could not have been necessary at this moment to have increased the permanent staff in this manner. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we do not like these increases of permanent staffs of officials. Another item is the special journey to Mexico. The cost, £130, is not I think out of the way provided that the work which this special official did was satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman tells us that a considerable amount of money will be saved as a result of the journey, and, in view of that statement, I venture to say that is the only satisfactory explanation we have received on these Estimates to-day. I hope the hon. Gentleman will promise to take to heart the criticisms most courteously directed against these Estimates, and will in the future endeavour to impress on the officials in his office the desirability of finding out what they want in the first place, and of varying contracts as little as possible. I hope, too, that the heads of the Departments will bear in mind that their offices do not exist for the benefit of officials, and will attempt to draw a line in regard to the appointment of fresh officials, involving increased charges to the State.
    Captain CRAIG: I should like to know whether the new appointments covered by the Supplementary Estimates have all

    857
    been made in London only, or whether some of them have been made in country districts. I recollect quite well, when the Bill dealing with Labour Exchanges was before the House, suggesting that a certain number of inspectors should be sent to the country to ascertain whether, in various labour centres, there were suitable buildings available for these exchanges. At that time the present Under-Secretary for the Home Department who was in charge of the Bill said that, as far as possible it was intended to erect new buildings to house the clerical staffs and engineers in the various centres. I pointed out that in the long run an enormous amount of money would be saved if a regular service of experts were sent throughout the country to look at the public buildings lying empty, which could be refitted so as to make them suitable as Labour Exchanges. It is true that the Supplementary Estimate asked for at this moment by the Government is only £2,900—a very trifling sum for a Radical Administration, but when one looks back to the years 1909–1910, and discovers that the original Estimate was £92,000, it will be seen that since then the Estimates have increased by no less than £16,500. Therefore, although we are only discussing this item of £2,900, the country will readily understand what an enormous increase there has been in twelve months in this one Department of the Government alone. I really think that we ought to appeal to the hon. Member to give the Committee some further information, not alone as to what the exact figures are, but as to whether there is any prospect of this enormous expenditure going on from year to year, whether he hopes that this sum of £2,900 will be sufficient to carry the Government on for twelve months. There are two points that I am desirous of raising, one as to the continued and very extraordinary increase of the expenditure, and the other the fact that the Government appears in the appointment of architects, engineers, and so on, to keep the appointments in the Head Office of London instead of giving the provinces a fair share in connection with them. I would like to ask whether a single one of these new appointments has been made in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, or whether the engineers and inspectors tabulated in the Estimates are all confined to the Central Office. I think if these points are cleared up, and if we get a satisfactory assurance in regard to them, and that this will satisfy these particular offices this
    858
    year, it may be possible for us to agree to the Vote, especially to the £750 odd, which was occasioned by the officials going into the country and saving building expenses there. Although the amount charged is large, still we may be saving more than what appears on that Paper.
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The temporary assistance which the hon. Member for Croydon asked me about, was of such a character that it did not require a permanent addition to the staff, and the engineers did not require an additional sum because they were already Civil Servants, and they came from another Department. It was very necessary to appoint this extra engineering staff because the staff which existed were being overworked and one engineer had broken down in consequence of that overwork. I could not have made myself clear about the setting up of the Labour Exchanges, because, of course, in regard to them, existing buildings have been adapted in a large number of cases, but whether you acquire a site and adapt the buildings on it, or put up new buildings, you naturally have to send somebody down to examine into the question, and travelling expenses are incurred all the same. A number of variations in contracts which account for a sum in the Vote really are not due to the action of the Office of Works. That Department has to take into account the requisitions of the various Departments from which they are received and erect suitable buildings for them, and, of course, if the buildings require alteration, the Office of Works has to carry them out. Although these alterations are not under the complete control of the Office of Works, they must be carried out. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow University, the only answer I can give to him is, that the variations in public buildings all over the country were so great that no sufficient savings were effected in other branches of the Service to make up the difference.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It will be noticed that an expression as to the growth of business was the phrase used in the original Estimate in order to account for this increase, and there was nothing in the Estimate which would lead the Committee to suppose that all of this increase was due to the Labour Exchanges and the increase in the number of appointments of engineers. I therefore should like to ask whether the whole growth of business is due to the Labour Exchanges, and if not I

    859
    wish to know whether any of this growth of business is connected with work done in the London Parks, because it occurs to me that there is a good deal of unnecessary extravagance in management of the London Parks which are under the Department of the hon. Gentleman. I think greater economy might be exercised in that matter, though I should be the last person to suggest that they should not be adequately kept, because they afford great pleasure to all classes of people in this country, although their arrangements might be improved.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think there is any money for London Parks in this Vote.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I bow to your ruling, of course, Sir. You must have better sources of information than I have. I see that the original Estimate is asked for owing to the growth of business, and I am asking whether any of this growth of business is connected with the London Parks. I submit that I am entitled to raise and ask the question whether any is due to that cause, and it seems to me that it is the general growth of business of the Department which has accounted for these Estimates. Then I was saying if any of this money is due to the growth of business in connection with the parks, I think the details ought to be produced
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has been told that there is a separate Vote for Parks.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: In these Estimates?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the original Estimates.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I am sorry I am unable to make this point, but if you say I cannot discuss it on this Vote, I will leave it. All I say is, that it shows how carelessly these Estimates are put together, and what loose reasons are given for the increase of an Estimate, because I naturally supposed that the growth of business accounted for the increase in connection with the whole Department, and that the policy of the whole Department might be reviewed. If it is due solely to the Labour Exchanges, I think the Department ought to have put down the real reason, instead of a reason which is not the case. I wish to ask what other Department besides the Labour Exchanges and the appointing of
    860
    these engineers and engaging extra staff account for the increase in this Estimate?
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has before answered the point which the Noble Lord has just put, and I think we are entitled to have some reply in regard to the facts of this Estimate. The hon. Gentleman has told us that two engineers who have been appointed come from some other Department, and I think he might tell us what other Department these two gentlemen come from. That seems to me to be a perfectly natural thing to inquire. We have here a Supplementary Estimate, but do the wages of these men appear in the Estimate for another Department, and are you putting upon this Department the pay of extra men which has not been spent? I think we are perfectly entitled to an answer to that question. If you tell us that some other Department has saved, then you ought to tell us how the money has been expended, I think we ought to be told from what Department these engineers have been taken and whether the Department in question has saved the money.
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: My explanation in regard to the growth of business is to say that this money is required entirely for the supervision of buildings and for sites in connection with the extension of buildings. The parks do not come into this Vote at all. The assistant engineers whom I referred to come from the Post Office.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The point I do not understand is this: In his original explanation the hon. Gentleman told us that there were a great many fresh buildings connected with the Labour Exchanges, and he also told us that most of the additional expenditure was in connection with those buildings. He said there were other buildings, but he did not tell us what those other buildings were, except the Embassy in Mexico. He did not tell us in what cases all this additional expenditure has been incurred.
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: In all public buildings—Post Office and other public buildings.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That has all been foreseen, I suppose.
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Not the variations in the Post Office or other public buildings required.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his answer to my question, and I am sorry I did not notice that part of his speech in which he said it was entirely due to buildings. I understood him when I asked if nothing else had been mentioned, that he gave confirmation, and agreed when I said it was ill due to the Labour Exchanges and in connection therewith. I understood he did not dissent, and, therefore, that is why I pressed to know whether anything else could come into these Supplementary Estimates. I do wish to protest against the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who do nothing but jeer at my hon. Friends and those of us on this side who are trying to supervise these Supplementary Estimates. I think it is very unfortunate that they should adopt that attitude when the Committee well knows that the detailed examination of Supplementary Estimates is the only opportunity we have in order to keep a proper check upon Departments and prevent undue expenditure.
    Mr. MALCOLM: May I just point out that some of the money is required for Post Office and other public buildings, but in another Estimate £420,000 is charged for Post Office buildings, and I cannot understand how that can be necessary, seeing that in this Class 2 we are asked for certain money and expenses of that Department. Some of the buildings for which money is required in this Class can have nothing to do with this other Class, which also goes to Telegraph and Post Office buildings. On the spur of the moment, I do not think they could possibly come under Class 2.
    Question put, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £2,800, be granted for the said service."
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. The Motion was to reduce item A.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question the first time.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 241.

    Division No. 35.]

    AYES.

    [5.30 p.m.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peto, Basil Edward

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

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pole-Carew, Sir R

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, J.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Spear, John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Korr

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

    Cator, John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Kirkwood, John H. M.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Weigall, Cant A. G.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Welmer, Viscount

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L (Ripon)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wortley, Rt. Hen. C. B. Stuart-

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Nield, Herbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Faile, Bertram Godfray

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Malcolm.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Forster, Henry William

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Adamson, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hayward, Evan

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, George Heynes

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hinds, John

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Barnes, George N.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Beale, William Phipson

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Reddy, Michael

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Johnson, William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Boland, John Pius

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robinson, Sydney

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Lansbury, George

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Law, Hugh A.

    Rowlands, James

    Byles, William Pollard

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Leach, Charles

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Logan, John William

    Schwann, Rt. Hen. Sir Charles E.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Clough, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Maclean, Donald

    Smith, H B. Lees (Northampton)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Smyth, Thomas. S. F. (Leitrim, N.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Snowden, Philip

    Craig, Herbert James William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Strauss Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Mathias, Richard

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Delany, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Devlin, Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Toulmin, George

    Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doris, W.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Duffy, William J.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Walters, John Tudor

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Munro, Robert

    Wardle, George J.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Waring, Walter

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Watt, Henry A.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Webb, H.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Grady, James

    White, A. F. (Perth)

    Furness, Stephen W

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Goldstone, Frank

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting the Vote. His answers have not been satisfactory, but they have been given in a conciliatory spirit.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I do not intend to divide against this proposed Supplementary Estimate. In fact, the only ground on which I could possibly do so is that it is not sufficiently large. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that once again we have to deal with a matter connected with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland without the Vice-President of that Department being present.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will not be in order on the Supplementary Vote.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I chiefly want to draw attention to the Estimate of £4,600 under the heading of horse breeding. There was no original Estimate for this purpose and this is the first time that this proposal has been brought before the House. Therefore I conclude that we are entitled to discuss the question and the policy of the Government, after we have found out what their policy is, as though this were the original estimate. Unfortunately I do not know the proposals of the Government, so I cannot very well criticise them, but I trust the statement which the Chief Secretary will make will show that this sum is not going to be entirely spent in the South and West of Ireland, but that a reasonable share of it will be spent in the North. I hope he will also explain how it comes that the whole of this £4,600 comes out of the Development Fund. With reference to grants to schools and classes of science and art and technical instruction the additional sum required is £500. I should like to know what sums have been and are being spent in assistance to local classes, especially to those which have been lately started in the North of Ireland. In my Constituency a
    866
    new series of lectures and classes have been started in three places. I should like to know where we can find, outside the report of the Departments, which is only published on very rare occasions, so far as I can make out, and generally so long after the facts with which it deals have taken place that it is practically useless, what allowances are being made to help on these very useful classes which are being started in the North of Ireland, and particularly in Antrim and Ballycastle, and what progress is being made generally in the matter of technical instruction in those places.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This is really a new Vote, as the hon. Member has very accurately pointed out. The matter arises in this way. The Development Commissioners have agreed to give £10,000 from the Development Fund in aid of horse breeding in Ireland to be spent, if necessary, within a year. We already have from the endowments of the Department an expenditure for horse breeding of between £7,000 and £8,000 a year, and from the rates £3,000 a year. The operations in connection with horse breeding, as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland know very well, have greatly increased from year to year. The development was very much arrested by the unfortunate limitation of funds which presses so heavily on the development of Ireland in many other directions, and the Department approached the Development Commissioners for a sum of money to be devoted by them to this purpose, and they granted the sum of £10,000. The reason why we put down this Vote now is that the usual period for the purpose concerned is from November to March, and accordingly, as soon as we received the promise of this money, our operations began at once. We proceeded to purchase a number of stallions, and we are in negotiation for several others, and they will be sent out for service in April and May. Therefore, it was obvious that a sum would be required before the close of the financial year, which is the 31st of this month, and a Supplementary Estimate was necessary. The estimated expenditure is calculated to be £4,600. We make it up as follows:—Purchase of stallions, £3,500; expenses in connection therewith, including inspectors' remuneration, £600; remuneration and expenses in connection with Irish draught horses, £450; and clerical assistance, £50. The Supplementary Estimate of £10, which is a nominal

    867
    amount, has to be presented in respect of this expenditure. In the meantime we charge it temporarily to the Department. That is the course we propose to adopt with reference to this matter. For the past ten years we have administered these schemes in accordance with the schemes which have been published in our Reports. They are administered by the Department, partly from endowments and partly from the rates. For the year 1910 I noticed that the number of mares selected was 3,500. The additional grant which we have obtained from the Development Fund will allow, of £4,000 being set aside for additional free services to the mares.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: This year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: During the next twelve months. The stallions that have been hitherto acquired have been all thoroughbred, and have been at different times resold to farmers in different parts of the country. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) wishes me to give details as to the character of these stallions. I am afraid I am hardly now in a position to do that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand they are thoroughbred stallions.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, that is so. We had some difficulty about certain Normandy sires. Having regard to the fact that great dissatisfaction was occasioned by the introduction of these sires in Ireland on the part of those who are interested in the breeding of horses, the Department have given an undertaking that they will not give out these sires and that they will be sold out of the country or used in their own farms for the purpose of private experiments.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Was the suggestion that these Normandy sires should be bought originally made by a Scotchman who knew nothing about the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It may have been a North Briton who made the suggestion originally, but that is an old story, and we need not go into it. We need not add it to the historical sufferings of Ireland or Scotland in that way. We have restricted these animals in their operations to the farms of the Department for the purpose of private experiments. I was glad to notice that no objection was taken to the amount. We could very well have done
    868
    with a larger sum, but at the same time-we have got what we have got, and I hope we shall use it in such a manner as to encourage the Development Commissioners in future years to give us even larger sums. It is a fact that in the annual Estimate we under-estimated the annual Grants to schools of science and art and for technical instruction by the sum of £500. I do not think we need stand in a white sheet over that small deficiency, for, as hon. Gentlemen know, these Grants depend on circumstances over which the Department has no control, such as the number of students attending the classes. Therefore, although owing to increased local interest in the work, we have in that branch exceeded our estimate, there have been unanticipated savings under other heads amounting to £490. It is really a very small matter, and I do not think anybody, having regard to the number of classes starting up all over Ireland, could make an estimate more exact than that which was made, although it is wrong by £500. I cannot at present answer the hon. Member's inquiries as to the particular classes in which he is interested in the North of Ireland, but I will undertake to obtain the information and reply to him. I can assure the hon. Member that there is not the slightest desire or disposition in any way to expend money in one part of the country rather than another. I am very glad to have my attention called to the point, and I can assure him that I shall be no party to the spending of any part of this money in one part of the country rather than another, either for schools of science and art or for the purpose of horse breeding. One part is equally entitled with another to participate in the Grant made by the Development Commissioners. That is the reason why we have put down this Supplementary Vote. So far as horse breeding goes, it does not lie with the Irish Government. We have got £10,000 granted by the Development Commissioners, and a portion of it has been expended.
    Mr. E. P. O'KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the stallions purchased are thoroughbreds. May I say that a great many people in Ireland who are interested in horse breeding consider that other animals would produce a more suitable article for many purposes than thoroughbreds would do.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I am sure we all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on joining the ranks of those

    869
    interested in horse breeding in company with the Secretary of State for War. I have listened with the greatest interest to his remarks. He did not explain why it had been found possible to use only so small an amount of the money given for a purpose of this kind. In regard to the Development Grant, we have never had an opportunity of discussing in this House how the money is to be expended. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that of the £10,000, £4,600 will be expended in the course of the next twelve months.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is the estimated expenditure.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Here is another example of propositions being carried into effect and money expended without the House having had an adequate opportunity of discussing the projects. This horse-breeding scheme is one of which this House has really no knowledge whatever, and yet this sum of money is going to be expended upon it. To my mind it is absolutely necessary that a scheme of this kind, on which there is great diversity of opinion, should be started on proper lines. We in this House should be positively assured that the money we are voting in this haphazard manner will be expended to the best possible advantage. In this connection, while I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having handled the matter in such a masterly manner, I should' like to say—and I am sure he will join in the regret—I am sorry that he has not got the assistance of Mr. T. W. Russell.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that that subject is out of order.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: If you rule it out of order it must be so. This is a scheme brought forward by the Board of Agriculture, and I trust you will allow me to say that it is a matter of regret that the President is not here. It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues to put this scheme of horse breeding before the House in the way we desire. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman deprecates the use of Normandy stallions. There is a great divergence of opinion with regard to thoroughbred stallions, and we should have liked to have the scheme put before us. I hope the hon. Gentleman sitting beside the Chief Secretary will go more deeply into the scheme of which at present we know practically nothing.
    6.0 P.M.
    Captain CRAIG: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has a large amount of
    870
    carefully-prepared notes, and perhaps, if he cannot give us an outline of the scheme of horse breeding in Ireland which it is proposed to establish under this Vote of £4,600, he will be able to answer one or two specific questions. I think the Committee are agreed that it is not treating it fairly or generously to ask for this large sum of money without giving a very substantial account of how the money is to be spent, and what class of sires it is proposed to introduce into Ireland. There is no subject that causes more general interest in Ireland than horse breeding. The proposals that have been put forward by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have not all met with approval. The Chief Secretary, in asking us to pass this Vote to-day, practically admits that he knows very little about it from the technical point of view. He tells us that £3,500 is to be spent on the purchase of these sires and £600 on the salary of some inspector who went to look at them.
    Mr. BIRRELL: And other expenses.
    Captain CRAIG: I think it is not quite satisfactory to the Committee to be told that it is for other expenses. Here is a new Vote with not a word of this extraordinary amount of £600 for the purchase of £3,500 worth of sires. There is not an hon. Member from Ireland who would not be delighted to go to buy horses to the extent of £3,500 if he were allowed £600 expenses and also £450 for examining some other sires I presume abroad.
    Mr. BIRRELL: And also mares?
    Captain CRAIG: That is to say there is an expenditure of £1,100 for the purchase of £3,500 worth of sires. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the impression left on my mind. The Committee may have understood more than I did in the matter. Where are these sires purchased? What class are they? What are the Government aiming at in promoting this horse-breeding scheme? Are they going to breed horses suitable for Army purposes, and, if so, will they take steps to see that the Army get the horses, and that they are not purchased by foreigners and taken abroad? Will they make any regulations about docking their tails, and seeing that our buyers going across to local markets in Ireland have the same fair chance of acquiring them as buyers from France, Belgium, and Italy, because so far there has been no settled scheme placed before us? If my personal opinion had been asked as to the spending of £10,000, I

    871
    would have much preferred the scheme of the Government to have been to give a slight bounty on the purchase of horses, and allow the country people in Ireland to do, what no one knows how to do better than they, to breed suitable animals for agricultural purposes and army purposes on the ordinary Irish farms in all parts of the country. These inspectors earning this enormous salary dictate to these native-born people as to the proper kind of sire to produce horses that are later on to do the agricultural work of the country. The right hon. Gentleman admits that an undoubted mistake was made in the importation of the Normandy sires. I agree with him. I do not believe that any sensible horsebreeder was consulted before the Department framed its rules with regard to the Normandy sires. Then he goes on to say that although rejected by the horse-breeding section in Ireland these animals are to be kept on the farms of the Department, and I presume are to be used, and their stock will gradually be pushed out of the Department's farm into other parts of Ireland to the detriment of the ordinary Irish stock. I think that is a most dangerous thing. Either those sires should be in the country or out of it.
    The CHAIRMAN: This subject cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. The Chief Secretary stated that this was a new Vote, and therefore I apprehend that the whole question of horse-breeding can be raised.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with what should be done with these sires which were acquired under the old Votes and do not come under this Vote at all.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it not within the question of the policy of horse breeding in Ireland whether Normandy sires should be removed or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, to some extent, but the hon. Member is discussing what has been done in the past. That does not arise under this Vote.
    Mr. CRAIG: I apprehend that my hon. and gallant Friend is pointing out that these sires are still being kept in the country on the farm belonging to the Department, and that the contention is they should be sent out of the country so that
    872
    the breed of horses in Ireland may not be contaminated by the presence of these Normandy sires.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I understand, but it is not in order under this Vote.
    Captain CRAIG: I bow to your ruling, but I would like to point out the difficulty it places us in in discussing this scheme if this new Grant is to establish a particular scheme while at the same time the Government are adopting other methods as it were behind our backs on their own farm, of which we know nothing. I do not really desire to follow these wretched animals any further. They have been discussed in Ireland very frequently; but I do think we are entitled outside of that question to know how it is that such an abnormal amount as almost a thousand pounds has been expended on the purchase of £3,500 worth of horses. Why it was necessary to do so, and whether the people of the various localities in Ireland are consulted as to the class of horses necessary to suit the particular climate and surroundings of that part of the country? Everybody knows that in some very rocky parts, in some of the hilly mountainous districts, it is necessary to breed a horse that will not suit the somewhat soft ground in more agricultural districts. Is anything being done to perpetuate the hardy race of Cushendall ponies which are suitable for farms in the mountainous districts of Antrim and Down, or are they to be allowed to the out? Then there are other parts where the farms are of a different character, and where the Clydesvale is very much better suited than the smaller class of horses. Then we have the Army to be catered for. All these matters are of the closest possible interest to every farmer in Ireland. I do not object to this Vote, I only wish it were £20,000, but I do think that in an important matter of this kind we ought to have a complete scheme put before us, and not a few lines. I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the chance of getting £10,000 is only taking £4,600? He may say that perhaps he will get it next year. But other Departments will at the development for next year, and I certainly think that when he had the chance of getting £10,000 out of that fund and using it this year he should claim that amount, and next year also put in his claim.
    I come next to the grants to schools for classes in science, art, and technical instruction. These schools have been started

