Commons Sitting of 27 February 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill,
Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity) Bill,
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill.
Dunstable Gas and Water Bill,
Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill,
London Electric Railway Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday.
Metropolitan Railway Bill,
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Belfast Water Bill (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Friday.
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second reading deferred till To-morrow.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 7th March, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173a apply to all such Bills.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Four be the quorum.
Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. John William Wilson, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS UNDER PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911.
  Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of Clause 1, Sub-section (3), of The Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. John William Wilson from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. SPEAKER shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

  UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL).
  Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had selected the following Seven Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Beale, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Hills, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Staveley - Hill, and Mr. George Roberts.
  Ordered that the Reports do lie upon the Table.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of licence granted to a convict under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of January, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Rice from Korea (Export Duty).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to show that the Governor-General of Korea has proposed the abolition of the Export Duty on rice from Korea; whether His Majesty's Government would regard such action by the Korean administration as being in conformity with Article 2 of the Rescript in the Declaration of 29th August, 1910; and, if not, whether any protest has been or will be made by His Majesty's Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): An alteration of the Export Duties on rice from Korea having been proposed, His Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to draw the attention of the Japanese Government to this action as being, in our opinion, contrary to the Declaration of 1910. The question is now forming the subject of discussion at Tokio.

  Trial of Miss Malecka.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report of the proceedings at the recent trial of Miss Malecka at Warsaw; whether he is aware that although the trial was with open doors some of the correspondents of the Press were refused admittance; whether he can say if this was due to a misunderstanding; and, if so, that it will not recur at the adjourned trial; and whether he can state the date at which the adjourned trial will be held?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have received a report of the proceedings at the trial, from which I gather that three journalists were refused admission before it was known that the trial would be held with open doors, but there is nothing in the report leading me to think that they were unable eventually to attend the trial. I have no information as to the date on which the

  1165
  case will be resumed, except that the adjournment is apparently for two or three months, and was granted on the application of the counsel for the defendant in order to allow of the attendance of two of his witnesses.
  Mr. WORRELL: Has my right hon. Friend received any shorthand notes of the proceedings, and can he tell me whether it would be possible for me to see the Consul's report of the proceedings?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I would ask the Hon. Member to give me notice of the question.

  Strikes and Labour Troubles, 1911 (Cost of Troops).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked what was the cost of moving and maintaining troops during the strikes and labour troubles in 1911, and from what fund were the payments made?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): The cost of moving and maintaining troops in connection with the railway and other strikes last summer, so far as is known in the War Office, was approximately £40,000. The payments were made out of Army funds.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman upon what Vote it will come?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask whether any request has been made to the railway companies to pay a proportion of that sum?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. WATT: How much of that was paid to the railway companies?
  Mr. TENNANT: A certain amount for moving troops.
  Mr. WATT: Do you know how much?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the War Office, in addition to being prepared to maintain the right of free speech by force of arms, are also prepared to protect those who wish to maintain the right to work for themselves and
  1166
  their families during strikes; and whether the same force will be available on demand in the one case as in the other?
  Colonel SEELY: The duty of citizens, whether under military law or not, to assist the civil power in preventing breaches of the peace is too large a subject to discuss at question time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If men are prevented from doing their work will they have the same right to apply to the War Office for troops as a certain right hon. Gentleman did?
  Colonel SEELY: That is a question for the Home Office.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: May I ask whether the Government will order all future conferences of owners' and men's representatives to be held in public, in order that the weight of public opinion may be directed against whatever party imperils the interests of the nation by adopting an attitude of non-compromise.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary to the War Office has no control over that matter.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is it proposed to take any action with regard to the conduct of employers in seeking to compel men to remain at work who want to leave?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not come within the scope of the War Office.

  Military Manœuvres.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked how much money was allocated in last year's Estimates for military manœuvres; how much was spent on manœuvres; and how was the balance disposed of?
  Mr. TENNANT: The amount provided in Estimates 1911–12 for field training and manœuvres was £250,000, of which about £100,000 will be spent within the year. I am unable to separate the expenditure on different forms of training; but the main Army manœuvres contemplated in 1911 were not held. The balance became available for Army purposes generally.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if any of the balance was spent on the strike fund?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, undoubtedly.