    873
    all over Ireland. I wish them all prosperity, and I am very glad to see that they have a sufficient number of pupils to enable the Chief Secretary to claim even another £500. As he quite fairly stated it is impossible, when framing the Estimates, to tell how many of these young people will avail themselves of the classes, and therefore he cannot say, within a certain figure what exact amount will be necessary. But I think in claiming this extra amount he should have put down something that would be readily understood by every hon. Member in this House as to why it was required. It would have been very simple indeed if the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Estimates, instead of simply saying that the expenditure had been greater than was anticipated, had put down that the attendance at the classes had been greater, and therefore necessitated the raising of an additional sum of money.
    These may be matters of detail to the right hon. Gentleman, and I presume he wants to keep as much in the dark as possible, lest something fresh is started in the way of criticism. We have given attention to this matter before. I myself within the last four years have pointed out how much time the Committee might be saved, and how much easier it would be to understand what the Minister in charge requires, if care were taken beforehand to put down in print what he is able to tell us in regard to these matters, and hon. Members would then be in a better position to criticise the amount which is asked for. The right hon. Gentleman has very kindly promised to explain how this money is to be spent, and if he is prepared to give that information to one hon. Member it would also be very interesting to know, not only how the extra £500 but how the whole of the £22,000 is to be allocated to the various schools throughout Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would set the precedent of publishing exactly where the grants are to be made, their amount per head of the population, and so forth, it would afford the Committee and the House information which I am sure would be of great advantage to us in discussing the education policy of the Government. I, like my hon. Friend beside me, have no quarrel with the amount of money, except to say that the larger the increase naturally the more satisfied everybody would be, not only in regard to educational purposes but in reference to horse breeding. However, we are quite satisfied so long as we know
    874
    that the money is to be fairly and equally distributed, and not distributed under any method of favouritism. If the money be applied impartially throughout Ireland neither I nor my colleagues see any objection.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I hope the Government will continue the grant of money for horse breeding, because in the south of Ireland horse breeding is a great industry among farmers who keep good mares; and it is a great boon to the small farmer to get the service of a good horse for his mares. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pleaded ignorance about the way in which the Department carries out its scheme. It is a well-known fact that it is carried out by the Department in conjunction with the County Committees of Agriculture. I have seen the inspectors at work. They come into the town or county, and give notice to the farmers to bring their mares—the County Committee of Agriculture is represented as well as the Department. The mares are inspected and a number are selected. I regret that a very great number of splendid brood mares have been rejected simply because the Government could not give a greater sum of money. What we want in the south of Ireland are big thoroughbred stallions, something about sixteen hands high, of good bone. At the present time there is no price for small horses; but, with these big horses from a thoroughbred stallion and half-bred mare, a good class of hunters is produced. I may add that hunters do all sorts of work on the farm up to a certain age. The farmers train them up to two or three years, and keep them up to four or five years, and during all that time the horses have to do the work of the farm. I have known a farmer to get £100 for this description of horse, though up to within a few months it had been employed upon the farm. Hence, I say, this scheme is a great boon to the small farmers in Ireland. As I indicated, small horses are of no good at the present time; you get nothing for them.
    What is wanted, whether for the Army, for hunting, or for harness is a more than medium-sized horse, about sixteen hands high, with small mares, and in that way you produce big hunters. Further, such horses could be guaranteed stock. It is also most essential that the sire should be thoroughly sound in wind, and another point is that the Government in buying horses should be careful that they are

    875
    clean limbed, with no spavins, or splints, or side bones, or anything of that kind. Most of these diseases are hereditary, and the horses turn out badly. I repeat that it is most important that the sire should be thoroughly sound in wind and limb. I do hope that the Department and the Government will continue to give encouragement to this scheme of horse-breeding in the south of Ireland. If any hon. Member visited the south of Ireland he would be astonished on the occasion of a hunt to see farmers and their sons turn out on horseback. So great is the love of horses in that part of the country that there is no readier way of approaching a farmer than to ask how his horse is getting on; and from that topic of conversation you can get to other topics, even politics. The hon. Member above the Gangway (Captain Craig) need not be in the slightest afraid about how this scheme of horse-breeding is carried out, because it is connected with the county committees of agriculture, and all we want is sufficient money to make it a success. I am exceedingly glad that this extra Grant is being given.
    Mr. NEWMAN: As one who has bred many horses in the South of Ireland I heartily welcome this extra grant of £4,600, though the Vote is all too small. We have a very good and strong veterinary branch in Dublin at the present moment. I see we have got a chief inspector, a superintendent inspector, four other inspectors, a staff officer, a temporary staff officer, a clerk in charge of the Register, and other officials, and I understand that £1,100 more is to be spent upon them in the way of extra salary. I am very glad to know from the Chief Secretary that the Grant is not to be spent in buying hackneys or the much-abused Normandy sires. I am very glad to know that a small maiden speech which I made last year has had the effect of driving out this unfortunate class, and I like to think that those horses are to be confined to the farms in the North of Ireland, where I hope that their energies will be expended rather in another way. I join with the hon. Member who has previously spoken in urging that the merits of the three-parts stallion should be considered. I have at the present moment a horse which I bred myself from a three-parts-bred stallion, and my experience is that of a great many others, that this breed of Irish horse, from three-parts stallion, ought to be considered
    876
    as well as the thoroughbred horse. The Chief Secretary mentioned the Irish draught-horse scheme, and I hope that in his reply he will make some allusion to that matter. It has been very truly remarked how important this horse breeding industry is in Ireland. So it is, but it ought to be more important still. We ought to have more horses in Ireland; we ought to breed more, and we ought to supply more than we do. Last year, in Ireland, we had 600,000, and I find that in England that the number was 28,653. In a small agricultural country like Denmark, which is about half the area of Ireland, they had more than half the number of horses that they had in Ireland. If Denmark can have so large a number of horses, then Ireland, with its greater area, ought to supply many more horses than she does now. We ought to be able to supply the English Army with all the horses they require. We have got the horse which is not quite right for hunting, but which makes an admirable horse, either as a charger or as a horse for carrying a trooper. I do not suppose there was any better horse in South Africa than the Irish horse. They were bought and sold in very queer ways. I sold some of them myself. Some of the mares were in foal, and foaled on board ship. Yet those animals did better work than the Canadian, Australian, or Hungarian horses. Therefore I say that if we can increase the number of horses in Ireland by a horse-breeding scheme, we shall be doing a good thing, not alone for Ireland, but for the British Army. I am only too pleased that we in Ireland are to have this money for horse breeding. I wish it were more. I hope it will be spent well and wisely and that the Chief Secretary will tell us something of the draught-horse scheme.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not know whether I ought to apologise for intervening in this Debate, as I do not often intervene in Irish questions; but this is not purely an Irish question. A Grant for horse-breeding in Ireland is closely connected with the industry in this country and with the whole horse supply. Although we do breed horses in England, anybody in England would probably go to Ireland for the brood mares. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Agriculture (England) present to hear the criticism on the Irish scheme, because I cannot help thinking that the Irish scheme is in some ways a good deal superior

    877
    to the scheme which is being advanced in this country. I am also curious to see whether hon. Members representing the Labour party like the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) are going to make the same kind of speeches against this Grant in Ireland as they made when the Grant for England was under discussion. They then said that the Grant was purely a grant to go into the pockets of the landlords. I very much question if they are going to take up the same attitude to-day, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for West Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), who has pointed out how important this matter is in his country. As to the allocation of this Grant, I understand £3,500 is being spent in the purchase of stallions. Are those stallions to remain the property of the Department or are they to be resold to private individuals. I understand from the particulars of the Irish scheme published in 1909 that part of their system is to buy horses, then resell them on easy terms, a five years' loan I think, to the private individual. I must say that is a most admirable and excellent scheme. I commend it to the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Strachey), and I wish it could be done here. I should like to know how is the money treated which is received from the resale of the horses by the Department to private individuals, because it is obvious the purchase price is refunded to the Government. Does the money come back to the Development Commissioners, or is it left in the hands of the Department in Ireland, or with Congested Districts Board, or where? It seems to me that if the difficulty as to returning the money can be got over in Ireland there is no reason why it should not be got over in England by the Department here. It would be interesting to English Members if the Chief Secretary would tell us what happens. The refunded money, the purchase of thoroughbreds out of Government money in Ireland makes it more difficult in a way for other people to get horses which are good enough. I very much doubt if there are sufficient horses in the country, thoroughbred or three-parts bred, sufficiently good stallions for bone and size required to carry out the amount of horse breeding that we should like to see carried out. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland a short time ago initiated what I think is a very good scheme to increase the number of stallions Available, that is the three-parts bred. I
    878
    would like to know how that experiment has gone on. I find in the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland for 1910 the following:—
    "With a view to meeting a demand for half-bred sires free from any strain of cart-horse blood, yet likely to produce good useful farm animals."
    I do not see why the Department does not say hunters, because that is what is meant.
    "The Department began an experiment in 1906. For this purpose they purchased in Ireland twelve yearling half-bred colts. These were kept on Department's farms until they were three-year-olds, when they were examined with a view to registration, nine were found to be up to the standard required, and were sold to farmers in various parts of the country; and the remaining three were disposed of as geldings. Twenty-one colts were bought in 1907, of which fourteen were ultimately placed on the Department's register. Twenty-eight animals were secured in 1908, and a like number in 1909. Those not up to the Department's standard of suitability and those unsound are castrated. The experiment has proved so successful in hunter breeding districts, that the Department propose to greatly extend their operations in rearing young sires of this type."
    That is a very interesting experiment, and so far appears to have given the Department satisfaction. I would ask if any of this money is going to extend that experiment, because it seems to me that it is a very good way of providing the stallions which are required in all those districts of Ireland. I do not wish to say one word against the thoroughbred sire. Far be it from me to do so as I am a great believer in them, especially for a certain class of mare; but I do think there is room for the sires bred in the way described in those words I have just quoted. If the mare is known to be well bred this is a direct way of increasing the number of stallions available and also putting the hall-mark of the Department upon them to show that they are good enough to go into the country districts as service stallions. I should like to know if the Department are going to spend any of this money in repeating and extending that experiment, and also whether breeders in Ireland share the optimism with regard to it as expressed by the Department. It would be interesting to know if breeders think those colts good colts, and if this experiment is thoroughly agreeable to the breeders of the horse breeding districts. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (England) will bear in mind these points from the Irish scheme. Although I quite approve of the provisional way of spending the money this year by the Board of Agriculture in England, yet I think they have a good deal to learn from the Irish Department, and they might certainly improve their scheme in

    879
    this country by taking a few hints from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I quite understand that having to deal with this question is somewhat difficult for me, but it often happens that hon. Members have to speak on subjects on which they are not profoundly versed. I remember listening to an admirable and excellent speech by an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite about St. Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I know as much about stallions as he knows about St. Thomas Aquinas. I should have been very glad listening to the speech of the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) because, though some hon. Gentlemen opposite did not show all they knew, although they have the knowledge, he has been reading the reports of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. Those reports show that it is no new thing for the Department to concern itself with horse breeding, and to make experiments in horse breeding, as I pointed out in my opening remarks. The Department spend from £7,000 to £8,000 from their own endowment, and they get some £3,000 from the rates for these operations, which they have explained in their Memorandum, and from which the Noble Lord quoted to show that they know about this business. We have been at it for ten years, making mistakes, no doubt, about Normandy sires, but cheerfully recognising them, and proceeding on lines which have earned the commendation of the Noble Lord. I can only wish some of my colleagues were here to see how well I am managing all these things. The Department in Ireland works with county committees. The whole of this horse breeding scheme goes on in the light of day, and is subject to very pertinent criticism, because everybody from Ireland, except the Chief Secretary, knows all about horses, and has theories about them, which points to the fact that in that matter you have a highly educated community. This new grant is supplemental to the work that has been going on for ten years. With regard to what was said by the Noble Lord as to this grant of £4,600, part of it will be devoted to the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. All the experiments he refers to will go on from the other endowments and other income of the Department as before. I think I am right in saying that it is the intention of the Department to devote this extra money which we get from now to 31st
    880
    March in the purchase of thoroughbred sires; but we will certainly conduct experiments as already made. With regard to giving back the money, that is not at all an Irish custom. Having got the money we deal with it in what we conceive to be the best and most economical way. We sell the stallions on the five years' annual instalment system, and, having got the money, we use it again for continuing the work. It goes back into the till, and we turn it over in that way. With regard to the amount being only £10,000, I do not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to find fault with me for not getting more. I got £10,000 not without difficulty—
    Captain CRAIG: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that £10,000 was promised, but that the Department got only £4,600.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; the financial year makes the difficulty. We got £10,000 for the twelve months, but we want the Supplementary Estimate because £4,600 will be spent before 31st March. We got £10,000, but we asked for more. I cannot, however, press one thing more than another, and there are many other claims upon the Development Commissioners. I think we were fortunate in getting so much because it is, after all, supplementing other moneys already being spent for this purpose. An hon. Member was anxious about the Irish draught-horse scheme, and he spoke about "hairy heels" in a way which filled me with alarm. The draught-horse scheme is one which the Department have been working for some time past.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It is confined to certain districts.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes; where draught horses of that kind are required for the particular needs of the locality. It has not been adopted without consideration, and the Department think it is a scheme which requires to be continued. I am much obliged to the House for its kindness in listening to one who does not pretend to be an expert in these matters.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not in the least complain of the amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman has obtained. If he could have got more no doubt he would have done so, and I think my hon. Friends ought to be satisfied with what they have got. It is a very fair amount to make a start with. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the £4,600 were to-be allocated in the following manner—

    881
    £3,000 to the purchase of stallions, and £650 and £450 to inspection. £1,100 seems a rather large sum out of £4,600 to devote to these expenses. It would be much better to spend a far larger proportion of the £4,600 upon the purchase of stallions than upon fees to inspectors, who really cannot give any encouragement to the breeding of horses, which is the object we all have at heart. As to my intervening in an Irish Debate, I would point out that at present this is still the United Kingdom, and as long as we continue to be a United Kingdom I maintain that an English Member has as much right to intervene in an Irish Debate as an Irish Member has to intervene in an English Debate. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing quite right in purchasing thoroughbred stallions. I do not quite agree with what my Noble Friend said with regard to the half-bred stallion. They are very difficult to get, and there are great difficulties in the way of getting rid of the colts.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the hon. Baronet is misinterpreting what I said. The very consideration which he is urging as to the difficulty of getting them and the inconvenience to private breeders were exactly the considerations which made me urge the Government to keep them, so that they might produce more and save the inconvenience to private breeders.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that the Noble Lord was advocating that the Government should make these experiments. If the Government are to make these experiments—
    Mr. KILBRIDE: They have made them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Were they successful?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Yes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend says not, or that you cannot tell. What you can tell is that a thoroughbred stallion generally gets a very good class horse, especially if it is put to a half-bred mare. It gets the class of horse which is wanted in Ireland and other parts of the country; therefore, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has done right in devoting this money to the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. An hon. Member who expressed the hope that the stallions would be purchased free of limb, without spavins, and so on, cannot have noticed that £1,100 was to be spent on inspection. With regard to draught
    882
    horses, I was under the impression that there were not in Ireland any heavy draught horses. I do not see at all why shire horses could not be bred in Ireland just as well as in England. But, at any rate, that is not the sort of horse which the Irish like, and if that is so, I think we should confine our purchases of stallions to the horses which they are able to breed and to the class of horse which Irishmen like. In this particular case, I am all for Ireland having Home Rule, and if she likes a lighter class of horse she ought to-be encouraged in so doing. My Noble Friend asked where the Independent Labour Party was. The Independent Labour Party, with a line under the word "Independent," seems to have vanished' into thin air. They denounced a grant from this very fund when the grant was-for English purposes, on the ground that the landlords were going to benefit, and' that no work would be provided for working men. All these denunciations seem now to have vanished, and we see present only five representatives of the Independent Labour Party, who sit with folded arms, saying nothing. I do not think that is quite consistent, because they went to-a Division on the English Vote, and the very objections which they raised then apply equally to the Vote now before us.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: No; half of the Irish landlords are sold out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Surely this Vote is encouraging the other half to remain. That interruption only intensifies the necessity for the Labour party to speak up if they desire to maintain their reputation for independence.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that for a farmer to get the free service of a mare his land must be-under a certain valuation? If his valuation is over a certain amount, the scheme-does not apply to him. It is wholly for the-benefit of the small and middle-class farmer.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not contending that the Labour party were logical in what they said in the last Debate, or that-they would be logical if they spoke now. I do not think any of their contentions are right. Therefore I do not think there is any point in the remark of the hon. Member. I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Vote; it seems to be fairly well carried out; but I do not think so much ought to be spent on inspection.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: I think the right hon. Gentleman left the House under a serious misapprehension. He said that £3,600 of this money was to provide stallions previous to 31st March, or the period when they are usually bought for use in the coming breeding season. He left the House under the impression, which, I think, is absolutely wrong that £1,100 was to be spent on inspection. As the Vote appears here, there is no provision for the expense of bringing these horses from wherever they are brought to wherever they are to stand. There is such a thing as travelling expenses. I have no doubt that if the Department bought a horse from the hon. Baronet, he would, out of his regard for Ireland, have the horse sent over at his own expense; but for every horse the Department buys there will be an expense to the Department of about £25 for travelling expenses.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIRRELL: A good many questions have been asked. No doubt they were quite justified. The £1,100 may seem a somewhat extravagant sum, but the figures are really as follows: Purchase of stallions: amount required for purchase, £3,500, and, in addition, expenses in connection with purchase: one temporary inspector, remuneration, travelling, and subsistence expenses, £320; keeping horse and insurance on carriages, and outfit of veterinary's office, £280, making in all £600. Then, for the Irish draught-horse scheme there are two temporary inspectors, whose remuneration and expenses come to £300; one veterinary inspector £150, making £450—which sum has nothing whatever to do with the purchase of stallions, but is connected with the draught-horse scheme. Miscellaneous expenses come to £50, made up of clerical assistance by second division clerks, £17, and advertising expenses £33, so that the hon. Gentleman will see that these sums admit of explanation, and add up to £1,100, and are, of course, independent of the £3,500.
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask the Committee for one moment to turn their attention to the accounts for the classes of science, art, and technical instruction. An additional sum of £500 is required for these classes, making a total sum of £23,000.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have explained those.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this point. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the amount is too small. I wish to
    884
    point out that it is inadequate. Take the case of the teachers in each school. I do not know what their salary is, but I know it is not very large. No provision is made by the Government for the proper housing of these teachers, and therefore this £500 is absolutely inadequate to enable them to get decent lodgings. They are sent to some congested district in the West of Ireland, where, in fact, they cannot get decent lodgings; where in the village where the school is situated there is perhaps no lodging to be obtained. I know of one case, that of a woman who is a teacher in a day school. She married a sergeant of the Royal Engineers, whom she met when he was surveying the country. She is absolutely and totally unable in the place to get any lodging except an upper room in a public-house. Surely that is not the right way to treat a respectable woman, and one of considerable culture!
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): That question does not arise on this Vote of £500.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I was trying to point out that owing to the increased number of scholars, an increased grant, as I understand, had been given, and I therefore presumed there would be an increased number of teachers. Hence I was endeavouring to point out that this remuneration offered by the Government was insufficient. I do not want to elaborate the matter at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. ASHLEY: It is not only in one district, but all over the West of Ireland, and not only in the case I have pointed out. Certain grazing land is going to be cut up, and the lady I referred to is going to get two acres to enable her to build a house.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will look into the matter.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask why it is necessary that there should be a new veterinary inspector at £320 a year? There is a most admirable veterinary staff under Mr. Headley in connection with the present Department. That considerable staff has worked exceedingly well, and has the confidence of everyone in Ireland. Because a new scheme of draught-horses is brought forward, then, forsooth, we are to have a new inspector! Has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion to make that the present Department are either lacking in public confidence or are overworked? I

    885
    have not heard a word as to why an additional inspector should be appointed now at another £300.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, no; £150.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not care what the figure is.
    Mr. BIRRELL: A difference in the figures is of some little importance.
    Mr. MOORE: If this scheme is of importance enough to necessitate a new inspector we will not get so good a class of man at £150. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House what the present veterinary staff consists of? Before the Committee votes an additional officer some statement should be made as to whether or not the Department under Mr. Headley is overworked, or that there is some special duty which the existing staff are unable to do.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: It is a most unusual thing on my part to intervene on behalf of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has told us on many occasions—I do not share his views on this point—that the work of the Chief Secretary is so strenuous and exacting that it is quite impossible for any one man to do it. However, Parliament took that view in regard to certain branches of the Irish Administration some years ago, and deliberately—and with the concurrence of all Irish opinion—enacted that in future a large share of the work connected with Irish Government should be carried out by a Department, and that that Department should be represented in this House, and that a Vice-President should be directly responsible—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the absence of the Vice-President.
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I am not going to discuss it; but the absence of the Vice-President is a very great difficulty in dealing with these cases. Anybody who knows Ireland and has studied in Ireland the question of horse-breeding knows that what the Chief Secretary said just now is literally true. Almost everybody in Ireland who takes an interest in this question has his own separate views, and each one thinks if his plan were adopted it would be more successful than any other plan. I believe very strongly in the policy of buying thoroughbred horses. I believe that it is almost that vital importance in Ireland that you should use thoroughbred
    886
    horses to a much larger extent than otherwise if you desire to be successful. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London caught a remark from me which he quoted—not quite correctly. It is impossible to tell what results will be that will follow the employment of half-bred horses. Nobody knows better than my Noble Friend who has spoken so wisely and so well on this subject that our knowledge of the results of half-bred horses are of an extremely dubious character. It is impossible, when you use half-bred horses, to tell what the result will be until you have been using them for some time. First results form no indication at all. I think it will be a most valuable thing if the Irish Government find themselves in a position to carry out more of their experiments in regard to the purchase of half-bred horses. For this reason: if the farmer, the horse breeder, believes that he can get a fair market for half-bred stallions he will be likely to give more time and attention to them than hitherto, and it may be that you will find from this a very valuable addition to your horse-breeding resources in Ireland. At the same time, I hope that nothing will be done in connection with the use of stallions in Ireland that will tend to diminish in any degree the most important quality that the Irish horse possesses—that is its great powers of endurance. Some years ago, when the party to which I belong was responsible for the Government of Ireland, a Commission was appointed. One of the recommendations of this Commission was that hackney stallions should be used particularly in Connemara, because it was felt that would be more useful to the small Connemara mare than more thoroughbred horses. I did all I could to oppose that suggestion. I firmly believe that the general adoption in Ireland, or even the adoption to any considerable extent of that recommendation, would be a deathblow to one of the greatest and best industries in Ireland—the breeding of horses. My Noble Friend knows well—for he speaks with almost unequalled authority—that one of the difficulties in breeding half-bred horses is to make absolutely certain that you get those qualities which you do get in the thoroughbred horse, among them those most valuable powers of endurance for which the Irish horse has been so famous. The Irish mare has been famous all through her history for her wonderful powers of endurance. This industry is, I think, one of the two most important industries in Ireland outside

    887
    agriculture. The breeding of grazing cattle and the breeding of horses are two flourishing industries, which now represent a very large sum of money in Irish affairs. Either of them will be very materially injured by careless handling. I think the Irish Secretary and the Irish Government are pursuing what is on the whole the best course in the circumstances. I am delighted that they propose to take this extra money. I am sure the Chief Secretary will be the last to blame my Noble Friend for expressing his views, for it is only when critics get up and attack the Government on the ground that the money voted is not sufficient that the Minister can go to his colleagues and explain how well he has done in defending the adequacy of the smaller sum. The right hon. Gentleman, too, need not unnecessarily depreciate himself, because he has talked quite as interestingly on the breeding of horses as he talks on the many other subjects upon which he has so frequently discoursed. I earnestly hope that the Government will do nothing to in any way diminish the high qualities which have hitherto made the Irish horse famous all over the world.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman should reply to the science and art question put by my hon. Friend. He said—and it rather surprised me—that he could not say what money was actually spent on the science and art classes. It is rather a surprising thing that the science and art Vote should have turned out disappointing, because classes are very definite things.
    Mr. BIRRELL: My point was that it was impossible to know beforehand how successful your effort was going to be. The expenditure in many parts of Ireland increases with the size of the class, and therefore it is quite impossible definitely to estimate beforehand what expenditure would be necessary.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether any of this money is going towards the teaching of the Irish language?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Because I have a very strong opinion that money spent upon the Irish language is wasted, and if any of this was being used for that purpose I should have to divide the Committee.

    VOTE FOR PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (IRELAND) (CLASS 2).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    3. "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £585, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office, Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers,. Dublin."
    Mr. BARNES: I have no desire to oppose this vote except that I am sorry to see so large a Supplementary Estimate as this when compared with the original Estimate, and I think we are entitled to-some information as to how this money is being spent. In the original Estimate-we have particulars given in detail as to the purposes for which the money is required, but I think this supplementary sum, which amounts to 10 per cent. upon the original Estimate, is a large item to-ask the Committee to pass without some further information as to how it is to be spent and why it is necessary to spend such a large sum.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The expenditure is necessitated owing to the large increase of work due to the extension of the Old Age Pensions Act to persons hitherto disqualified by the receipt of poor law relief. As a consequence of new claims for pensions the Inland Revenue authorities had had 41,000 references to make at the Record Office during the third quarter of the financial year with a view to ascertaining the ages of applicants. Formally the average number of references did not exceed 12,000. To cope with that a number of new clerks and of assistants had to be employed. The older clerks in the office had to be employed for a greater number of hours. In all there were now employed on the work ten second division clerks and supplementary clerks, seven men and boy clerical assistants, four temporary workmen searchers, four temporary workmen, one housemaid, at a total weekly cost of £43. No provision was made for this in original expenditure, and this additional expenditure was absolutely necessary.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I cannot carry in my mind the list of additional officials which the right hon. Gentleman has just read out. I take it, however, that the number of temporary clerks whose services were necessary will only be utilised until this rush of business is over.
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: So I understand.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I would like to have it made clear that this number is only temporary, and that a new Estimate corresponding to this will not be again necessary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ten second-class clerks. Are we to understand they are not the ordinary permanent staff of the Department, and that this sum of £585 is to cover the expenses of these purely temporary clerks. At any rate I want the right hon. Gentleman to say if he is able to assure us that this sum will not appear again as a Supplementary Estimate upon the ordinary Estimate, and that as soon as this rush of business is over this amount will not appear in future.
    Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask why is it that this Estimate comes up at all under the Vote for the Public Record Office, and not for the Local Government Board We have not got any similar item for searches in connection with old age pensions in England, where we pay about £9,000,000, and I imagine if we had it would not be on a Vote for the Public Record Office, but probably would be put down to the Local Government Board. I do not understand why it comes up here in connection with the Public Record Office. I would also like to know what this question of searching is, and why, if there are such searches in Ireland there are none in England?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Certificates in connection with old age pensions have to be examined. The Inland Revenue authorities have always come to the Record Office, but these searches only amounted to about 12,000 in former years, whereas for this financial year the number has reached 41,000. In reply to what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Craig) says the services of the temporary clerks will be dispensed with as soon as the work is dealt with and completed. I did intend to convey that some of the existing clerks are included in this item because they have to be employed at overtime, and, of course, they will be restored to their ordinary condition as soon as this extra work is disposed of. The expenditure is of a temporary character.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That does not altogether answer the question, that whereas the expenditure on old age pensions in England is enormously greater than in Ireland there is no Supplementary Estimate asked for for searches in the
    890
    Public Record Office here, whereas there is in Ireland.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is due to the fact that in Ireland people of that age cannot obtain any certificate of birth, and the only way to prove, or at any rate, to disprove, their claim is by very careful and difficult searching of the Census of 1841 and of 1851. This increase from 12,000 to 41,000 is due to the necessity for the searching of the Census.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It seems a most stupendous difference that this sum is expended in making one kind of search.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There are two kinds of searches—the search in the Census of 1841 and in 1851.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Why was this expenditure not anticipated? It must have been known beforehand?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Owing to the infirmities of human nature, I suppose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never supposed there would be such a large number of pensions in Ireland.
    Mr. MALCOLM: As I understand it, what happens is the certificates in most cases are sent up by the parish priest and then an inquiry has to be made and the Census searched. I know a great many places where that has happened, and I have myself undertaken searches with the village priest to try and ascertain the ages of these old people. They believe they are over seventy and entitled to their pension, and then comes the further order to make searches through the Census, and it is for this that the extra charge is really made.

    VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SUREVEY, IRELAND. (CLASS 2.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,400, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General and Boundary Survey of Ireland, and for the Expenses of Valuation under The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask for an explanation of this Vote. I understood that the expenses of valuation in Ireland for the purposes of the Finance Act of 1909–1910 were to be of the slightest

    891
    possible character. We were told in a former Parliament that the information was all in the hands of the Government. Mr. T. M. Healy, who was then a Member of this House, was corrected by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and other Ministers for saying that the business of valuation in Ireland would be a very big one, and was told that the information was already in the possession of the Government. He was told they had Griffith's Valuation, and another Valuation were actually in the hands of the Government, and therefore that the matter would be of the simplest character. It makes it all the more surprising, therefore, that there is a special Vote for valuation in Ireland, and no special Vote for valuation in England. We were also encouraged to hope that there was a difference in that respect between Ireland and England under the Finance Act of 1909–1910, and that Ireland was better off because the valuation of England and Scotland would be a very elaborate one. We might now have an explanation as to how the valuation of Ireland was actually done, and why it is that there should be this additional sum since the original Estimate was framed. I do not know whether the Government will say upon this Vote as they did upon another that they did not anticipate the consequences until the Budget had actually passed, and therefore they did not put any Estimate for expenditure on Valuation until after the passing of the Budget, and unless that be the explanation, which, I think, is one that would hardly be seriously put forward I do not see why there should be any Supplementary Estimate at all. We were told first of all that the Irish valuation would not cost anything in particular, and that it would be perfectly simple because the necessary documents were in the hands of the Government already. In the second place, I noticed there is no additional charge for this purpose in Great Britain, but there is in Ireland. This is altogether a mysterious matter which calls for explanation. I am sorry the Chief Secretary has left the House, and I do not know whether he intends to return to give an answer. I should have thought that this really was an Irish matter. We were told that the Irish land valuation would not cost anything in particular, but so far from that being the case it has turned out to be a more difficult matter in Ireland than the valuation in Great Britain, and there is no
    892
    supplementary sum for this purpose for Great Britain. This seems to me a very unaccountable thing, and perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us what the process of valuation under this Vote really is.
    Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: There seems to be some misunderstanding as regards this Vote. In the first place, no Estimate was put down at all for valuation in Ireland, and the original Estimate was nil. Obviously the Government did not expect any land valuation at all. They have put down an extraordinary note declaring that since the original Estimate was framed the carrying out of land valuation in Ireland has necessitated additional expenditure. As the original Estimate was nothing at all, it seems to imply that there has been a change of policy since the Government brought in their original Estimate. I have always understood that there was to be no land valuation in Ireland, and that accounts for the fact that when these Estimates were framed the Government did not ask for any money at all. Since then they have apparently changed their mind and additional expenditure had been incurred to the extent of £7,000. It is our duty in looking through these Estimates, and in endeavouring to check this expenditure, to ascertain what has caused this change of policy. Have the Government entirely changed their minds after having promised hon. Members below the Gangway that the valuation clauses of the Finance Act would not apply to Ireland. Since the General Election have the Government changed their policy, instituted a land valuation in Ireland, and put down this new charge of £7,000? I hope the Financial Secretary for the Treasury will be able to explain whether this means a complete change of policy.
    Mr. BUTCHER: We were assured last year that the cost of land valuation in Ireland would be exceedingly small, inasmuch as hardly any valuation would be necessary. Some interest was felt by the outside public as to how it came about that such a large number of valuation forms were issued in England and so few in Ireland. Curiosity was expressed as to the reason why there was this extraordinary discrepancy between the malignant distribution of these forms in England and the sparing distribution of them that took place in Ireland. We were told that the Government had all the information in

    893
    their hands to effect the valuation necessary in Ireland. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what materials he had for getting at the site value of the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an answer in the summer of last year, and he told me there was ample information. I could not quite gather what the exact nature of that information was or whether it was recorded. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us in what documentary records he has the information which will enable him to get at the site value. If, on the other hand, there is not that information, then I can understand why this Supplementary Estimate is now brought forward. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how much of this £7,000 has gone in ascertaining the site value. I do not suppose that Griffith's valuation tells us anything about site value, because I understand it is founded upon the price of agricultural commodities. Site value is only to be got at by assuming the land is stripped of everything, including the crops and everything growing on it. Consequently Griffith's valuation cannot be much good to ascertain the value of the land with nothing upon it. Am I to be told that the site value of land can be obtained from the record of prices paid by the tenants. The prices paid by the tenants to the landlords are not the real total value of the land, but the value excluding the value of the tenant's interest in the land. What good is that for ascertaining the total value, much less the site value? I do not know whether I shall be told that the schedule of tenant's improvements will give any information about site value, but I think that is hardly likely. If these sources of information are not open to us I want to know how we are to get at total value and site value. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us how many of Form IV. have been distributed in Ireland. We know that in England Form IV. was scattered all over the agricultural land of England, and we were told that this was absolutely necessary to effect the valuation of land. Why was Form IV. not supplied to the owners of agricultural land in Ireland? That is a question many of us are anxious to have some information upon. It is just conceivable there may have been some arrangement made in the course of last Session which might explain it. I notice that in November I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to Section 26 of the Finance Act, which stated nothing about
    894
    the valuation of land for the purpose of paying revenue, but stated that the Commissioners should, as soon as might be after the passing of the Act, cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom including agricultural land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer was:—
    "I frequently explained that we have already two, three or four valuations of land in Ireland, and we do not think it desirable in the public interest that an enormous sum of public money should be spent in making another valuation."
    What has necessitated this expense? If those valuations are already there, so much the better for Ireland. If they are-not there the question arises why was it not mentioned before? What means are-there for valuing land in Ireland? The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the valuations hitherto made, he had got sufficient information to enable him to value all urban property in Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman answered "Certainly." What are the materials in Ireland which enable the Government, apart from these valuations, to tell what the total value and site value of urban property in Ireland is? Griffith's Valuation will not do for this purpose. I find that this matter was referred to in April last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he had got all the materials necessary as far as agricultural land is concerned for valuation. The right hon. Gentleman further stated:—
    "We have two valuations for Ireland, and they are both official and national valuations, and it will only be necessary to consult official documents."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us what materials he has for fixing the total value and the site value of agricultural land, and also for arriving at the value of urban land in Ireland. We should also like to know what has led to this great increase in the Supplementary Estimate for this purpose? I can quite understand, if he was wrong in the-summer in thinking no valuation was necessary, why we have this Supplementary Estimate, but, if he was right in the-summer when he said these valuations were unnecessary because he had the material, I should very much like to know why we have this large sum of money.
    Dr. HILLIER: I think all sections of the House will agree that there has been a considerable degree of mystery surrounding this question of the valuation of land in Ireland. I have observed with some astonishment that whenever this

    895
    subject has been brought up either at Question Time or in the course of Debate the explanations offered have been of an extremely unsatisfactory character. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) in thinking that in this and in other circumstances with which the House is familiar there is extremely good ground for supposing that some change of policy has occurred. No sum whatever was put down for this purpose in the original Estimate, and we are informed by a footnote that, since the original Estimate was framed, the duty of carrying out the Finance Act in Ireland has necessitated additional expense. Surely, at the time the Estimate was framed it was perfectly well known that this duty would devolve upon the Government, and it does seem extraordinary that we should have such a large sum as £7,000 put into this Vote. With regard to the issue of Form IV's in Ireland, we have been informed at different times that they were extremely limited in number. I think this is a good opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the House, once and for all, what methods were adopted in this matter, and in what way this large expenditure has been incurred. I also hope he will explain why a change in the general procedure of valuation was made. If he will explain the points that have been raised, we shall all be very much obliged to him for the information.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is hardly any point which has attracted more attention throughout the country with regard to this question of valuation for the new duties than the different treatment meted out to England and Ireland. The point has attracted very general notice, and, as one or two of my hon. Friends have remarked, at present we have had very inadequate explanations from the Government. We really do not know where we stand on the matter. Several questions have been asked from this side of the House, but we do not desire to take up unnecessary time, and I think we should be in a far better position to debate the matter if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly give us an explanation on the points already raised. When we have heard his explanation we shall know whether it is necessary to take the matter further or not.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I very willingly respond to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The only reason I delayed was that I saw several hon. Members rise. The first point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) is a very familiar one. It took up a good deal of time on Friday last. The hon. Gentleman asked why this particular Estimate varies from the original Estimate. He pointed out that no amount was taken in the original Estimate, which he said was the proper course for the Government to have taken. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that no amount could have been taken and no amount was taken in the Stationery Estimate which we discussed on Friday, because the Finance Bill had not been passed. It was made the cause of a good deal of objection in this House in the early months of last summer that we were spending money on valuations which the House had not authorised us to spend. When these Supplementary Estimates come to be considered, and it is found we are not spending money which the House had given us no authority to spend, then complaint is made that no sum is put in the Estimate for this purpose. If money had been entered in the original Estimates for purposes unauthorised by Parliament, there would have been no end of complaint, but as money was not entered there is complaint again. Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways, and I would hope, after the explanation I gave on Friday and have given again to-day, we shall not at all events have that particular complaint reiterated in Committee.
    I come now to the more specific question and, if I may say so, the more pertinent question put to me by various Members as to the cause of delay in issuing Form D7.'s in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman who sits for York (Mr. Butcher) told the House quite inaccurately that only 600 Form IV.'s had been issued in Ireland.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that I was quoting the figure given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago in answer to a question. Of course, I have no further figures up to date.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That only shows how little attention the hon. and learned Gentleman has given to a subject on which he

    897
    professes a profound interest, because on four occasions within the last fortnight, in answer to hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House and to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, I have told the House that only 3,000 of these forms were issued in Ireland.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Which Form IV.?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, there is only one Form IV.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: But not the same Form IV. as in England.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; if the hon. Gentleman will only allow me to give the explanation I will tell him. The reason, in the first place, why no more Form IV.'s than have already gone out have been issued in Ireland is, as my right hon. Friend said, and as Gentlemen connected with the Government of Ireland know, that there is a considerable amount of information at the disposal of the Irish Government in the General Valuation Department, which was constituted more particularly for the purpose of arriving at rateable values, but which enables the Irish Valuation Department to anticipate a considerable amount of the information required. They have not got, however, the whole of the information; in particular, they do not know who are the owners of property. It is apparent that for the purpose of rating the persons concerned in the valuations are the occupiers. Form IV.'s are addressed to the owners and not to the occupiers. It is, therefore, necessary before issuing Form 1V. to ascertain the owners. That has been the cause of the delay. In a comparatively small number of cases—3,000 odd—where the owner is known, I am informed, Forms have been issued and answers have been sent back. There is in Ireland what is called a Field Book. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen one of these books, but I can show him one if he would like to see it. Particulars ascertained by the agents of the Department all over Ireland are entered into this book. They are then entered upon the Valuation Roll as cases are completed, and from the Valuation Roll the information is again as far as it goes entered upon Form IV. which will be sent out to the various owners themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of agricultural and urban land. He was quite right. There is a clear distinction between the two for purposes of valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in reference to this
    898
    country and to Ireland, pointed out that it would be necessary, from the point of view of revenue, to ascertain the value, first of all, of that part of the country which would be more profitable. That clearly, whether in England or in Ireland, is urban land from which a return is expected. No such return is expected from agricultural land. Therefore, in Ireland as in England, inquiries have been directed to urban land.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Inquiries have been made as much as to urban as to agricultural land. They were simultaneously sent out.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the attention of valuers has been more particularly directed to the valuation of urban land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think so. I say more, particularly; not exclusively.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I spent most of my time in the vacation filling up forms for agricultural land.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Baronet does not possess any urban land?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, yes; I can discuss that too.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that the issue of Form IV. in England has been mainly confined to urban land, or that they have been issued earlier in respect of urban land than in respect of rural land? Surely it is a matter of common knowledge that Form IV.'s have been indiscriminately issued in regard to all property in England, whether agricultural or urban. There is no difference whatever between them. It is a matter of common knowledge.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman did not catch exactly what I said. I did not say anything about the issue of Form IV.'s. What I said was that the intention of the valuers had been directed rather to urban than to agricultural land. I think that is unquestionable. I gave the reason why, in the case of Ireland, it was not necessary to issue, as in the case of England, Form IV's immediately. A great deal of the information was, in part, available. I pointed out, however, that the identity of the owner had to be discovered before Form IV. was issued. That, and that alone, is the reason of the delay in the issue of Form IV. so far as Ireland is concerned. It is natural in ascertaining the identity of owners to turn attention to that part from which you will get revenue

    899
    —namely, the urban district. As soon as that is completely ascertained by the methods to which I have briefly alluded these Form IV.'s will go out as in England, and eventually the value of the whole of the land in the country, not only urban but agricultural will be ascertained. I do not know whether there was any other point the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I asked what information there is in the possession of the Irish Government which will enable you to take site value, either in the case of agricultural or urban land?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In some cases, if my recollection serves me right, and particularly in the case of Dublin and Belfast there have been extensive valuations—practically of the whole of those two towns; certainly, I think, in Belfast.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Site value?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: For all purposes.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I would like to make my point clear. I quite agree there are extensive valuations in Ireland, Griffith's and others, for the purpose of total value of agricultural and urban land, but is there any information in possession of the Government which will enable them to ascertain the site value of either agricultural or urban land without a fresh valuation? If not, why was not Form IV. issued before in order to assist the Commissioners in making the valuation?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. Form IV. has to be issued to the owner, and in Ireland only the name of the occupier is in the possession of the central authority. The name of the owner is not known. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the name of the owner. The local authorities pay attention to the occupier. The Central Valuation Department gets its information from the local authorities, and the local authorities are not acquainted with the name of the owner, but with that of the occupier. The delay has taken place in ascertaining the name of the owner. As that information is collected and collated in the central department it will be utilised, and as quickly as possible, for the purpose of issuing Form IV.'s to the owners. With regard to the two places to which I have referred, I am informed that the Valuation Department have got the information as to site value. But else
    900
    where that value is not known any more than in England. It has to be ascertained from the owner in relation to the site value. That is the explanation of the delay. There is no concealment, no unjust or unfair dealing in that respect, the explanation is, that in Ireland as in England, certain information is not available, and it is in order that that information may be collected that the delay has taken place.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand 3,600 copies of Form IV. have been issued. Have these gone to owners of property?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I have explained that in answer to questions which I have given to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand the process is only, as it were, beginning and these forms will go to every owner of property in Ireland. They have already gone to 3,600; are we to take it it will go to every owner of property?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The form will go wherever it is necessary for the, purpose of ascertaining value. I must not be taken literally, because, even in this country, it may not go to every possible owner.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It has done.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That would be as difficult to prove as it is to disprove it.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: There are 3,600 forms issued, and the issue is not nearly completed in Ireland. There are a vast number more to go out. That points to the fact that this £7,000 is only part of a much larger expenditure which is about to be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman says that the questions to be asked in the form will be issued when necessary, but he does not tell us the distinction between one sort of property and another. He does not tell us what sort of owner the form will go to, and what sort of owner it will not go to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day, it would not be necessary to incur the expenditure at all in Ireland, as the required information was already in the possession of the Government. But now I understand there is going to be a valuation of all land in Ireland, a valuation which has only just been commenced, and that ultimately all owners of property will become amenable to this process—even those who purchased their land under the Land Purchase Act. If this is going to be done it is surprising that greater progress has

    901
    not been made than has been actually achieved. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the Government are under grave suspicion of intending to treat Ireland differently from other parts of the United Kingdom for purely political and election purposes. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman goes to show that there is some ground for that suspicion, seeing that while in England the forms have gone out broadcast, in Ireland only 3,600 have been issued.
    Mr. NEWMAN: As an Irish landowner, I naturally take a great interest in this matter, and I welcome these Estimates as affording an opportunity for getting some information from the Government as to why Ireland is being treated differently from England. In July last, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why we in Ireland were not going to have the Forms IV. The answer I then got was that there was to be a partial issue of Forms IV., and subsequently the impression got abroad in Ireland that there was to be an issue of the form in three batches, the first, dealing with those living in towns, the second with those in semi-urban districts, and lastly, with the ordinary holders of agricultural land, including the 500,000 Irish farmers. That was the impression in Ireland last September. As I told the House early this Session, I spent an afternoon in Dublin, hunting up the Irish Form IV. I have now two copies of the Irish Form IV., and, although the right hon. Gentleman told me that only one was to be issued, the two copies I hold in my hand are different. Certain questions included in the first issue are omitted from the second. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) told us he tried to cross-examine the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, but did not meet with very great success. I had an opportunity, not long ago, of reading a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own Division in Carnarvonshire, on 7th December, when he was dealing with this very subject, and trying to allay the fears of small holders in his division, who were afraid that their small property would be damaged. He told them that they need not entertain any fears at all, and he added that in Ireland they had certain valuations, such as Griffith's, and they were not going to issue Form IV. there at all. But, as a matter of fact, some 3,600 Forms IV. have been issued in Ireland, and in order to pierce the mystery
    902
    I put another question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day. I asked him how many Forms IV. have been issued in the United Kingdom and how many in Ireland? The answer was that the total for England was just about ten millions, which roughly corresponded to the number of tenancies in England, but in Ireland only just over 3,000 of these forms have gone out. If that is to be the only issue, then this Irish Form IV. will prove a pretty expensive little gentleman, seeing that he has already cost £5,400 for an issue of only 3,000. I should like to make one or two remarks on this form. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said the difficulty was that in Ireland they could not get at the owner of the property. But this Form IV. is addressed to the occupier and not to the owner at all. Then, coming to the abbreviated Form IV., I would point out that all the difficult questions which the ordinary individual in England was called upon to fill up are to be found in the Irish Form IV. But I notice one curious point, minerals are left out altogether. On my property in Ireland I have iron, and if I had coal I might work the iron. If coal be found there one day I shall want to work the iron; then what about Form IV.? Then there is the number of questions. In the English Form IV. they run from A to W. In the Irish No. 2 Form IV. they go only from A to J, so that it will be seen that the process is very much abbreviated.
    I want to ask what is to be done in Ireland? Are we to have this general valuation, this Irish Domesday Book, and is it to be made up from Griffith's valuation, or, as in England, is the form to be sent to the Irish owner to fill in as best he can? The general impression in Ireland is that the valuation has to be made by the Valuation Office in Ireland under Sir John Barton and that the ordinary Irish owner and occupier of land is to have no trouble whatsoever. I confess I never received Form IV., and I was under the same impression until the other day I received some correspondence from Ireland, which I should like to give to the House. My first correspondent writes:—
    "I am acting at the present, time for the owners of some land in Ireland, and have recently prepared the conveyance from the trustees of a will to one of the beneficiaries, and have just received from the solicitors in Dublin a letter in which they write as follows:—'The Inland Revenue Authorities before registering the deed require for the purposes of the Increment Stamp that we should supply them with particulars of the tenement valuation of each holding, and of the rated occupier's name. This we can only procure by applying to the Ordnance Tenement Valuation Office here and paying

    903
    for the certificate of valuation. They also require to be furnished with a copy of the deed of conveyance and of the map. It is a very serious tax on owners. The official who is to look after the ascertainment of the Increment Value is the tenement valuation officer, and the Inland Revenue Authorities want the information for the purpose of supplying the Commissioner of Valuations with it.'"
    There is not much about Griffith's Valuation, because one of the simplest things in the English Form IV. the Irish office has not got, and they have to ask the solicitors to obtain it for them at the cost of their clients. Take the next letter:—
    "I incidently heard to-day of a rather good demonstration of another absurdity of the Finance Act, 1909–10. One of the largest Corporations in Belfast, whose name, for obvious reasons at the moment. I am not in a position to state, have a mortgage on some houses, and, as such, have realised the property. There is a substantial surplus after discharging all their claims, but Sir John Barton has intimated to them that, until they can clearly prove to him that no increment has accrued since the passing of this Act, he will not give them a discharge. Consequently they cannot hand over the balance to the mortgagor, otherwise they would be liable perhaps, at some future date, for an unascertained tax.
    "Is this not a contradiction to the statement that there is already a proper valuation in existence for Ireland? Further, if this procedure is followed out, you can understand that it will absolutely freeze up the banks, who are not going to advance money on securities of this class, when they can lend out all their money and receive a collateral, the realising of which can be effected without such endless worry and trouble."
    In England these people would have had Form IV. served upon them, and also their provisional valuations, and they would have been able to calculate the Increment Duty, but in Ireland that has not been done, and in consequence everything is hung up to the inconvenience of the mortgagor and this gentleman's clients. The writer adds a postscript to the effect that there has been no Form IV. sent out in respect to the property. These are two small instances of the trouble which is being caused in Ireland by the action of the Government in hanging up Form IV. for certain reasons of their own. Surely this question is one of great importance to Ireland, where all the land is agricultural. We are told that all the land in England, Ireland, and Scotland has to be valued, whether urban or rural, and we are told furthermore that on the site value all further taxation is to be based. There were 143 Gentlemen in the last Parliament who were pledged to the taxation of land values and the placing of all the taxes at present raised on tea, sugar, coffee, and other things on land, and when the Irish land comes to be valued the Irish farmer will be told, I hope, that it is of importance to him that he should have this valuation for site value made accurately, because at some future day, when the party to which I have referred get into
    904
    power, they are going to make the Irish farmer pay all the taxes which to-day are levied on tea, sugar, coffee, and other things. As I said the other day, of course if we have Home Rule in Ireland I do not think these taxes will foe brought forward but supposing we do not have Home Rule—
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): It will not be in order to discuss that question on this Vote.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I wish to point out the importance of having a true valuation made of all the agricultural land in Ireland, and that we should be given in Ireland an opportunity of ascertaining the proper way of dealing with Form IV. in the same way as those dwelling in England have had.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Two points are clear from the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee just now, namely that 3,600 valuation forms—Form IV.—have been sent out in Ireland, and that £7,000 is required as an additional amount of expense being incurred in Ireland in consequence of the valuation required under the Finance Act. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he pointed out that in the original Estimates there was nothing put in for doing this particular duty under the Finance Act in Ireland, and therefore that is the total amount required for the present financial year. I also understood him to say that all that has been done in Ireland up to date with regard to this valuation is to issue 3,600 notices, and the cost is £7,000. I think it will be admitted that £2 each as an expenditure to send out these notices in Ireland is rather a heavy amount, and may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of us on this side are anxious to know precisely what the £7,000 is proposed to be spent upon. I submit to you that this Committee is entitled to be informed by the right hon. Gentleman what the £7,000 is going to be spent upon before the end of the financial year. We are also entitled to know where this £1,300 of savings is going to be effected, because at the present moment we are without the necessary information. May I also say this that when we are trying to get at the bottom of the expenditure of money like this, where the question is very complicated, we can only have proper explanations given to us if they are given with great patience and some little amount of courtesy, and I am bound to say that, dealing with the

    905
    hon. Member for York I, at all events, and I think my hon. Friend, thought the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat failing both in patience and courtesy. It is not enough to give a short, snappy reply to someone who has tried to elicit some details in regard to a public question. We are entitled to have details, and to have them given to us in a reasonable manner in which we can understand them. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly he also said that the reason why only 3,600 forms had gone out in Ireland is that they had not got the information as to who the owners were, and they could only send these forms out to the owners. I have got some of these Irish forms, and if it is not known to the right hon. Gentleman I can tell him that the Irish Department are sending them out not to the owners, but to the occupiers to whom they have been addressed. Therefore his explanation with regard to the spending of this amount in sending out 3,600 forms and only sending out this number, is utterly fallacious and unfounded in fact.
    There is a further point about it also. If this information is to be got from owners or occupiers in Ireland why have they only sent out 3,600 forms? It is not 1 per cent—indeed, it is a very small fraction if a per centage of the different valuations and calculations which have to be made. The Committee are entitled to be treated fairly. This is a financial matter in regard to which we are entitled to ask for details, and we have not got them. We very respectfully submit, therefore, that before we deal with this Vote we should be told what this £7,000 is really being spent upon, because I do not know, and I say at once I find it difficult to believe that it has been spent upon sending out 3,600 printed forms. I cannot believe that, and the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is eminently insufficient. There must have been some other explanation which he has not told us anything about. It is for an explanation as to that that we are very respectfully, and I hope courteously and with great patience, asking. I am not going to comment upon the general principle, because that is not before us. We had no Vote at all in the original Estimates devoted to this particular subject, and this is the first time that any idea is given with regard to this new departure in Ireland, and we are entitled, before the close of this discussion, to get to the bottom of the arrangement and know what provision will be made at all events to the close of the financial year. We are entitled to be informed
    906
    as to the expenditure of this £7,000, and where it is that the £1,300 is coming from which is going to be saved under other heads. How can it be found? It is a new item altogether, because according to what the right hon. Gentleman said this expenditure under the Finance act has never been in any Estimates before. How-can the right hon. Gentleman therefore be saving some money in connection with it when there has been no Vote for it whatever. It shows on that point the greatest possible confusion of accounts, and one asks where the £1,300 is to be obtained from. We do not get any proper explanation now about it, and I submit that we are entitled to a full, complete, and accurate statement as to how this £7,000 is made up. We have not had a full statement. We have not had any explanation, and all the attempts which the right hon. Gentleman has made to explain the matter have turned out to be without foundation. If he does not know the facts himself perhaps there is a permanent official from whom he can get them, because we feel inclined on this Vote to try and get to the bottom of it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: This Debate has had one very remarkable result. It has brought out the most extraordinary divergence of statement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury. The question has been asked why are these millions of Form IV. being issued in England, and why has this wholly insignificant number of Form IV. been issued in Ireland. To that question the right hon. Gentleman has given this answer. He says Form IV. has been issued in such small numbers because they did not know the owners. That is the only explanation he gave. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely contradictory of that. He said they did not issue Form IV. in Ireland, because it was wholly unnecessary, and would have been a waste of money. Perhaps he will tell me whether his explanation or the Chancellor's is the true one, or whether there is some other explanation which we have not heard yet. The Chancellor's answer was given in November last:—
    "Mr. Gretton: How many forms have been issued in Ireland?
    "Mr. Lloyd George: That is what I am going to answer. There are about 600 occasions which have arisen in Ireland. (Opposition laughter.) In all these cases, forms have been issued, but, as I have already explained, we have already got particulars and there is no need to spend public money on forms to elicit information which we already have in our possession. (Ministerial cheers.)

    907
    "Viscount Castlereagh: Has the right hon. Gentleman all the information which can be gathered on Form IV. in his possession at this moment in respect to Ireland?
    "Mr. Lloyd George: I am informed by those competent to form an opinion, that they have information to enable them to make a valuation. (Several Opposition Members: 'Site Values.')
    "Mr. Austen Chamberlain: I must press for a direct answer Have the Government, in the case of Ireland, all the information they require from the landowners?
    "Mr. Lloyd George: That is exactly the question which I have answered."
    So that the position is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged then that the only reason why Form IV. had not been issued in Ireland was because they had all the information which was necessary and it would have been a waste of money. That he repeated over and ever again in answer to questions. Now the Secretary to the Treasury gives a totally new and inconsistent explanation and says the reason is "that we did not know the owners. It is absolutely necessary to serve these forms, but we did not know the owners. We are getting to know them, and we shall serve the owners when we know their names." Both these explanations cannot be correct, though possibly both are incorrect. It is an important question to owners of land in Ireland, as it is to owners of England, that they should be treated in the same way. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his own explanation and throw over the Chancellor, or does he adhere to the Chancellor and throw over himself?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The position is indeed a very serious one. We members of the Opposition are dependent upon the right hon. Gntleman who represents the Government for the correctness of the answers which he gives to our queries. It is impossible for us, not being behind the scenes, to know whether or not certain things occur, and it has always been the custom of Parliament, and I hope it always will be, to take as correct the answers which are given by the Minister in charge. When I came into the House I heard the right hon. Gentleman say it was incorrect to say that two sorts of Form IV. had been issued in Ireland. I heard him say that Form IV. could not be issued in Ireland because it was only issued to owners, and they could not tell the names of the owners. Then I heard the statement of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher). All three statements of the right hon. Gentleman are incorrect, and I say that knowing all the responsibility that I take upon myself in making that statement. The hon. Member (Mr. Newman) held in
    908
    his hand two different sorts of Form IV. That proved beyond any question whatever that the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was only one form of Form IV. was incorrect. The hon. Member had a form which was addressed not to the owner, but to the occupier. That proved beyond doubt that the next statement of the right hon. Gentleman was also incorrect. Then we have the statement of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher), which does not need any corroboration, because, first of all, he is always correct in everything he says, and, secondly, we have the authority of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
    "That is what I am going to answer. There are about 600 occasions which have arisen in Ireland, in all these cases forms have been issued, but as I have already explained, we have already got particulars, and there is no need to spend public money on forms to elicit information which we already have in our possession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November. 1910, col. 69.]
    How does the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and learned Friend agree with the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury that the forms could not be issued because they could not find the owners. There is nothing about owners in the Chancellor's answer. All that he says is that there were only 600 occasions that these cases had already been dealt with and that there was no occasion to deal with any further cases. Then we are brought down here to discuss a proposition which provides that £7,000 is to be provided to deal with 3,600 cases, when only last November the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the 600 cases had already been dealt with. That brings me to a further point. There have been ten million of these forms issued in England, and I believe in the last Autumn Session a Supplementary Estimate was issued for Form IV. in England. I mention this because another excuse of the right hon. Gentleman was that he was obliged to bring forward this Supplementary Estimate because he could not have taken provision in the original Estimate because the Budget had not passed. I think that is correct, provided that he had no further opportunity of doing it. I say he had a further opportunity of doing it, or rather the Government had. When the Estimate was brought before the Committee for the forms to be issued in England, why did they not bring forward an Estimate for the forms to be issued in Ireland? It was because there had been a change of policy—because they did not know whether they were going

    909
    to be allowed to issue Form IV. in Ireland. They thought the motto for the Prime Minister, "Wait and see," was a good one to act upon. I have made a statement which requires some answer, but I do not believe it is going to have an answer. There have been other statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. He tells us that they have a valuation in Ireland, but that does not entirely correspond with his reason for not issuing more of Form IV. He said there is a valuation in Ireland, whereas we have not one in England. I say we have one in England. We have not only the rateable valuation, but also one for Income Tax. Last autumn, when I was not filling up Form IV., I was filling up another form for Income Tax. In fact, the whole of my time is spent in filling up forms for the Government of one kind or another. Why should it have been necessary to send out Form IV. in England and not in Ireland? We are told that there is Griffith's valuation in Ireland. That valuation was made in 1846, and it was dependent upon the prices of agricultural products at that particular time. No one will pretend that the prices of agricultural products are the same now as in 1846. Therefore, the statement as to Griffith's valuation falls to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman said that in England greater attention had been given to Form IV. for urban properties than for rural properties.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said that the attention of valuers had been directed more to urban properties. I said nothing about Form IV. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was under the same misunderstanding, and I corrected him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the valuation officers have given more attention to urban property than to agricultural property. That is not my own experience. I happen, unfortunately, to own a little land in the country, and I have filled up the form sent by the valuation officer. I did not get any rebate. I also own some urban property. The valuation officer sent me some forms and I sent them back, stating that I did not think he had studied the Act. I do not think I need to go into the reasons for sending back the forms, but I am willing to do so if hon. Members desire it. I called the valuation officer's attention to the definition in Clause 40, and he replied that I had better send in the form filled up or I would know the reason why if I did not comply with the request. I
    910
    still declined, and thereupon I got an answer from a superior official, who said that I was correct about Clause 40, but that Clause 26 existed, and that I must fill up the form. I wrote to him stating that I always understood that the later clause overrode the earlier clause. I got a very polite answer to that, saying that the Government did not wish to put anybody to any inconvenience, and that if, instead of filling up all these forms, I put in one schedule with one statement, showing the rent I received and the rent the houses were let at, that would be sufficient. I wrote: "Do I understand that one bit of paper showing the rent I receive and the extent of the leases would be sufficient?" and I received a letter that that was so. Instead of filling up these forms, I pinned a piece of paper in the corner and gave this information. Therefore, I venture to say that, at any rate in that instance, the valuation officers did not attach so much importance to urban land as to agricultural land. We are dependent upon Ministers for the accuracy of their information. If we cannot trust a Minister to make a statement that is accurate, I do not know how long we will have to sit here before we get any further. This is a serious state of affairs at which we have arrived. Members of the Opposition have asked certain definite questions upon a very important matter, and instead of being met with a desire to give us full information we have been met with a desire to give incorrect information and a desire to stifle discussion. In these circumstances, I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANbeing of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I would be glad to receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury an answer to the direct specific questions arising out of this Supplementary Estimate which were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. The questions were these: On the face of the Estimate two items appear: "Savings anticipated under other subheads, £1,300," and "deduct Appropriations-in-Aid, £300." I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us how these items are arrived at. He is responsible for these Estimates. His name appears on the introductory statement. He should be

    911
    able to satisfy the Committee as to these special Estimates. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an answer on these points?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do think that the matter is really a serious one. There are two questions involved in this which go beyond the ordinary area covered by an Estimate for £7,000. In regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original explanation that it was only necessary to issue these forms on an occasion, because the information was already all in the hands of the valuation officer from other sources, if you have got all the information why do you want it on an occasion any more than at any other time? That, to begin with, is in a state of fog. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman simply fogs the issue still more. The reason that it is a serious matter is because both in Ireland and England everybody concerned is in a general fog as to how this Act is being administered and what is going to be the effect of the information he gives, and the action the Government is going to take upon it. Nobody really knows how he stands. The first explanation given obviously was not accurate. Then there was another, which obviously was not accurate. I do not wish for one moment to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of intentional inaccuracy, but this is only a little bit of a very big muddle. There is complete confusion. It is absolutely impossible to cover the whole area of confusion when we arrive at a particular point here, namely, about the issue of Form IV. in Ireland, which is merely symptomatic of the general muddle. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly says that the only reason that these forms could not be issued in Ireland was that they could not find out who the owners were, and that these forms were only issued to owners. Then my hon. Friend behind and my hon. Friend below me produced specimens of two forms issued to occupiers and not to owners, and the right hon. Gentleman interrupted and said what the explanation was. But on the face of it the right hon. Gentleman must admit that the production of these forms issued to occupiers proved the inaccuracy of the statement that they were only issued to owners. No explanation is given, and until an explanation is given we are obviously entitled to say that the statement to which I have referred was inaccurate. The importance of the point is this. It is the bounden duty of the Government in imposing taxation of
    912
    this kind to make clear to those who are liable for the taxes, what they are and how they are going to be levied. But nobody knows as to these points, and every Debate here, whether it be long or short, simply increases the confusion. The Debate this evening appears to me to increase it still more. There has been absolutely no light thrown on the situation.
    Another very serious matter is the position of people in Ireland who are taking part in the ordinary transactions of property. When anybody dies or transfers his property on sale there is immediate liability to Increment Value Duty, and the transaction cannot be completed. Here you have a mortgagor, presumably a poor man. The mortgagees foreclosed and sold the property over his head. It is the greatest possible interest to that man that he should receive at the earliest possible moment the balance of the money which the property has fetched over and above the mortgage. Here we have a case of great hardship. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may laugh. They laugh at everything under this Act. They seem to think that because the general principle which is supposed to underlie this Act is supposed to hit only rich people therefore they can afford to laugh at the case of anybody, however poor, who is grievously injured by the operation of this Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Then I ask for their sympathy for a real grievance. There is plenty of delay as it is in carrying through a sale or getting an estate cleared, however small, from Estate Duty. Here you have many cases of poor people where the mortgagees foreclose on sale, and it is necessary that the Death Duty should be cleared, and in Ierland the transactions cannot be completed because these valuations have not been made and the law has been passed by this House applying to Ireland as well as to England, and this duty is necessary to be levied in all those cases, and the estate cannot be cleared until full particulars are in the hands of the taxing authority. Here we have all this delay and trouble, and we are told that the whole information is in the hands of the valuation authorities. If so, why the delay, and why the issue of Form IV.? Is it not quite obvious that the original statement was perfectly inaccurate, that the information is not in the hands of the valuer, and has to be obtained at the last moment from hand to mouth when the actual transaction takes place upon which the duty is levied? Then

    913
    you have all this delay and trouble, and confusion worse confounded. The matter is a serious one, and while in the discussion of a small Estimate like £7,000 we usually discuss something which has been many times discussed before we are simply concerned with how this £7,000 is applied, and minor details of that sort which take up more time than is necessary. That is not the case here. These are points of general information which are really desired by the country. When the Estimate of £480,000 as to this valuation was produced last autumn we had no opportunity of discussing it. There was no Debate on it, and no information whatever was given on the point. This is the only opportunity we have had in this House on the side issue of a Vote for £7,000 to raise this important point which affects thousands of people. I hope we shall get more information from the right hon. Gentleman which will really clear up some points so that people may know a little better where they stand.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down suggested a course of conducting discussions in this House which I venture to think is somewhat inconvenient. He has suggested that every time a statement is made by a speaker on one or other side of the House the Minister in charge of a discussion should interrupt with an explanation or denial. That has its inconvenience. A discussion which is nothing more than a conversation prevents anybody from making any considered and uninterrupted statement of the facts as, at all events, they appear to him from the information which he has at his command. Therefore I have delayed in answering any point which is put to me until I had collected what appeared to be the charge I was asked to answer. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) said that in the Autumn Session, in October, the discussion on valuations in England was silenced and brought to a conclusion.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It never was entered upon.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My recollection is not that at all. There was a Supplementary Estimate which was brought up in June, if my memory serves me rightly. The hon. Gentleman attacks me on details of this sort, while he is himself actually wrong as to details upon which he prides himself for his accuracy. Not only is he mistaken, I think, on this point, but I know that he is mistaken on the other point. The hon. Gentleman has asserted, on the information supplied to him by his friends,
    914
    that this Form IV. in Ireland has been issued to occupiers as well as to owners. My information is that where the owner is the occupier, and except where changes of interest have taken place, none of these Forms IV. have been issued to occupiers. The case stated by the hon. Member is covered by the information which I have from the officials, in whom I have every confidence. Where the owner is also the occupier, or where a change of interest has taken place by the transfer of land from one person to another, then the Form was issued, as it was desirable to get the information as complete as possible from anyone who could give it. I think that a very unjust charge of inaccuracy has been brought against me, not against me, of course, but against the Department which I represent here, and I assert that the information which the Department gives to me is accurate. A case of great hardship was mentioned by an hon. Member, a case where delay had occurred which inflicted hardship on those concerned in the transaction, and it was said that the law either in this country or in Ireland should be administered in such a way as to prevent hardship in the case of any person, whether the interest concerned was small or great, or the person rich or poor. Cases have been brought to the notice of the Irish Land Department of the kind indicated, and I am informed that in those cases other work has been put on one side in order to ascertain as speedily as possible the values which were concerned in the transaction, and to give immediate relief by providing the proper valuations. All other business was put on one side in order to give relief and conclude the transactions so far as the Department was concerned. I think no other course could be taken or ought to be taken by the Department under the circumstances.
    9.0 P.M.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite has again drawn attention to what is, in his judgment, an apparent discrepancy between the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that which I have made myself. He again rather emphasised the case between the number stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the larger number I have put before the House. Of course, there is a discrepancy. As the months pass by the number of cases increase, and the figures which I have given to-night will be equally inaccurate in the course of a few months, when a still greater number of cases will have been dealt with by the Department. The hon. Gentleman said it is not merely

    915
    the details and figures of our statements which are inaccurate, but it is the principles underlying the answers which are irreconcilable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said all the details were in the hands of the Irish Department; still you have to ascertain who the owners of the property are. You may have all the information at your command, but you must know to whom the property belongs. The only person who can deal with the Department in the first place is the person who has to ascertain the site value; he alone is the person who is concerned in the value to be derived, and who will subsequently have to pay. It is necessary in order to get at the name of the owner, to trace the owner, so that you may subsequently deal with him on the matter of increment duty on site value. Therefore, there is no discrepancy between the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that given by myself in any particular. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not dealing as I have been dealing with the actual issue of these forms; he was dealing with the in-information upon which Form IV. was subsequently to be based. You may have in your power all the information upon which Form IV. can be built up, but you may not know to whom to send Form IV. That is the only difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I am very sorry if I have not made myself clear to hon. Gentlemen. I confess, myself, though it may have appeared a little obscure, that I see no discrepancy between the statement of my right hon. Friend and my own statement. I do not know whether there is any other matter of detail that I have not dealt with.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The point on which I was really anxious to have an explanation was as to how an enormous number of Forms IV. could be issued in England, and a very small number in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Form IV. was not issued in Ireland because it was not necessary and in certain cases they did not know the owners.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no difference between the two. In Ireland you have got a Valuation Department which has made valuations for the purpose of rating. In England we have no such valuation department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Where?
    Sir F. BANBURY: In every town.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, I have been for many years a member of the Assessment Committee of a County Council, and it is notorious that there is the greatest possible difference between two adjacent parishes. More than that, I have known in England the county authority take a county borough into its area, and put up the assessment of that town by very large sums indeed against the town authority. I will not give the name of the town, but it was a town where they deliberately kept the valuation down. There was no common denominator of value. In Ireland you have got a common denominator of value. The Valuation Department, be the basis good or bad, arrives at a denomination which is common to the whole country. There is no such thing in this country. It is because there is that difference of valuation information between one country and the other that there is the difference between them as regards Form IV.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move that Item I be reduced by a sum of £1,000. I am sure that everybody on this side must take notice of the extremely inadequate and insufficient answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He has taken no notice of the instance that the hon. Gentleman gave or of the question put to him as to why the issue of these 3,600 forms cost £7,000. He has not told us or explained to the satisfaction of anybody in the House why it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they had only issued 600 forms, because, as he said, they had all the necessary information, whilst he afterwards issued 3,600 forms, evidently showing he had not the information. This is one of the greatest occasions since I have been a Member of this House when a Minister rises and makes statements with a great show of accuracy, but which prove to be demonstrably wrong, and for which occasion he does not apologise to the House. I must say I think he has mistaken the temper of the House if he thinks we shall forget that kind of explanation. It is not the first time he has done it. He has misled us, I do not say intentionally, on these two points as to Form IV. being issued, and at another moment telling us that it was issued to find out the owners.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I submit that the hon. Member is not entitled to say that I misled the House upon the question to which he has alluded. I have explained perfectly definitely and categorically on the point. I do not know whether he did

    917
    me the honour of paying any attention to my statement, but he has no right to make a statement such as that which he has made.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I withdraw that as to the second occasion, but I say his explanation is profoundly unsatisfactory. I do say that we ought to have far more satisfactory information if the right hon. Gentleman had really been in possession of the facts.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I must say I do not think that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is at all satisfactory. He has not replied, or even attempted to reply, as to the differences in the issues of Form IV. He said that there was no difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, but there is every difference in the world. I tried to show that to the right hon. Gentleman, and I offered him the OFFICIAL REPORT if he would accept it. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say:—
    "In Ireland where the necessary particulars are in general already available the number is 647."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1910, col. 69.]
    Was that accurate or not?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Upon what date was that?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Upon the 18th November.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Quite so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But the Budget was passed a long time, certainly six months, before this took place, and it is to be supposed that in that six months the Department did not know how many forms were available in Ireland. That was not the first excuse of the right hon. Gentleman, as he said they were sent out because they did not know the owners. The excuse of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the information was already available. He did not want to know the owners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:—
    "There are about 600 occasions which have arisen in Ireland. In all those cases forms have been issued, but, as I have already explained, we have already got the particulars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1910 col. 60–70.]
    What did he mean by that? Had he got the particulars, or had he not got them? If he had what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's answer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, further:—
    "There is no need to spend public money on forms to elicit information which we already have in our possession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1910, col. 70."]
    918
    If the right hon. Gentleman doubts the accuracy of that statement, here is the OFFICIAL REPORT. I say in face of that that the explanation that they did not know the owners or that circumstances have changed is absolutely idle. The right hon. Gentleman had much better confess what is the real state of affairs, that he did not know what to answer, and that therefore he said the first thing that came into his head, and if he did so we should be quite willing to excuse him, as we know the difficulties of his position in attempting to administer such an Act. To come down and endeavour to give us information which is contrary to the information given us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then to repeat his error, is something which even such a very humble and meek person as a reactionary Tory cannot stand.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not complain of either the inadequacy or the inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but of the absence of any answer at all. My hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) asked as to a saving of £1,300 and also how a sum of £300 was arrived at for Appropriations-in-Aid. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give an answer on those points.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As to the sum of £300 that is paid for valuations to the Valuation Department made for private purposes, and this is the Appropriation-in-Aid. The savings have been effected under several heads.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: What are the heads upon which the savings have been made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are general.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. I desire to direct the attention of the Committee to an expression which the right hon. Gentleman used in an earlier speech. He said that forms would be sent out where it was necessary. Where, may I ask, is it not necessary? I refer him to Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1910, which provides: "The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom, showing separately the total value and the site value respectively of the land." As to site value and total value and those other items of assessable site value and gross value referred to in the Act, how could he possibly have particulars of those unless he sent out

    919
    the forms. It has been said that Griffith's valuation affords all that is necessary. Griffith's valuation is the total value of land in the year 1846 arrived at by taking the average of different staple products of the land in that year. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly arrive at the total value of land at the present day, and still more at the site value, from the particulars of Griffith's valuation? The Committee is entitled to know whether the Government mean to carry out this valuation of land in Ireland or not. The essence of the valuation of land is to get at the assessable site value. What particulars has he for ascertaining the assessable site value? If he has not got the particulars, how does he propose to get them? Does he propose to send out the remaining forms at once or not? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer these points the Committee will understand that from motives of their own the Government are pursuing a very different policy in carrying out the valuation of land in Ireland from that which they followed in England, and the country will draw its own deduction.
    Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I wish to support the proposed reduction in consequence of the complete change of front made by the right hon. Gentleman. At a much earlier stage of the Debate I called his attention to the fact that there has been a complete change of policy, because originally nothing whatever was put down on the Estimates for the valuation of land in Ireland, while now they are asking for £7,000. The right hon. Gentleman, in very courteously replying to my question, said, "Surely the hon. Member knows that we could not put down anything, because when this Estimate was prepared, before 31st March last, the Budget had not been passed." I do not see that that is any real answer. The Budget might have been passed then, but the Government, for their own reasons, did not choose to bring it in. Apart from that, as the Government always said they intended to pass the Budget, and proclaimed that they had a majority in its favour, they might have foreseen that a certain amount of money would be necessary for land valuation in Ireland. However, the right hon. Gentleman chose to say that it was because the Budget was not passed. Now, however, it has come out perfectly clearly in the Debate that that is not the
    920
    real reason. The real reason, as I suggested some time ago, is that there has been a complete change of policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never anticipated, or, at all events, never said that there was to be this extensive valuation in Ireland. He said that Ireland had been valued, that there was no necessity for it, and that Form IV. would only be issued to the extent of about 600 copies. Now we find exactly what I said at the commencement, that since the General Election, I suppose, there has been a complete change of policy on the part of the Government. Having originally said that they were only going to issue about 600 forms, I suppose to placate their allies of the coalition—the Irish Nationalists, they now change their policy, and they have issued 3,600, and are demanding an additional vote of £7,000. "Additional" is hardly the correct word; I should say "a" Vote, because there was no Vote at all originally. Where is this policy going to lead us? You begin by saying 600 forms; within a few months it is increased to 3,600; I suppose, when we come to the Estimates for next year, the forms will have multiplied into the millions which have been issued in England. It is only right that we should protest against a change of policy for which no explanation whatever has been offered. The least we can expect is that the Minister in charge of an Estimate like this should be in a position to state what the facts really are, otherwise it is perfectly illusory for us to endeavour to criticise fairly the Estimates before the House.
    Dr. HILLIER: This question of the reluctance of the Government to issue Form IV. in Ireland previous to the last General Election has come before the House in various forms on several occasions, and I had hoped that this evening we might have been vouchsafed a satisfactory explanation. We have been given a reason which is entirely irreconcilable with the reason previously given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that these forms would be issued in due course when the names of the landowners were known, whereas we were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government were in possession, through the Valuation Office in Ireland, of so many particulars that the issue of these forms was unnecessary. On the irreconcilable character of these two explanations I do not propose to say anything further; but I wish to ask one or two

    921
    questions with reference to the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon the information obtainable from the Valuation Office in Ireland, and put on record in the annual roll for rating purposes. Does that annual roll contain all the information demanded from English landowners by Form IV. Might not the information obtainable from that annual roll equally be obtained from the local valuations for rating purposes in England? Further, why has this distinction between the two countries been made? The real explanation is only too obvious, and the irreconcilable explanations which have been given will increase the justice with which that view is held in the country, namely, that there was a reluctance to issue Form IV. in Ireland previous to the last election on account of the well known unpopularity with which it would have been received. The least the right hon. Gentleman can do is not only to explain his own explanation, but also to give us reasons why this attitude with regard to the valuation for rating purposes in Ireland has been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. GRETTON: The whole difficulty has arisen because the valuation of land in Ireland has not been proceeded with according to the terms of the Budget. Is it not a fact that the Land Purchase Acts have set up a large number of new landowners in Ireland? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to trace who these new owners are that he has not issued the forms, or is it because he is afraid to issue them to these owners? I am going to ask him a definite question: Are the Government going to issue Form IV. and the other forms necessary for the valuation of the land in Ireland, for the ascertainment of the site values, and those other fantastic values which the Budget makes necessary—and which were unknown previous to the Budget—is he going to issue these forms to half a million small holders in Ireland who have been established under the Land Purchase Act? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer that straight and definite question, the only conclusion which the House and the country can come to is that for some political reason the right hon. Gentleman is afraid to issue these forms; that this is the price which is being paid by the Government for the support of the Parliament Bill to the political party which calls itself the Irish Nationalist party. The business of the Government
    922
    is to administer the law impartially. Why is the law not administered impartially, under the terms of the Finance Act, in Ireland as it is in other parts of Great Britain? It appears to me to be a most disgraceful and unprecedented transaction. It is the Government in distress angling for votes. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to answer this question, I am quite sure—and the House will be with me in my contention—that the only reason is that he is tied by a political bargain to the heels of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Water-ford, and he has to pay this price, amongst other prices, for a transaction disgraceful in the history of our Parliamentary Government and for the support which his political chiefs desire for their Parliament Bill.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It does seem to me rather peculiar that we should not have an answer to this definite question, which is one of far greater importance than a good many of those which are inevitably raised by Supplementary Estimates. The Government have been doing nothing else but shilly-shally with this Form IV. question in Ireland. I rise for the purpose, as we have not yet had an answer, of repeating the question of my hon. Friend. Do the Government propose or not to issue these forms to the 500,000 small holders of land in Ireland? We all know that on the opposite side of the House a man who owns 100 acres or thereabouts of land is a persona grata; but a man who owns 1,000 acres is a man who cannot be described by hon. Members opposite in language sufficiently purple. At the same time, we do think it is carrying the distinction of quantity rather far when we find the Government refusing to issue this form—which has caused such considerable purturbation and trouble in the mind of landowners throughout the United Kingdom. It is carrying this distinction rather far when, for political purposes, the Government refuse to issue these forms to the small owners of land. We think they ought to be issued to small owners.
    Mr. FLAVIN: They were tenants lately.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: May I point out that there is no question of tenancy about it.
    Mr. FLAVIN: A man who was a small tenant is now a small owner. Mr. Deputy-Chairman, these are the gentlemen who were appealing for the verdict of the

    923
    tenants last year against the Irish party! Now they want to force the taxation on the small owners.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I would like to point out to the hon. Member in response to his courteous interruption that they are no longer tenants but owners. It is most remote from our intention that we should wish that the small owner should have fresh taxation, but we do think that they ought to be fully acquainted with the whole of the Government plans and schemes. They ought to know thoroughly well by receiving Form IV. through the post that all the Government's protestations of friendship to the small owner are really mere protestations, and that the Government do not carry those protestations so far as to excuse him from this valuation. At all events they do not do it in England, and we do not see why, for political purposes, because they get the support of these hon. Members below the Gangway, they should do it in Ireland. If there is to be any fairness in the matter at all, we say, seeing that small owners in England have been forced to pay solicitors, and have been driven to other expenses in order to fill up these forms the same thing ought to happen to the constituents of hon. Members in Ireland! The question put by my hon. Friend deals with a very important point. It is the crux of this whole Debate, and I venture, as a protest, to move: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANbeing of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: I should like to put another point of view before the Committee—that of economy. As a commercial man I have worked this matter out, and find that the forms will cost 10s. each if they are to be issued as suggested. If 1,300,000 are to be issued then this Vote is inadequate. We hear a lot from the hustings, from Liberal Members, and from the Labour party about retrenchment and reform, but the commercial world is getting tired of pouring their money out like water. We shall have a £200,000,000 Budget soon. In times past the Government have been recklessly extravagant. It has been "a rake's progress." They have led us in for all sorts of extravagant
    924
    expenditure. I am not suggesting that this sum at present under consideration will make much difference to anyone in the country, but I do ask the Treasury Bench to take the matter into consideration from the point of view of the commercial world.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: You, Sir, have refused to accept the motion to report progress, and perfectly rightly so; but I think the right hon. Gentleman now ought to give us the satisfaction for which we have in courteous terms repeatedly asked him. The question which we are debating is with regard to the issue in Ireland of Form IV. It has been put before the right hon. Gentleman very clearly that, possibly to satisfy a bargain with hon. Members who sit behind me, Form IV. has not been circulated in Ireland. It is for the right hon. Gentleman now to tell us that there is no foundation whatever for that charge, and that there are other reasons why this Form IV. has not been circulated beyond the number of 3,600. The right hon. Gentleman, in the earlier part of this Debate, told us that it was impossible to discover the owners in Ireland.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. May I remind the Noble Lord that this question has been several times asked, and has been answered. It is my duty to see that the same question is not unnecessarily repeated. The Noble Lord was not in the House, but I cannot, therefore, allow repetition.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I say respectfully that I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman has answered the question with regard to Form IV. 3,600 Forms have been issued to owners in Ireland. I think that with regard to the extra number over and above the 3,600 we are entitled to receive some answer as to why they have not been issued. Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not going to transgress your ruling, Mr. Whitley, as I have already had the question put to me on more than one occasion, and on more than one occasion I have answered it. The Noble Lord and hon. Members opposite may not agree with the answer I have given, but the questions have been answered and answered fully. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) has suggested that there is some illicit traffic or bargaining for votes, and that that accounts for the difference between Great Britain and

    925
    Ireland. There is no such difference. As I endeavoured to explain to the Committee; the land system in Ireland is entirely different from that of Great Britain, and a great deal of that difference is due to the change effected by the legislation of the party opposite.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now repeating himself, and I must apply the same rule to him that I did to hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not certainly wish to fall foul of your ruling, Mr. Whitley, and I do not think I should have intervened at all but for a remark of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin). I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members sitting on these benches do not desire to see the small holder taxed, but the hon. Member voted against the Second Reading of the measure which contained these particular proposals to put a tax upon the small holders, and he walked out on the Third Reading.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the Budget. The question before the Committee is to reduce Item A by £100, and the question is whether that item should be so reduced or not.
    Mr. MOORE: I will not pursue that further. I heard in the course of this Debate the representatives of the Government say that the reason this form was not issued to tenant occupiers in Ireland is that they could not find out the owners. I remember very well Mr. Healy stating in the House that no matter what happened it would be found that valuers never would come upon the holdings of these people before the General Election. That prediction has absolutely been carried out. There are valuers making inspections and valuations all over England. I know a good many tenant purchasers in Ireland whose land was recently valued, and it cannot be said that the Government do not know the owners' names, which was the reason given by the Secretary to the Treasury, because of all the people in Ireland there is less doubt about those who have recently received vesting orders from the Estates Commissioners, which have been made at the rate of 60,000 or 70,000 a year. I quite understand, if the people of Ireland found valuers going over their land they would soon wake up to the real situation.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really must remind hon. Members and the Committee
    926
    of Standing Order 19, which is directed against repetition by an hon. Member either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members which have been addressed to the Committee. These arguments have already been used more than once.
    Mr. MOORE: Then I would deal with the other aspect of the matter with regard to people who are not tenant purchasers, and we have a good illustration of how absolutely ridiculous this operation is as regards valuation. There was a gentleman in the King's County who had 14,000 acres in his own hands six months ago to sell. After the papers came into his hands he was favoured by the Revenue authorities with a form in which he was directed to fill up all the particulars of value, and he got notice to say that unless he put such value upon the items of his property the Government would do it for him. One of the items was an area of 400 acres of red bog; it was twelve miles from the nearest town, Firbane, with 500 inhabitants. It was never suggested these lands were town parks or demesne lands. This gentleman was asked to put a site value on 400 acres of red bog by the Inland Revenue authorities. He thought this was so monstrous that he wrote a correspondence which appeared in the Irish papers, in which he asked the Government was it really necessary he should go to the expense of putting a site value upon 400 acres of red bog. I do not see how it was to be done. Are you to put a site value upon the surface of the bog, or are you to probe it to unknown depths?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is persisting in discussing the merits of the Finance Act, which is not open to discussion upon this Vote.
    Mr. MOORE: I was not in when you made your ruling, Mr. Whitley, but I can assure you I am not intentionally traversing your ruling, but surely I am-entitled to argue that in a case like this that the money is absolutely wasted, and that under these valuation proposals it is unfair that the owners should be put to the expense in a case like that of something like £50 in the valuation or that the Government money should be spent in making it. If you rule that I am out of order in that I shall drop it at once. It seems to me this is the only chance we have of raising a question of that sort upon the Estimates. Of course, I am not allowed to suggest there should be amending legislation, and

    927
    I only say that until there is amending legislation no further moneys should be spent upon this valuation. Valuation of that sort, whether at the expense of the Revenue or of the owner, can produce nothing. That, I take it, is what the Committee is concerned with. I suggest that the proper course the Government should adopt is to say, "we will make a nominal valuation ourselves," instead of calling upon the owner to go to all the expense of employing experts and professional men. That is the course that ought to be adopted in the interests of ordinary economy, instead of sending out notices to owners in a case where they are absolutely useless. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will look into this matter, which is too absurd to stand criticism.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I point out that in England it was the custom, in fact, I believe it was an instruction from the Treasury, that valuation officers should be paid 2d. each for every form they sent out, no matter how many forms they did send. I want to know whether the same instructions were sent to Ireland when it was first intended that the proper amount should be sent out. The understanding was when this 2d. per form was allowed in England it was to be by way of extra remuneration, or compensation, for the enormous amount of work thrown upon the valuation officers in recent years. It was decided by the Treasury, out of their generous disposition, that 2d. should be paid for every one of those 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 forms which were sent out. The officers in England were perfectly satisfied with it, and considered that they were well paid, and, therefore, they did not hesitate to send out the forms. In Ireland I do not know whether they did the same thing, or whether they were promised the same sum. If not, I should like to know whether the Treasury propose that any part of this increased cost is going to be paid by way of extra remuneration to the valuation officers in Ireland.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not looked up the point, but I understand that in England in the case of the overseers, there was a payment such as the hon. Member has described. So far as I am aware, no such charge has been made in Ireland, where the method of distribution has been rather different from that in England. I will make an inquiry into this point, and in due course I will inform the hon. Gentleman.
    Major WILLOUGHBY: I have sat throughout this Debate on the question of valuation, and I have not been able to gather whether this expenditure will be incurred again in the future. I wish to know whether by voting this money it will lead to a vast increase in the expenditure. To me it is a most important question whether we should on this occasion vote this money towards the valuation of land in Ireland if we are going to find this expenditure will increase in the future. We do not wish to tax the small holder in this way, and I do not think we ought to vote this money unless we have a definite answer to the effect that this increased cost is not going to be allowed to go on.
    Mr. CARLILE: I rise to support my hon. Friend's Motion to reduce this Vote by £1,000. The right hon. Gentleman has just made a very important admission. He was asked a moment ago whether that 2d. paid in the localities in this country for the issue of Form IV. also applied to Ireland? Why is this 2d. given to the local people to distribute Form IV.? Anybody can see it is given in order that the form should be issued broadcast in order that every owner of a little plot of land in this country should have the form served upon him. If it does not mean that it means nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of it. When it comes to Ireland—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is transgressing my ruling that this matter has already been discussed and repeated several times.
    Mr. CARLILE: The question of this special issue of Form IV. I submit has not been put before the House until a moment ago, and I think it is a perfectly new-point. I submit that it is one that we are entitled to raise because there is lying behind it that great interest to the persons of the locality that they should have no encouragement in Ireland to issue those forms, whilst in this country they have the most substantial interest that can be given to anyone—namely, a financial interest. So far as I know this is a perfectly new point. If there is all that difference of policy between the treatment of landowners in this country and those in Ireland, then, clearly, we are justified in moving the reduction of this Vote, because the legislation is the same. The law is supposed to run alike in every portion of the United Kingdom, and why should it run here and not be allowed to run in the country of hon. Members below the Gangway. The omission to give this great inducement

    929
    to the officers in Ireland concerned in the distribution of Form IV. brands the whole conduct of the Government with reference to this matter. We need no more explanations from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think hon. Members from Ireland are likely to ask for any further information on this point. In reply
    to other questions the right hon. Gentleman has answered them with a frankness that condemns his attitude.
    Question put, "That Item I be reduced by £1,000."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 212.

    Division No. 36.]

    AYES.

    [9.53 p.m.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

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

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gilmour, Captain J

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Pool

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gordon, John

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Barnston, H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Greens, W. R.

    Rice, Hon. Walter F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Bird, A.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, J. W.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Boyton, J.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hohler, G. F.

    Spear, John Ward

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horns, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Campion, W. R.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Alan John

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cassel, Felix

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

    Cave, George

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Moore, William

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Craig, Norman (Kent)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, George

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Nield, Herbert

    Fell, Arthur

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Butcher.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Adamson, William

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Clough, William

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Barnes, G. N.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Beale, W. P.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crumley, Patrick

    Furness, Stephen W.

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

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Boland, John Pius

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dawes, J. A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Delany, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Dewar, Sir J. A, (Inverness)

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

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Dillon, John

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Doris, W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Martin, J.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Harlam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rowlands, James

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mathias, Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hayward, Evan

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

    Molley, M.

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

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehy, David

    Higham, John Sharp

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hinds, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shortt, Edward

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ctitheroe)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Munro, R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Snowden, P.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Neilson, Francis

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Summers, James Woolley

    Johnson, W.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessey, P. J.

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Jewett, F. W.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Toulmin, George

    Keating, M.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lansbury, George

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Logan, John William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Radford, G. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lundon, T.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, Hon. G G. (Hull, W.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Donald

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Winfrey, Richard

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Robinson, Sydney

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Viscount HELMSLEY (seated, and wearing his hat): On a point of Order. I challenged a division.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I had already declared the Question agreed to.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: With all respect, a good many of us said "No."
    Mr. WHITLEY: I did not hear the Noble Lord, and his voice usually reaches the chair.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.— (CLASS III.).

  SOUTH WALES COAL STRIKE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, 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, 1911, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan
  932
  police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of the Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEMoved, as an Amendment, to reduce the Vote by £100, in respect of the Special Allowances in connection with the South Wales Mining Strike.
  I rise to Move the Motion which stands in my name for a particular reason, but that, as I understand it, will not limit the general scope of the discussion. I might, however, be allowed to express the hope that before the Committee proceeds to discuss the general question involved it will allow the particular issue raised by my Amendment to be disposed of.
  The question which I desire to call attention to is the action of the Home Office in refusing to grant an inquiry into the allegation made against the police in connection with the recent strike in South

  933
  Wales. Before doing so may I say, in moving the reduction, that I am not opposed, either directly or indirectly, to the officers of the Metropolitan Police who performed this special duty receiving special recognition for their services. At the same time, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to say whether it is intended to follow the precedent which had been set up of mulcting the funds of the National Exchequer to provide police for the purpose of dealing with a purely local dispute. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform me when he comes to speak whether it is intended to recover this £15,000 from the county of Glamorgan, in whose area the services of the police were required, and, if it is not intended to recover the amount from the county, whether he is prepared to make an equivalent grant to those other authorities who sent police to the disturbed area in order that the officers from those other places may receive the same reward as the Metropolitan Police. In raising this question for the fourth time I would remind the Committee and the Home Office that I am not acting on my own initiative. This question came to me first of all on behalf of the men, women, and children who claim to have been assaulted. Since then the matter has been taken up by the Executive of the South Wales Miners Federation. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda, South Glamorgan, and West Monmouth, are absent to-night in connection with miners' business, but I am speaking for them as well as myself when I again press for an inquiry into this matter.
  When the question was before the House the Home Secretary stated that the charges against the police had not been substantiated and the preponderance of evidence was all the other way. In support of that statement the right hon. Gentleman read a number of anonymous communications which he had received from persons who alleged that they had seen the occurrences taking place. I would remind him and the Committee generally that the statements upon which I base my claim for an inquiry were not anonymous, and did not come merely from the persons who complained that they had been assaulted, but that in every case I submitted the names and addresses of the parties from whom I received the information, and that these included ministers of the Gospel and merchants of standing, as well as other persons whose sympathies would naturally be on the side of the police
  934
  and against that of the workmen. Many of these statements were further affirmed on oath before a magistrate. Against these we have the anonymous communications of persons whose names have not been divulged, and when we are told to accept them as a complete exoneration of the police in regard to the charges made against them I feel certain that the Committee and those for whom I speak will not be inclined to agree to that course.
  On the occasion when the question was last before the House, the Home Secretary, while refusing to grant a general inquiry into the conduct of the police, made two very definite offers; and it is to these I desire to draw his attention to-night in order to ask as to the procedure to be adopted if those offers are accepted by those for whom I speak. The Home Secretary, speaking here on 7th February, said that, while he would not grant a general inquiry into the conduct of the police, he was prepared to say that if any case of misconduct was reported against an individual officer, and he was satisfied that primâ facie, evidence was forthcoming, he would have it investigated in the regular order. I want to ask the Home Secretary what is meant by "the regular order," and further, whether this statement is confined to complaints against the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary spoke on a former occasion, and the Press outside re-echoed his statement that my charges were made against the Metropolitan Police solely. That never was the case. We complained of the action of the police. We did not specify the Metropolitan Police. We knew there were police present from eight or nine different parts of the country outside the Metropolis, and, therefore, what we asked for was an inquiry not into the charges against the Metropolitan Police, but into the charges made against the police imported into the district. [An HON. MEMBER: "From where?"] The Home Secretary, in reply to a question which I put to him on 16th February, gave the numbers of the imported police as follows:—

  Metropolitan

  …

  …

  …

  902

  Glamorganshire

  …

  …

  …

  216

  Carmarthenshire

  …

  …

  …

  45

  Monmouthshire

  …

  …

  …

  41

  Gloucestershire

  …

  …

  …

  26

  Breconshire

  …

  …

  …

  11

  Cardiff City

  …

  …

  …

  101

  Bristol City

  …

  …

  …

  63

  Swansea

  …

  …

  …

  43

  Merthyr Tydvil

  …

  …

  …

  31

  Newport

  …

  …

  …

  20

  [An HON. MEMBER: "Which Newport?"] If the hon. Member will listen, and not interrupt, he will learn. I desire to ask

  935
  whether in this inquiry the investigation is to be confined to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force only, or whether investigation is to be made in regard to the conduct of any police constable against whom a charge was laid? [HON. MEMBERS: "What inquiry?"] In reply to the hon. Members opposite, I am not here to play the game of obstruction. I am making a plain statement, and if hon. Members would not talk but would listen they would not ask "what inquiry." I have read a promise made by the Home Secretary, and my voice will, I think, carry through the House. The Home Secretary promised to make an inquiry into the charges made against the police in connection with the disturbances, and the point I am now putting to him is this, whether the inquiry will be confined to charges made against the Metropolitan Police, or whether it will be extended so as to include charges made against any other police. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree with me that during a dark night when a number of people are attacked it is difficult for them to distinguish between one kind of policeman and another—between the Metropolitan and Glamorgan Police—and if this inquiry is to be of any value it must be extended so as to include charges against police no matter from what quarter of the country they have been drawn. The second promise made by the Home Secretary on that occasion was:—
  "If it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police—I am only responsible for them, I make no charge against the others; I am only responsible for them directly—if it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police, or attacked by them when separated by a reasonable distance from the scene of the riots, or that any child—for I understand that is one of the charges—has been injured wantonly and deliberately, if I see any credible evidence of that, and I shall wait to see that it is forthcoming, the case shall be thoroughly inquired into and justice shall be done to the injured parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911. cols. 239–240.]
  Here, again, I want to press the point as to whether inquiry is only to be made when the person alleged to have committed the injury was a member of the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary's argument is that he is not responsible for police other than those of the Metropolitan force, and if inquiry is to be made in regard to other policemen then it should be made by the police authority from whose area the particular person had been sent. Here again I point out the difficulty of carrying through this inquiry. A person is injured, whether by a Metropolitan policeman or
  936
  a Bristol policeman, or any other officer, and they are unable to see, and the Home Secretary, as a preliminary condition of an inquiry into the case, wants that person to make a direct charge against a Member of the Metropolitan Police Force. Under the circumstances that may be an impossibility. The injuries sustained may be very grave and very real, without the injured party being able to identify the particular policeman who caused injury. As I understand the offer of the Home Secretary, it is that in the case of a person who has received an injury, who has not taken part in the riot or distrbance, that case is to be investigated so that justice may be done to the injured policeman, and surely the injured person has the same claim to justice, whether the injury was inflicted by a Cardiff policeman as he would have had had it been a town person. I ask therefore that the scope of the inquiry be extended so that if any person is able to show that he had received injuries under circumstances and conditions which precluded the possibility of his having been engaged in riotous proceedings this case will be inquired into irrespective of the particular force to which the constable belonged who inflicted the injury.
  One point more in this connection. If this inquiry is to be of any use at all, if it is not to be a sham inquiry, and I am quite sure that the Home Secretary does not wish that it should, two conditions are essential to make it real. First of all, the inquiry must be held on the spot, and, secondly, the person making the complaint must be allowed to be represented by counsel. The bulk of these people are working colliers, some are children and some are women. If all the Home Secretary means is that these people are to send in their claims or charges to him, and he is to hand them over to the Commissioner of Police, who is then to conduct the inquiry after his own fashion and without the person laying the accusation being represented, I shall advise the people to refuse to have anything to do with this form of inquiry. It will be no inquiry at all. I desire the Home Secretary to say whether the inquiry into the conduct of the police where a definite charge is made against a constable is to apply to others than Metropolitan men, and, secondly, whether, when a person has been injured and is not bringing a special case against the police but is claiming to have an injury inquired into, the Home Secretary will not confine the inquiry to cases where the injuries were alleged to have been caused

  937
  by Metropolitan men but to all cases in which injury can be shown to have been inflicted under circumstances which preclude the very possibility of the injured person having taken part in any riotous proceedings. The charges are that picketers were selected for attack, that children and women were attacked, that houses were broken into, that people coming out from the theatre were attacked, and that people who had been away the whole day from the neighbourhood and returned to their homes in the evening were attacked. If the Home Secretary will agree to have the inquiry conducted on the lines I have suggested—not a general inquiry into the conduct of the police as a whole, but an inquiry into definite cases specifically laid before him—I will advise the people for whom I speak to accept that for the present, because we know that the evidence at our hand, both of individuals themselves who were injured and of those who saw the injuries inflicted, should be able to prove conclusively that the action of the police went far beyond anything the law allows, was unnecessary, and had undue violence attached to it, and that as all these things constitute a menace to the peace of the community they constitute a case for inquiry. We do not ask the inquiry to be on general lines, but to be confined to these specific instances. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to grant the inquiry.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) began his speech I thought he was about to commend the police for their services in South Wales. He told us that he approves of the grant of £15,000 for the special occasion the House is now asked to vote this sum. He told us, also, that he was anxious that this grant should be extended to the police from other districts surrounding the Rhondda Valley—the Bristol and Carmarthenshire Police—who came to give their aid, as well as being paid to the Metropolitan Police. So far so good. I was prepared to say, in answer to that, that the Imperial Government is only responsible in this matter for the movement of the Metropolitan Police who were sent into the district to cope with a grave condition of public disorder under a special act of State policy, and for whose movement some
  938
  share should be borne by the central Government, as by the employment of the Metropolitan Police we were avoiding the employment of military.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Did the local authorities ask for Metropolitan Police?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The local authorities asked for soldiers, and as it was thought that infantry soldiers brought in a hurry into the district might be brought into collision with the people by the firing of muskets from the crowd, the police were sent instead. But we are not responsible in any direct sense for the employment of police from other districts, and I have certainly no intention whatever of proposing any charge on the funds of the general taxpayers in respect of them. Any question of their extra remuneration would be a very proper one to address to the Glamorganshire County Council or to the standing joint committee, but it is a matter upon which the Government will not make any proposal to the House of Commons. As soon as the hon. Gentleman left that subject it was clear that his object was not to procure for these Carmarthenshire, Cardiff and Bristol Police extra grants to reward them, or recompense them for their special services, but that it was to have special facilities for bringing charges against them. He said that they had attacked pickets, women, and children, people coming out of the theatre, and people in their homes; that they had gone far beyond the law, and been guilty of acts of undue violence, and had been a menace to the keeping of the peace. And yet, while he has preferred these grave charges against them, he claims to clothe his proceedings with a certain veil of popularity, by beginning with an approval of the extra grants to the police, and by desiring to extend those grants to the police from other districts. As far as I am concerned, I shall adhere strictly to the promise I made in the Debate on the Address. I then said:—
  "First, that if any case of misconduct is reported against an individual officer, and I am satisfied that prima facie evidence is forthcoming, I will have it investigated in the regular order. Secondly, if it can be shown prima facie that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police—I am only responsible for them, I make no charge against the others; I am only responsible for them directly—if it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police, or attacked by them when separated by a reasonable distance from the scene of the riots, or that any child—for I understand that is one of the charges—has been injured wantonly and deliberately, if I see any credible evidence of that, and I shall wait to see that it is forthcoming, the case shall be thoroughly

  939
  inquired into and justice shall be done to the injured parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911, cols. 239–240.]
  I stand by that. That was a month ago. When the subject was first brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in the last Parliament, nearly four months ago, he announced his intention of seeking a remedy in the Law Courts. Four months have passed and the Courts are silent so far.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I remind the Home Secretary that I informed him that the case had been twice before the courts and had been thrown out for various reasons, and it is most unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat a statement which he Knows is not true, namely, that it has not been before the courts.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: But the courts are silent in any sense which the hon. Gentleman would desire. It is true that certain matters have been brought before the Courts, but as he very truly says they have been dismissed by the Courts for various reasons. Many cases are dismissed by Courts for various reasons, and among the various reasons no reason more frequently appears than insufficient evidence or absence of proof. But a month ago the hon. Gentleman agreed by implication to furnish me with specific facts of cases against particular officers of the Metropolitan Police, or of persons who with any fair show of evidence, could establish that they had been batoned in their houses, or of children being attacked by the Metropolitan Police. There were a great many Metropolitan Police on the spot. They were very much in evidence throughout these proceedings. There were more Metropolitan Police than any others. A month has passed and not a single fact has been placed at my disposal by the hon. Gentleman. And now he comes forward and says not only has he not done it in the past, but he is not going to do it in the future unless I will promise two things. He is not going to bring any of these charges to the test of a precise inquiry in future unless I will promise first of all that the inquiry shall be made on the spot, and secondly that the persons coming forward to complain shall be represented by counsel. I am not prepared to make any promise of that kind at all to-night. If it is shown in the facts brought forward that it would be of advantage and that the truth would
  940
  be reached better by further inquiries on the spot, that, of course, will not be excluded. If any case is brought where the police have misbehaved, I will have it searched to the very bottom, if it appear to be brought on good evidence. Similarly, if a case arises of great complexity, which requires long and elaborate investigation, I would not be at all prepared to say that in no case should counsel be allowed to appear. If it could be shown to the Government that the parties complaining were really at a disadvantage in relation to the facts of the specific case, because they could not express themselves clearly or bring their case fully forward, I agree it would be wrong to prevent them from making the best statement they could. But it is much too early to make that when no reply or response has been made to my invitation. The hon. Member has brought no satisfactory facts to the notice of the Home Secretary any more than he brought satisfactory facts to the notice of the Courts. I think I have answered all the questions. The inquiry will be made in the manner provided by the Statute by the Commissioner of Police, and he will take all the steps he considers necessary to elicit the truth, but as a condition antecedent it rests with those for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks, a very small section, I believe, of the inhabitants of the Rhondda Valley.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Wait and see.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think we will have to wait and see. Many of these matters were brought forward at the election, and the result of that election was that the hon. Member is junior member for Merthyr Tydvil. The inquiry, so far as the Government is concerned, will be limited to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police entirely, and any charges that the hon. Gentleman has to make against the Cardiff police, the Bristol police, and the Carmarthen police—I have no doubt he is prepared to make against them those charges—if he prefers them before the Joint Committee of the Glamorgan County Council or the Standing Joint Committee—it is for that body to take the first stages with regard to redress for injuries caused by any action which they have taken. I conclude by awaiting from the hon. Gentleman the authentic facts, on which I shall be perfectly ready to make inquiry.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I need hardly say that I am not in sympathy with the Motion which has been made by the

  941
  Member for Merthyr Tydvil. No evidence whatever has been produced here which has satisfied me in any way, and a great deal of evidence would be required to satisfy me that the Metropolitan Police behaved in any other way than they should and do always behave in circumstances of this kind. But I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question. I do not wish to dogmatise upon this matter at all. The point of view from which I wish to approach it is as to whether the Home Secretary was justified in sending the Metropolitan Police there at all in place of the soldiers. As I understand the matter a requisition was made by the police authorities of the district to the War Secretary, who was convinced on the representations they made that the presence of soldiers was necessary. I think, for my part, so far as I can judge, that that was established afterwards. I do not wish to argue that point now, or to dwell upon it. I merely state, so far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, that the absence of the military on this occasion was a misfortune, and that a great deal of destruction of property was caused, and a great many injuries inflicted which would have been avoided if the military had been sent.
  The question I wish to ask is by what authority the Home Secretary sent the Metropolitan Police to the place at all. The general rule, and I think the obvious rule of common sense, is that the local authority should be the persons to deal with disturbances, and, if I am right, if they are unable to deal with local disturbances, they should then call upon the police or the military, as they think fit, to aid them in the duty of enforcing law and order. I think that is the general position. I wish, in the first place, to express my strong opinion that it is most undesirable for the Home Office, who cannot know as much of the conditions of the locality as the local authority themselves, and cannot possibly know with the same accuracy the degree of danger in which the local community is situated. I wish to protest against the Home Secretary arrogating to himself the right of saying to the local authority, "I think police will be satisfactory to deal with this instead of military." I do not think that is a position which ought to be taken up except in the most extreme cases. No such case has, I think, been proved here. I would ask the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary what powers they considered they were acting under when they sent the Metropolitan Police,
  942
  displacing the authority of the Secretary for War and the local authorities, one of whom had asked for the military and the other of whom had sent for them. As I understand, the authority for drafting police from one area into another is Section (25) of the Police Act of 1890. That Section enacts:—"Where a police authority deem it expedient for any special emergency, or under any exceptional circumstances to strengthen their police force by constables belonging to another police force such number of constables belonging to the latter force may be added to the aided force, and for such period as may be agreed upon between the police authorities of the forces.…." When the Home Secretary was speaking, I asked him, and he was good enough to answer that the local authority did not ask for police, they asked for military. By what authority did the Home Secretary, who has jurisdiction only over the Metropolitan Police, draft this large body of Metropolitan Police contrary to the wish of the local authority, who did not requisition for police. I think the matter is an important one, because, primâ facie, I think every Member of the House will feel that, say if a riot or disturbance arises, it may be in the north or west of England, hundreds of miles away, if the matter is one of extreme emergency, if it is one in which real danger is apprehended, the local authority, I think, in the opinion of every candid man, would be the best judge of what degree of force is necessary to resist it. I think that is the common-sense of the matter. When the police authority ask the police authority of a different area then and then only have they power to accede to the request. They did not ask for police; they asked for military. I ask again by what authority the Home Secretary sent Metropolitan police at all?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very great pity that the right hon. Gentleman was not present in the Debate upon the Address, when the whole of this matter was gone into, and I had an opportunity of explaining at great length my action to the House. I thought at the time it was a very extraordinary thing that, after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, had taken up no less than twenty minutes of his opening speech of the Session in criticising the action of the Home Office, and when that very evening or the next this matter came up for discussion after regular notice, and everyone

  943
  knew that it was coming on, no attempt was made on those benches—I commented on it at the time—to justify the serious attack which had been made from that quarter on the administration of the Home Office at this critical time—which attack, I may remind the House, is the exact opposite of that delivered upon us by the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). If the right hon. Gentleman had been present on that occasion, he would have known that so far from my having overruled the Secretary of State for War, we acted in complete concurrence with regard to preventing the movement of the military. As a matter of fact, it was my right hon. Friend who first actually arrested the movement of troops. Then he came over to me, and we discussed the matter together, and decided definitely—as a matter of public policy—to send Metropolitan Police instead.
  That the local authority is the best judge of the need of the case in the great majority of instances I fully agree. But in these days it is possible to communicate very speedily with the local authority on the spot, and I am not at all prepared to say, as apparently the right hon. Gentleman says, that every local authority in any circumstances may draw a blank cheque on the whole resources of the British Army, horse, foot and artillery, at unlimited expense. [Opposition laughter.] That really is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman—that any local authority has the right to say whether troops should be sent, and how many. I am not at all prepared to say that. It is a much more serious and complicated question than that. When you get these grave labour disputes you must try to judge the merits of the case, and to deal with the facts and the circumstances of each particular instance. Hon. Members opposite laughed when I mentioned artillery. But I remember in another dispute that occurred in South Wales earlier last year a demand for artillery being made by various excited persons. I am not at all prepared to say that the local authority's demand for troops must in all cases be met. Certainly not. In this case, communication with the Chief Constable being easy, I got on the telephone and told him that instead of sending him infantry we proposed to send a force of Metropolitan Police, which was stronger from every point of view, and far more effective for the purpose than the soldiers who would have been sent. He concurred
  944
  fully in the substitution of the-police for the military—to such an extent that he actually signed the requisition on behalf of the county of Glamorgan, agreeing to pay the extra expense as prescribed for the employment of the Metropolitan Police.
  So far as the general question is concerned of whether there is any authority to stop the movement of troops, there is no doubt whatever that the Secretary of State for War, acting in the name of his Majesty's Government, has full authority to stop the movement of soldiers. If it could be shown that thereby—I am not a lawyer, and I speak with great respect on the point—loss of life or a breach of the peace was occasioned, I agree that ultimately it would be a matter for Parliament to decide on the specific case whether the Minister was justified or not. There can be no doubt whatever about the legal authority to prevent the movement of troops at a time when a local body may have sent for them. It is obviously essential that for the good government of the country that such authority should exist, and, when necessary, be exerted.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the very effect that he has indicated here occurred owing to the unfortunate action of the Home Office—namely, serious breaches of the peace and serious injury to property? On the Monday there were serious disturbances in connection with this dispute. These disturbances went on till two o'clock on the Tuesday morning. On the evening of Monday the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire telegraphed for 200 Cavalry and two companies of Infantry. The right hon. Gentleman doubts whether he had the-right to do that. The Prime Minister, at the Guildhall—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I never doubted it at all.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Prime Minister at the Guildhall emphasised very carefully that it was for every local authority to determine whether or not the military should be called out, and he said that His Majesty's Government would not interfere with that discretion. The Chief Constable telegraphed for the troops on the Monday night. On the Tuesday morning, at seven o'clock, the troops left Tidworth and got as far as Marlborough. They would have been at Cardiff by about twelve o'clock and upon the scene of the disturbance by

  945
  a little after one o'clock. They were stopped at Marlborough, and after they had been some time in the train were sent on to Swindon. Then by a most unfortunate, and by what I believe to be an absolutely unprecedented action on the part of the Home Office, they were detrained about eleven o'clock. They stood there till 5 p.m., when the Home Office, having changed its mind, the Cavalry were again ordered to embark in the train, valuable hours having in the meantime been lost. They thus did not get to their destination till late at night. What had occurred? The rioting on the Monday had occurred at night. The state of affairs was not, of course, so serious during the daytime on the Tuesday; but everyone who knew the locality knew that the serious rioting would begin after dark, for Monday's rioting had been at its worst at night. Tuesday night came. If the Home Office had not stopped the troops they would have been on the spot. I do not think it is unfair to infer that no further rioting or damage would have occurred had they been there, because as soon as the troops arrived the rioting ceased.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The rioting ceased when the Metropolitan Police arrived.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I will deal with the Metropolitan Police. I am not forgetting them. I say that when the military arrived the rioting ceased. But I will make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the Metropolitan Police, and say, when the reinforcements arrived. My point is that the reinforcements, whether military or police, would have arrived but for the Home Office at one o'clock in the day, instead of not arriving until nine or ten o'clock at night. The riot broke out directly it was dark. The description is given in "The Times" of the 9th November, and there was a scene of absolute anarchy, quite apart from the question of the merits of the strike, when you had a lot of young men out of control, and injury was done to property and to the local police and to the strikers themselves. That was during the interval on Tuesday evening, 8th November, when the chief damage was done. The injury done was done between four o'clock on Tuesday evening and the time of the arrival of the reinforcements—I care not whether the cavalry or the Metropolitan Police—which did not arrive until nine o'clock at night. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the Chief Constable concurred on the telephone. When did the Chief
  946
  Constable concur? When were the first body of Metropolitan Police sent from London? Not until five o'clock in the afternoon, and therefore they could not get to Cardiff until a very much later hour—until half-past eight—when the riot was in full force in the district. I venture-to submit that the Home Office acted without precedent. The troops were called for by the local authorities, and were on their way to suppress the riot; they were stopped by the action of the Home Office-or the War Office, while literally en route. They were detained and kept at Swindon for many valuable hours. Subsequently the Home Office changed their mind, and at ten o'clock ordered the 18th Hussars—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I did not change my mind at all. I explained very fully the whole of this in the House on the Debate on the Address. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read that speech—he was not in the House at the time—and the extract from the telegram he will see how very unjust these charges are—
  Mr. RAWLINSON: [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] The hon. Member asks me to withdraw. I am not sure what it is he wants me to withdraw. If necessary, I will say at once, in regard to the expression, "change of mind," it may be the right hon. Gentleman did not apply his mind to this particular point, and that it was the War Office. I am stating the facts, which are not in the least contrary to anything the right hon. Gentleman said in the Debate on the Address, namely, that the 18th Hussars were kept at Swindon, and by orders from someone in London were ordered to get on the train again. When I say "change of mind," I do not care who was responsible; it was some Member of the Government gave the order by which valuable time was lost. This is the first opportunity we have had of putting our protest into anything like practical force, because this is the Vote for the cost of bringing the Metropolitan police down, and this is the first opportunity of moving a reduction of that Vote. Why were the troops stopped in this way? Apparently it was done because the Home Secretary sent this most extraordinary telegram to the Chief Constable, who asked for assistance:—
  "You may give the miners the following message from me. Their best friends here—"
  I should like to hear further and fuller particulars of their best friends:—
  "Their best friends here are greatly distressed at the-trouble which has broken out, and will do their best to

  947
  help them to get fair treatment. Askwith, Board of Trade, wishes to see Mr. Walter Morgan with six or eight local representatives at Board of Trade to-morrow, two o'clock."
  11.0 P.M.
  Read by the side of the riot, that is almost humorous. [An HON MEMBER: "Oh!"] I think if the hon. Member who interrupts me had been there he would have thought it was a serious matter. The police were fighting against odds all through the night, and had the bon. Member been there he would have sung a very different song in that position. The telegram proceeded:—
  "The riot must cease at once so that the inquiry shall not be prejudiced."
  What inquiry?
  "We are holding back the soldiers for the present and sending police instead."
  Nobody who had had the slightest experience of dealing with men fighting and rioting for a night, and naturally very excited, would have believed for one moment that it was a wise thing to tell them, after they had been been expecting the military from hour to hour, that they were holding back the military which the local authorities had asked for.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that I sent that telegram in reply to a telegram from the Chief Constable, who asked for a message to give them, and he had every hope that that statement would have the effect of inducing the men to discontinue rioting. The telegram was sent to the Chief Constable for use in an emergency if he considered it desirable.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for supplementing my information. The only information which I have had was that which came from the Home Office to the Press. There was not a word in that communication from the Home Office saying that that telegram was sent merely to be used in case of emergency, or saying that it was a telegram sent in reply to a message from the Chief Constable. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this same Chief Constable telegraphed for a regiment of cavalry and two regiments of infantry. I strongly submit that it is most undesirable that the Home Office here, when you are dealing with questions of life and limb, and with breaches of the peace, that the Government, who are liable to be swayed by political considerations, should interfere with the question of
  948
  keeping law and order in any locality, which I submit not only the Prime Minister in his speech, but every lawyer acquainted with constitutional law have always held to be the real province of the people of the locality in which the riot occurs. I agree with the Motion for a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the delay in detraining the troops and not getting the reinforcements there until nine o'clock at night was the cause of a considerable breach of the peace, attended by much damage to property.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: I confess I am rather disappointed that the Home Secretary has not seen his way to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police in this matter. Apart from the local facts which have been brought to his notice by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), there are general reasons why an inquiry is desirable. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that his action in sending the Metropolitan Police to deal with a dispute of this kind in place of the military was an innovation and a precedent, and that he was laying down a course which he hoped would be followed in similar cases. I do think, therefore, that on broad general grounds there is every reason for the fullest inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, so that the policy which was thus inaugurated might be inquired into, and we might ascertain whether that course should be followed again. There are one or two points on the special facts of the case to which I wish to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend, laid stress on the fact that no evidence had been brought forward in individual cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest for a moment that evidence would be procurable in the case of strangers dressed in similar uniform going, as is alleged, into houses and committing assaults, to identify a particular policeman? It would be an impossibility in the majority of these cases to obtain evidence of identity of one single policeman. I think, if it is stated positively that there are men prepared to come forward and say assaults were committed, even although they cannot identify the particular chief constable, that is a matter into which there should be the fullest inquiry. I do not for a moment say there should be any particular charge made against the police as a body, but it is not a wise thing, in the interests of the nation, to say one class of men, even so fine a body as the Metropolitan Police, are to be deemed beyond suspicion or

  949
  inquiry. For that to be laid down by no less a person than the late Colonial Secretary (Mr. Lyttelton), who said he was almost ready to assume that no such thing had been done by so fine a body—
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I said, "in the absence of any sufficient evidence to the contrary."
  Mr. ROCH: I venture to say it is dangerous to start with the assumption that it is impossible for them to act in such a way. It was suggested to my hon. Friend (Mr. Keir Hardie) that he was still the junior Member for Merthyr, but I think every representative of industrial Wales, with one exception, whether junior or senior Member for their division, are supporting an inquiry, and I believe every one of them stated so publicly on platforms during the election. I do not wish to make any general charge against the police; all I am asking for is an inquiry that the facts should be sifted locally. The right hon. Gentleman, in granting an inquiry, would make no reflection on the police. If it were proved these cases had no foundation, the police would come out stronger than ever; and if, on the other hand, these cases were proved, there would be no general charge against the police, but it would be a caution to those who had acted somewhat roughly to act differently in future. There is one thing, an inquiry will do better than anything else. There is no doubt in industrial Wales a feeling of bitterness which will last many months as regards what has happened in the Rhondda Valley. That is a bitterness which has taken months to wipe out—it may be years—but it is a bitterness which it lies in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to refute. While he may not be able to remove the bitterness which has arisen owing to the general conduct that has taken place it is open to him by granting an inquiry to prevent it spreading, because there are many men who feel most strongly that their good names have been prejudiced by these events.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Home Secretary complained that I had not been present, after making charges against him on the first night of the Address, when he made his defence. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when a charge is made against a Minister it is desirable that those who make the charge should be present when it is replied to. I was not aware when the right hon. Gentleman
  950
  would reply, and even if I had been present I had already exhausted my right of speech on the Address, and therefore while I could listen with respectful consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman said I could not have replied to his arguments. But this would appear to be an appropriate occasion to reply. The charge I made against the right hon. Gentleman of which he complained was that he—
  "might have avoided a great many of these deplorable occurrences had he not, at a critical moment, refused to carry out decisively and effectively the measures which he contemplated. Had he not held back the military and not shown some doubt and hesitation at a critical moment, much destruction of property, many unhappy incidents, and many circumstances which all, whatever their opinions, must look upon as a great blot on the procedure of civilised society, might have been wholly avoided."
  I have read the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and after listening to what he has had to say to-night I reply it is quite true that in the absence of the full information we have since got some of the phrases, but none of the substance require modification. It was complained that he had at a critical moment refused to carry out the measures contemplated. I supposed at the time he and the Government had contemplated sending troops, but that at the critical moment he hesitated. That is precisely what occurred. I gather that a telegram arrived at the Home Office on Tuesday at ten o'clock, stating that troops had already been sent, but the right hon. Gentleman, by telegram, caught the troops at Swindon, thereby preventing the Infantry arriving the same day and the Cavalry on the night of that day. That is actually what occurred, and I ask the House whether it differs in substance from the charge made against the Government that the action of the Government in stopping the soldiers at Swindon was the cause of "the destruction of property and many unhappy incidents and many circumstances …. which all must look upon as a great blot on the procedure of civilised society." Would that not have been prevented had the Government not by telegram prevented the troops at once proceeding to the centre of action as the local authorities desired? There is no answer to that argument in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is fully answered.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have read the quotation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman read page 232?
  Mr. BALFOUR: All that the right hon. Gentleman wishes which I conceive to be relevant.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: From the word "Therefore," thirteen lines from the bottom.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly. It is as follows:—
  "Therefore, no charge could be made against the Government that adequate forces were not sent to the scene, or that suitable forces were not sent to the scene. On the contrary, the forces sent were larger and more suitable than those which were asked for. I think they were also amply sufficient for the work which they would hare had to do, but unfortunately the special train carrying the Metropolitan Police was not up to time. A small accident delayed it upon the road, and instead of arriving at 8.0 or 8.30 as we expected, it did not arrive till about 10.0. In consequence of that, rioting at Tonypandy occurred before the constituents of Metropolitan Police sent to the aid of the Chief Constable had arrived upon the scene. The Chief Constable, however, with the local police, completely drove the rioters from the colliery which they were attacking, and made his position good. It was only when the rioters were foiled in their attempt to take the colliery that in a perfectly unreasoning fury of resentment, on their way back they smashed the windows and looted some of the shops of their own friends, the little tradesmen who were giving them credit, in the main street of Tonypandy. That is a deplorable incident, I agree. It would not have been prevented if there had been soldiers at the colliery instead of only local police. It might have been prevented if the Metropolitan Police train had arrived at the hour it was expected. It was a deplorable event, but do not let us be led by exaggeration into pretending it was a scene of civil war or a horrible outbreak of barbarism, which in the words of the right hon Gentleman was a blot upon the procedure of civilised society. Writing on 14th November, the Chief Constable said:—'Had it not been for our bad luck on the night of Tuesday the 8th inst., I should have been able to give a more satisfactory report of the present state of affairs than I now can. If the train bringing the 200 Metropolitan Police to Tonypandy had been up to time the strikers would have been met and crushed in Tonypandy (after being defeated by us at the colliery gate), instead of being encouraged by their success in the streets. I cannot speak too highly of the splendid assistance given me by General Macready and all the military and police officers and men sent here. This strike is totally different to any one that I had previously experienced and I could not have done without their advice and assistance.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911, columns 232–233.]
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that is a complete defence, and nobody will accuse me, at all events, of having doctored the quotation. Is it a defence? Is it not manifest on the face of the long extract with which I have troubled the Committee, that had General Macready, whose services when he did arrive are acknowledged by the Chief Constable so handsomely, arrived before it would have stopped the whole thing? The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if there had not been what he calls a small accident to the train, and the Metropolitan Police had arrived at eight o'clock, instead of ten, there would not have been any difficulty. That does not bear upon this statement. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Home
  952
  Secretary had not kept the soldiers at Swindon they would have arrived there long before eight. The looting was over by eight. The Metropolitan Police were not due to get there till eight. The only people who could get there by eight were the military.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: As a matter of fact, the trouble was not over until an hour after the Metropolitan Police arrived.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is exactly what I am pointing out. The whole point is that the Metropolitan Police arrived too late.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: As a matter of fact, the trouble was quelled by the Metropolitan Police without any loss of life.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We are all most grateful for that; but what relevance has it to my argument? The whole of my argument is this: The Chief Constable wanted soldiers. He could have got soldiers long before the looting began on the Tuesday night. He got neither soldiers nor police. He did not get the police, partly because they did not start till four o'clock, and partly because there was an accident. He did not get the soldiers for a quite different reason, and it is that different reason for which we bold the Government responsible. That was not a small accident. It was the deliberate action of the Minister for War and the Home Secretary, who decided that they had much better keep the soldiers at Swindon for four or five hours doing nothing, so that when the Cavalry did arrive on the scene rioting had begun and they were too late to prevent these most regrettable incidents. I cannot see that anything which the Home Secretary has said to-night or on the second night of the Debate touches this question. It seems to me that the whole contention is destroyed by the very extract he read from the Chief Constable, and I should be obliged to the Minister for War if he can justify, in the face of the facts brought before us by the Home Secretary, that fatal delay of four or five hours at Swindon, which was the cause—as far as I can see, the only cause—of all the trouble.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: As one of the representatives from the area affected by this trouble, I desire indiscriminately to protest against the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) on the one side, and hon. Members opposite on the other side, attempting to

  953
  exploit the miseries and troubles of this dispute for the purpose of making mere party capital. One does not expect much in the way of human wisdom and common sense from a University representative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not said anything which he can be ordered to withdraw.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Therefore, following the remark I was making, I was not in the least surprised to hear the observation from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that he thought there was something highly humorous in the humane appeal from the Home Secretary to the leaders of the men that they might have some regard for the respect of their county and some regard for their self-respect, and that they should try to secure good order. The complaint of the junior Member for Merthyr is that the police did things they ought not to have done, and the complaint of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the military were not sent in instantly. Let us assume that the military had been sent in. It is perfectly true that there would have been certain "unhappy incidents avoided," to use the vague, abstract phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is true also that half of the cemeteries of the Rhondda Valley would have received a great many more occupants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The very fact that hon. Members ask why shows how totally ignorant they are of the facts in connection with this dispute. Personally, I have had some experience of disputes, and I say that I have never found the atmosphere so electric and dangerous as it was at the time the police were sent in. It is perfectly true that the local authorities asked for military. They did not know that they could get Metropolitan police. I challenge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, to get from the local authorities in Glamorganshire a statement that they now regret that the police were sent in instead of the military. It is perfectly true that unhappy incidents would have happened in Tonypandy if the military had got in. I have not the slightest doubt that the riot would have been quelled within the hour in which it was quelled, but instead of the junior Member for Merthyr complaining vaguely of the conduct of the police he would have been attacking
  954
  the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary for having sent military in and caused the death of hundreds of men.
  Speaking from the point of view of the responsible workmen in the district, I desire to say, as the representative of a district vitally affected, that we profoundly appreciate the great wisdom, the toleration, and the common sense exercised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and by those he placed in authority, and that is the view not merely of the general population down there, but it is also the view of the responsible leaders. The junior Member for Merthyr is here professing that he represents some section of opinion. As a matter of fact, he approached the official Strike Committee of the Cambrian strike with the view of getting special information in order that he might state it on the floor of this House, and the official committee declined to meet him or supply him with any information Whatever information he has obtained he has obtained unofficially from isolated members of that committee. A month ago I made a protest in this House against the idea that the times were ripe for an inquiry. I then expressed the hope that the Home Secretary would not at this stage attempt to grant an inquiry. I then reminded the House that the hon. Member for Merthyr had changed his ground. First of all he asked, in the very white heat of passion of the dispute, for an inquiry. He then pleaded for an inquiry on the last occasion because the dispute was nearly at an end. To-night he has entirely changed his ground again. He is afraid that he has been backing the wrong horse, and he is seeking to hedge, and now suggests that if there is to be an inquiry it is to be limited in a perfectly impossible way. I venture to say that the time is not ripe for an inquiry. There are still awkward elements to deal with in that locality, and until every semblance of the dispute has gone I express the profound hope not merely that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not sanction any inquiry at all, but that in the interests of industrial peace not merely the hon. Member for Merthyr, but also right hon. and hon. Members opposite, will not attempt to excite passion by trying to make political capital out of this dispute.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Unfortunately not knowing that the Debate was coming on in this form

  955
  I was not present at the early part, and I heard only the latter portion of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech. I think a word or two of explanation as to the real position is due from me. There was talk of disturbance in this region before Tuesday the 8th of December, but I believe that in point of fact there was no rioting until the month of December. At any rate I knew nothing of it. The first I heard of rioting was comparatively late in the forenoon of the Tuesday, when it was known officially that the local county authorities asked that we should send troops from the Southern Command. Very late on the Monday night, or early on the Tuesday morning, they telegraphed to the Southern Command for troops. Two years ago there was a Select Committee of this House, before which I myself gave evidence, by which the principles that should be adopted were very carefully considered; and the Committee laid it down that, in the first place, it is the duty of the executive Government to preserve law and order, and use all the force necessary, military or police, for that purpose. In the second place, you should not use military if you can use the police, the reason being that the military use a weapon which necessarily employs great violence in cases in which you might not require such great violence. That would depend entirely on your knowledge of the circumstances. In the third place, this was the substantial final conclusion of the Committee, one ought always to inform himself as closely as is consistent with dealing with the matter speedily of the state of things. The military authorities, on the one hand, ought not to wait to get the civil requisition before they act; but, on the other hand, they ought to be so satisfied before they act on their own responsibility that it must be a very clear case. That was very well known to the General Officer Commanding the Southern Command., Accordingly, when he got a telegram asking for military assistance, he telegraphed to the War Office. I heard of this early on the Tuesday morning. He informed us by telegram that he, very properly, in case there might be undue delay, sent forward the troops. In confirming that action I said let the troops wait at Swindon. Had I not given that order it would not have made any difference, because the riots had taken place on Monday night. On the Tuesday morning early I got into communication with the Home Office, and saw my right hon. Friend very
  956
  early, consulting him as to what measures-were proper. We directed that the troops should be reserved at Swindon, and we sent off police as fast as possible. There was no delay that could have been avoided. The police were sent on, and the troops followed them.
  The whole point of this Debate is—ought the troops to have been there earlier on the Monday? [An HON. MEMBER: "On the Tuesday."] On the Monday or the Tuesday—there has been a great deal of dispute about that. The first was on the Monday night, when nobody knew whether it would be right to send troops there. On the Tuesday, judging the circumstances and judging that the police were the proper force to deal with the situation, they were sent off by my right hon. Friend as fast as they could be forwarded, and the troops were delayed. We did not think that the troops should first take charge in this matter, for nobody can tell what might have been the result if the troops had arrived there first. I think it was far better to take the course which was adopted, even though there should have been a certain amount of disorder that could have been checked. At any rate, acting in the spirit of the Report of the Select Committee, which I have not the slightest doubt represents the common law of this country, I did not think it right that troops should be sent before we had seen that they were wanted, or had seen whether the matter could be dealt with by the police. We sent to say that the police were to arrive first, the police being the proper force to deal with the situation. Under these circumstances, I am in complete accord with my right hon. Friend, whom I saw very early on the Tuesday morning. We were in constant communication all that afternoon as to what was to be done, and I maintain that we took what was the wise course in the circumstances. It may be—I cannot tell what might have happened—that, if the troops had arrived first, they might have stopped a certain amount of disturbance which took place on the Tuesday evening, but, on the other hand they might have caused a a great amount of excitement. All I can say is that the local police force were rapidly reinforced from London, and my impression is that in the circumstances, and bearing in mind the nature of those circumstances, it would have been a more unwise course, attended with greater risk, than the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and myself in consultation. These are the facts. We may have made

  957
  an error of judgment, even in a matter of that kind, but I do not think so, and all I can say is, if I had to do the same thing again I would take the same course; and what has happened since confirms my belief in the action taken.
  Mr. CROFT: I am not concerned particularly with the vacillating policy of the Home Secretary nor with the differences of opinion between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. What I do wish to refer to is the action of the Home Secretary in sending a telegram which I think every Member of this House must agree was one of the most ill-advised concoctions which ever went from a Government office.
  Mr. JOYCE: Because he is a humane man.
  Mr. CROFT: I maintain that the telegram was a biassed telegram, and that the Home Secretary, by his talk of desiring to see fair treatment given to the strikers, was immediately, by those words, taking the part of the strikers and inciting them to prosecute their campaign with violence, when he told them that if they were good he would only send police—a course that is not in the best interests of the peace in these questions. I desire to support the reduction, because we have a double cost, for military and police, owing to the policy of vacillation. The hon. Gentleman told us that in all his experience he had never found the atmosphere so dangerous. Could there be any evidence more strong that the military should have been despatched at the earliest possible moment? He also mentioned that no loss of life took place when the police arrived on the scene. I do not think loss of life is always attached to the presence of the Metropolitan Police, nor is it of necessity connected with the military. It was a case where a strong man was needed to take strong action. All this danger to public property occurred—I know hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite are not concerned in the defence of property—and all this dangerous situation was brought about by the vacillation of the authorities in London. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, had followed his unvetoed instincts he would have allowed the troops to go forward. I think the precedent followed is a very dangerous one. Therefore, I support the reduction of the Vote, and I think the whole course unwise.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I need hardly say I do not intend to inflict another speech on the main question, but may I say one word about procedure. The Vote is one for granting a gratuity to the Metropolitan Police. I think, and I believe hon. Members on this side agree in this opinion, that that gratuity ought to be granted. The reduction has been moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) in a speech from which I have already profoundly dissented, and he moved it in order to give emphasis to an opinion with which I profoundly disagree. Under these circumstances a division upon this reduction of £100 is really not a division upon the merits of the Government in the action they took in sending or withholding troops. It is merely on the-question of the reduction of the gratuity. Although I have given some reasons why I think the Government were ill advised, though I grant the circumstances were difficult, I shall certainly not support the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil if he goes to a division.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I desire to refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil which has been overlooked in this discussion. The question has been raised as to the policy, wise or otherwise, of having sent the police in. preference to the military down to South; Wales. We on these benches absolutely dissent from the views which have been expressed on the benches opposite upon that question, and to that extent we endorse the policy pursued by the Home Office. But the reply of the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not only unsympathetic, but provocative. We are entitled to ask this House to consider the claims of the injured persons in South Wales. It has been suggested by the Home Secretary and other speakers that there is no weight of evidence behind the complaint that my hon. Friend has voiced in this House. Yet it is now a matter of history that in the heat of that industrial struggle they associated themselves with the claim that has been put forward representatives of the Church and of the public life in that Welsh-valley to protest against the conduct of some at least of the policemen. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan spoke of the responsible view of the workmen. The Executive Committee of the South Wales Miners' Association—who surely represent the official view of the workmen—have through the person of the junior Member

  959
  for Merthyr, asked the House to enter upon an inquiry, not only to free the miners as an industrial class from the stigma which has been laid upon them, but to do a bare act of justice to defenceless women and innocent children. In addition to that, I remember that in the early days of this Session the right hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. William Abraham), whose absence this evening we regret, in a very effective way associated himself with the demand of the miners for an inquiry. I thank the House for its indulgence, but I take the liberty of suggesting that there is a weight of opinion behind the plea put forward this evening which is entitled to the respect of this Committee, and I hope that in due time that inquiry will be held.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: This Debate is in one respect a peculiar one. There are two issues involved in the Debate, but only one can be expressed in the division. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has moved what is really a vote of censure on the police.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The vote of censure is on the Home Office for refusing to grant an inquiry into the charges which have been made.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then the hon. Member ought not to have moved a reduction of this Vote. The Vote is merely for the remuneration of the police, and the only thing properly expressed by a reduction of this Vote would be a vote of censure on the police for their action. For that reason it will be quite impossible for any Member on this side to support the hon. Member's Motion. If the matter is raised when the Home Office Vote is proposed, then, unless there is a better defence than the one we have listened to, I shall be inclined to vote against the Government. You should either not send soldiers at all or you should send them in time to prevent disorder. To send the soldiers merely in order to support the police—to dilute the soldiers, as it were, with the police—seems to me to be a foolish proposition. If you really believe the doctrine that the soldiers had an irritating effect, then it would have been better not to send them. They were better out of the way than that there should be a risk run of loss of life, and so on. Evidently it was the duty of the Government to send whatever would be quickest to save disorder, and so fulfil the request of the local authority.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: I intervene in this Debate because for many years I have been a member of the South Wales Conciliation Board, and I am also connected with one of the largest collieries in South Wales. I am convinced that it is a necessary step at the present time to adopt a conciliatory attitude, and to endeavour to smooth over the painful feelings which have been left owing to these riots. I am certain that if the Home Secretary had adopted a more conciliatory attitude, and had consented to the inquiry asked for, it would have brought peace in South Wales. It is perfectly impossible for the injured persons—many of them children, women, and old people—to say right off whether or not their assailant was a Metropolitan policeman, and we do not desire that they should.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Why?
  Mr. W. M'LAREN: Because it is impossible. If these poor people had had the presence of mind to take the number of the policemen so much the better. They could give evidence that the assaults did take place if they could have an impartial inquiry on the spot. I am amazed at the refusal of the Home Secretary to give permission to have an inquiry on the spot. He has not said it shall not be: he has reserved his decision. But can these people attend an inquiry anywhere but on the spot? It must be on the spot or nowhere. I am not wanting to justify the riots—they were bad beyond all words—but there has been sufficient injustice, involuntary I dare say, done by the police, to justify the Home Secretary in acceding to our desire for an inquiry. I rejoice that the question has been cleared as between police and military. It would be unfortunate if the two things got mixed up, and I cannot imagine how a Vote for the police could be allowed to be mixed up with one as to whether the military should ever have been called out or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has separated the two and has shown if a division takes place it will be purely upon the question of a demand for an inquiry. Without going further into the details, I only again, as one who wishes conciliation, and whose duty in South Wales has been to promote conciliation between employers and men, appeal to the Committee to vote in favour of this inquiry, but not with a view to censuring the police for one moment. I wish the reduction moved was £1 instead of £100. I would give them their £15,000

  961
  with the greatest pleasure, but we are obliged by the rules to move this reduction, not, as I said, for the purpose of censuring the police, but in the interests of peace, harmony, and good feeling in South Wales, where it is desired this inquiry should take place.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. REMNANT: I do not intend to say anything more in reference to these unhappy events in South "Wales beyond this, that, as a Member for a London constituency, I know pretty well the feelings of the voters of London, and their feeling is one of regret that this unprecedented step should be taken of sending a large body of Metropolitan Police at such a time into South Wales. But, after all, we are discussing a question of finance, and so far as I know nothing whatever has been said about the financial proposals involved in this Vote. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes at the expense of the police to move a vote of censure on the Home Secretary, and I am sure when he realises that he will hesitate to move his Motion. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, if this £15,000 represents the total amount of money paid or to be paid, to the police for their extra services in South Wales, and whether I was not right in understanding him some few weeks ago to say distinctly that the whole of this money which represents the cost of this extra work shall be paid by the county where the police were employed? If not, we have never had any notice that his intention has been changed. If Glamorgan is going to pay, why are we called upon to move a Vote of £15,000 to-day? Does this £15,000 represent all the Supplementary Votes which we are to be asked for during 1910–11 for the extra services of police forces? This is a very special claim for money, and nobody could have foreseen the unhappy incident in South Wales. Therefore this Vote stands out as an exceptional item in that nothing has been asked over the ordinary expenditure. To that extent the Home Office is to be congratulated upon being able to keep within the original estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet told us what is the estimated cost of the Sidney Street battle—
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.
  Mr. REMNANT: The words are "The sum now required." I want to know
  962
  whether included in the amount we are voting there is anything for what occurred in Sidney Street.
  The CHAIRMAN: Really, that matter cannot be discussed. Obviously this Vote is for the South Wales strike, and that is the only matter we can discuss.
  Mr. REMNANT: We have such a very short time to discuss these Estimates at any time that I thought, Mr. Chairman, you might have allowed me to go a little wide of the mark. I wish to raise another point. As a London ratepayer, representing a London constituency, I am aware that a large part of the cost of the police has to be borne by the ratepayers of London in connection with the Imperial Treasury. If we have to pay the whole £15,000 now instead of Glamorgan it seems to me that the ratepayers of London will have a serious grievance against the Government. Is that so? This is a matter not to be passed over lightly, because it is a very serious one from London's point of view. I should like also to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the rate of pay he gave to these men while they were in South Wales? I have heard from some that they got 7s. a day, and from others that they got less and were hoping for more. I cannot make out whether the money to be paid to these men is to be in addition to their ordinary pay or not. In that case the ordinary pay would fall upon the ratepayers of London.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The financial point which has been raised by the hon. Member can be cleared up in four or five sentences. The £15,000 which is being asked for under this Vote is for extra special allowances which I sanctioned to the Metropolitan Police in consideration of being employed so far from their own sphere and area, and it relates to those special allowances only. In addition to that there is the ordinary charge of their pay and keep while they were in the Rhondda Valley. That charge will come upon the funds of the Glamorganshire County Council. This £15,000 falls on the Imperial Fund. The rest is due from the Glamorganshire County Council, and it was agreed by their Chief Constable that they would bear the ordinary expense of the police while they were in the area. I may add, however, that, although the Glamorganshire County Council have profited by the services of the police for several months, they have announced their intention to resist all demands for

  963
  payment. No doubt they would rather have had soldiers, because it would not have cost them anything under the very unsatisfactory state of the law as it is at the present time. That will very likely be the subject of legal proceedings. The Law Officers will have to express their opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Law Courts."] The Courts will have to express their opinion when proceedings are taken, but the Law Officers will have to do so before they are commenced. Of course, in the event of it being held that the charge should not be borne by the Glamorganshire County Council, the expense will fall upon the Imperial Government, and in no circumstances on the London rates. On the contrary, so far from the London rates having suffered, as the hon. Gentleman will see, they will actually gain by the fact that a large number of police—one thousand in number—were kept without charge to them for nearly three and a half months, either at the expense of the Imperial Government or of the Glamorganshire County Council.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would first of all explain, in reply to the point raised by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), why I moved the reduction in this form. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well—nobody better—that under the form in which this Vote is being taken there is no other way than the one I have adopted.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Later, on the Home Office Vote.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point is that so far as this case is concerned there is no other way. Suppose, by any stretch of the imagination, the Motion I have moved was carried, the police would not suffer. The Government would come down to-morrow night and move the Vote in its old form. It has been done before, and could be done again. This is the only way in which on this occasion our protest can be raised in the Lobby, and I repeat, we do not take this action because we want to deprive the police of any extra pay or reward in connection with their services in South Wales. Those of us who know most of the hardship that the men endured would be the first to admit the need for extra remuneration, and also the extenuating circumstances for outbreaks and loss of temper which undoubtedly took place. As for my authority for having raised this question, I will leave others to make their reply to the hon.
  964
  Member for East Glamorganshire (Mr. Edwards). My only reply is that the hon. Member for East Glamorgan is not the first reptile of the viper order—
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in calling another hon. Member of this House a reptile?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I did not hear the conclusion of the hon. Member's sentence, but I certainly think he was out of order. Such a word must not be used of any hon. Member.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think, when you come to hear my statement, you will say it was in order. If you rule it out of order I will withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member used the words "reptile of the viper order" in reference to another hon. Member, he must certainly withdraw them.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Certainly, Sir. But I was only endeavouring to use a vivid illustration—the classical illustration of the viper who broke his teeth in trying to bite a file.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member to say he would withdraw anything I objected to.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Yes, Sir, I will do so. May I point out the history of this question, and the reasons why I intend to press the Motion to a Division. Our first demand was for a full inquiry into the charge against the police. That inquiry was refused on the ground that so long as the strike was in progress and so long as feeling remained acute in the district an inquiry could not be granted. When the question again came before the House the strike in my own district had been settled, and there was no disturbance and no trace of ill-feeling left. But still the Home Secretary refused to grant an inquiry because in another part of the Welsh coalfield the strike still continued. Then came the last occasion on which this question was raised. The Home Secretary offered—as I interpreted his words, a modified form of inquiry—i.e., that if charges were made against individual policemen—against Metropolitan policemen—if it were shown that anyone was injured by a Metropolitan policeman those charges should be thoroughly inquired into. I have been hoping that the Home Secretary would have transformed that offer which

  965
  he undoubtedly made from a sham into a reality in the course of his speech to-night.
  In the form in which it was made, the proferred inquiry was simply a mockery. How could a child only eleven years of age be expected to identify a constable by whom an assault had been committed? How could men be expected in the darkness of the night to identify the constables who made an assault on them? The whole thing is an absurdity, and as far as sending in evidence for an inquiry of that nature is concerned I will be no party to it. I will not join in any effort to perpetuate the mockery which that kind of offer, coming from the Home Secretary, really constitutes. What will be the result if some one does send in a case to the Home Secretary? If that case passes the scrutiny which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will apply to it, if it complies with all the conditions that will no doubt be laid down then the Home Secretary will pass it on to some Commissioner of Police, who will examine the matter in secrecy and privacy without the person who makes the charge having anyone in attendance to represent his interests. Very naturally both the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police will approach the investigation of these eases with a predisposition in their minds in favour of the police and against the complainant. It would, I think, be very much better to refuse an inquiry point blank than to have an investigation on such terms—terms which, if accepted, would only help to deceive those whom I represent. These people, I admit, are only colliers and colliers' wives and children. Had they been members of the middle or well-to-do class we should not require to plead for an inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may say "Oh," but everybody knows that the statement I make is true. If their heads had been broken by police, their children had been bludgeoned, will they tell me that they would not have demanded and have received an inquiry into the charges which they made? And what would have been done for them we claim must be done for those for whom we speak, and whom we represent. I shall press this matter to a division, and I am glad that hon. Members are not going to vote with me under false pretences. I am glad that they are not going to take this Motion of mine as a cover for voting against the Government for not sending soldiers instead of police. Those who vote for this Motion should believe that the charges made against the
  966
  police are of so grave a character that they ought to be inquired into, and those who do not believe that will be doing their duty to themselves and their constituencies by voting for the Government.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: I desire to ask the Home Secretary one question, and it is if he will let me know at what date the Glamorganshire County Council agreed to pay any of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police in Glamorganshire, and if that agreement was in writing, because my information, which I happened to have given me this afternoon in Cardiff, is to the effect that they have refused to pay any of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that the Standing Joint Committee of the County Council of Glamorganshire have refused, but it is also true that the Chief Constable, upon whose requisition the police were sent, signed an undertaking on their behalf that the sum in question should be paid. I understand that the Glamorganshire Standing Joint Committee now repudiate the signature of their officer, although they were very glad to avail themselves of the services of the police.
  Lord CRICHTON-STUART: I am perfectly aware that to a certain extent the Glamorganshire County Council and the Standing Committee were very glad to avail themselves of the presence of the police, but might I ask on what authority do the Standing Joint Committee still refuse to agree to any payment and refuse to recognise the signature of their Chief Constable, whether there is any rule which can be put into force or any power of going into this question? I do not wish for the same sort of inquiry as the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a point of law and a very complicated one which is now engaging the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Lord CRICHTON-STUART: Will the matter be decided by the Courts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already told the hon. Member that the Law Officers of the Crown are considering the matter. I think it is very probable it will be decided by the Courts.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I wish to call attention to the very remarkable proposition of the Home Secretary that it

  967
  is to the advantage of the ratepayers of London that 1,000 of their police should have been withdrawn from the Metropolitan area and sent to South Wales.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Financial advantage from the point of view of expenditure.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I should like to understand whether these thousand men are surplus to the requirements of London and the preservation and the security of life and property in London. The ratepayers of London are called upon to bear a very substantial proportion of the cost both of the maintenance, the equipment, and the training of the Metropolitan Police. Are we to understand that it is possible to withdraw 1,000 men from this force without impairing the security of property and of person in London? Did it not involve any extra duties upon the force remaining in London, or are the ratepayers being called upon to contribute towards a standing reserve of police which is surplus to the municipal requirements of London, and which are maintained by the Home Office as a reserve for employment in place of the military in cases in which the South Wales miners get beyond their control?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to say two or three words, mainly because of the kind of attack which has been made on the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie). I think the attack made by the Home Secretary is quite unworthy of the dignity of a Cabinet Minister. It is not the business of a Cabinet Minister to accuse an hon. Member of popularity hunting. It must have been a fellow feeling, because if there is one Member of the House who is an adept at that kind of business it is the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot help but think that his attitude of mind towards this question has been affected by his inability to see anything good in what the hon. Member might bring forward, because it is inaccurate to state that this is a case that is trumped up by the hon. Member. If there was anything in the very emphatic speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Clement Edwards) it was that the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) was in a very unworthy kind of manner exploiting the sufferings of the poor. A statement like that is beneath contempt. It is amply disproved by the statements of the hon. Member for Crewe and the hon Member for Pembrokeshire, and by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. William
  968
  Abraham, Glamorgan, Rhondda) begged for an inquiry. To vituperate my hon. Friend in this fashion is beneath contempt. It is, however, perfectly true that if this were a case of middle class people there is not one who would not be demanding an inquiry.
  I would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University to the fact that his friends in this House demanded, an inquiry into the case of one woman who was arrested some years ago in a street in London. The lady was called Madame D'Angely. That showed how careful they are to vindicate one who may belong to their own class. We are now discussing something that happened under very different circumstances. No one denies that at this place in South Wales there was considerable disturbance, but I would remind hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members from Ireland that under similar circumstances in Ireland the kind of speech which was made by the Home Secretary to-night might have been made by the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) who might have been the culprit. My mind goes back to the palmy days of Mitchelstown and many other incidents in the Irish campaign when the whole of the Liberal party were demanding that inquiries should be held into circumstances similar to those in regard to which we are asking inquiry to-night. I am too old a Londoner, and I have had too much experience of the London police, to be quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. When you organise a few score of unemployed demonstrations you come into contact with the London police. I am very proud to say that my connection with them has always been of a very peaceable nature, but when policemen are sent down into a strange place which is in a very disorderly condition I think it is quite reasonable to expect some things to happen which all of us would deplore. If in these circumstances the Home Secretary and the Government take up the attitude that we are not to have any inquiry, they are going behind the principles which I learned as to Liberalism during the period of the Home Rule agitation.
  I ask Nationalist Members to support us on this occasion. After all, a Welsh collier is of as much value as an

  969
  Irish peasant, and a Welsh child is of as much value as an Irish child. On many occasions we stood by Irishmen when they asked that inquiries should be held into similar circumstances. We do not, ask that anyone should be blamed or punished, but we ask that an investigation shall be made so that in future the same sort of thing may not happen in Wales or elsewhere. But I want to protest, before I sit down, against the bloodthirsty sort of doctrine enunciated on the other side. It seems to me their only regret is that soldiers did not go down, and that the Home Secretary did not tell them, as was told to other men on a memorable occasion, "Don't hesitate to shoot." I at least am very glad that policemen were there instead of soldiers. But that does not mean that everything passed off as it ought to, and that there is no need for an inquiry, and I hope that the Nationalist Members, and the Radical Members too, will support us in the Lobby in the demand, not for censure on anyone, but for an inquiry as to what everyone admits is a very unhappy state of affairs.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Not a soul has said a word about the Exchequer. I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or the Secretary for War for what they did. They did their best, no doubt, in the circumstances. But what I would like to emphasise is that the Exchequer is going to be charged £15,000 for this riot, and I think it will amount to considerably more if Glamorgan repudiates its obligations. If every riot is going to cost the Exchequer £15,000 or more, I say that, although entirely approving of what the right hon. Gentlemen did, they should hesitate again before sending the Metropolitan Police so far away. After all, the counties ought to settle their own affairs, and I am rather for economy of the public
  purse and I am going to vote against any inquiry. Reference has been made to a previous police inquiry which cost thousands of pounds, and what came out of it? We are now asked for an inquiry of which nothing is to come, and as a result of which no one is to be censured. I object entirely to such inquiry. It would mean a great deal of cost and trouble. As the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) has said, if you go into a riot you must expect broken heads. I do not believe for a moment that any policeman would willingly do any injury, and if an inquiry is going to be for this purpose alone I object to it on account of the expense. We are putting on the public exchequer thousands and thousands of pounds expense at every turn. I object to it entirely and should be glad if the lesson drawn from it is that the Home Secretary and the Minister of War will be careful never again to send police so far away on such an errand.
  Mr. CROFT: I wish to ask the Home Secretary one question. When the Metropolitan Police were sent to South Wales was there not any increased charge for pay for the increased service of the Metropolitan Police left in London? I also wish to say, as the junior Member for Merthyr has suggested, that anybody who supports the reduction of the Vote was voting for an inquiry, that, as I would have moved a reduction of the Vote on other grounds, I am going to vote in the Lobby for a totally different purpose, as a protest against the action of the Home Secretary on that occasion, and not in any way at the dictation of the junior Member for Merthyr.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,900, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 238.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES.

  [12.38 a.m.

  Adamson, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jowett, F. W.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Croft, H. P.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Martin, J.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. W. M'Laren.

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Goldstone, Frank

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baird, J. L.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barnston, H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beale, W. P.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hinds, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Boyton, James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Brady, P. J.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Reddy, Michael

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Castlereagh, viscount

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry G.

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Leach, Charles

  Rowlands, James

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clough, William

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lundon, T.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Sheehy, David

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Maclean, Donald

  Shortt, Edward

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spear, John Ward

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Maitland, A. D. Steel-

  Summers, James Woolley

  Delany, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Doris, W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duffy, William J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mathias, Richard

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meagher, Michael

  Touche, George Alexander

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molloy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mooney, John J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Munro, R.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Waring, Walter

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meilson, Francis

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Webb, H.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Forster, Henry William

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Furness, Stephen

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Winfrey, Richard

  Grant, J. A.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Greene, W. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Younger, George

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit again this day.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr.
  972
  Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Thirteen minutes before One a.m. Tuesday, 7th March.