  Redford Barracks (Edinburgh).
  Captain GILMOURasked what reason has led to the use of stone brought from

  1167
  Northumberland for the building of Redford Barracks, near Edinburgh, in preference to Scottish stone; and whether the cost of the building is increased owing to the carriage of stone from so great a distance?
  Mr. TENNANT: After careful inquiries as to the stone used in the more important buildings in the Edinburgh district, it was decided to use Blackpasture stone for the ashlar work as being eminently suitable in weathering qualites and colour for the purpose. For the rubble work the specification provided that either Scottish stone from the Hailes quarries at Slateford or Doddinton Hill stone would be accepted; and as the former were unable to guarantee sufficient quantities of the specified stone for the work the latter was accepted. The cost of the stone was the same in each case.
  Captain GILMOUR: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the cost has been increased by the use of stone from Northumberland, and also whether no suitable stone could be found in Scotland?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, I do not think there has been any increase in the cost.

  Army Annual Report.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the military correspondent of the "Times," in the issue of 2nd February, quotes a table as to the strength of the Regular Army on 1st October, 1911, purporting to be taken from page 26 of the General Annual Report, and that that Report has not yet been laid before Parliament; and how the military correspondent of "The Times" obtained access to a Report which is not yet available to Members of Parliament?
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that an article appeared in the Press recently in which the author quoted from the General Annual Report of the British Army for 1911; and if he will state whether this Report had been presented to Parliament on the date when the article appeared?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The answer to the first part of each question is in the
  1168
  affirmative. The military correspondent of the "Times" obtained the information from the War Office. He was not aware that the figures he quoted had not previously been published, and, by a misunderstanding, this fact was not brought to his notice by the Department concerned. I should add that the figures quoted were not in any sense secret, or even confidential; they would, of course, have been supplied to any Member of this House who had applied to me for them. It is regretted that owing to the misunderstanding to which I have referred the figures were thus published before they were formally laid on the Table of this House.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Why was this General Annual Report available for a favoured correspondent at a time when it is not laid on the Table of the House?
  Colonel SEELY: It is available for the House now.
  Sir H. CRAIK: But why was it not laid on the Table of the House instead of being available for a favoured correspondent of a newspaper?
  Colonel SEELY: It is laid on the Table of the House. It is in anticipation. The Return is only published annually. If it were published quarterly or every six months, as I presume this gentleman must have assumed, there would have been no question. But in order to save time, trouble and expense, it is only laid annually. It has just been laid now.
  Sir H. CRAIK: When will it be distributed and in the hands of hon. Members of the House?
  Colonel SEELY: I think if the hon. Gentleman goes to the Vote Office now he will find it there. It was formally laid yesterday.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Why were we informed last year that this gentleman would have no access to any documents?
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer which I then gave he will see that I then said that he would have no access to any secret or confidential documents. This, of course, was neither a secret nor a confidential document.
  Mr. LEE: Will similar facilities be given to the other papers?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think any newspapers applied, but I have got a request this morning from the editor of a newspaper. Of course, I was able to send him a copy, as it had already been laid.
  Earl WINTERTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the frequency during the last five years of cases with which documents have been shown to newspaper correspondents and others outside this House before they were laid on the Table of the House, and to the Prime Minister's promise on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: I think that this is the first case that has been brought to my notice since I have been at the War Office.
  Mr. W. PEEL: Was this information given to the correspondent of the "Times" in his capacity as a semi-official of the War Office, or in his capacity as a newspaper correspondent?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know exactly what happened except this, that this gentleman, the editor of the "Army Review," asked for these figures and they were supplied to him. He, not knowing that they had not been published, and assuming that they had been published, as the information was already three months or more old, openly quoted them in his article. There could be no attempt on his part to obtain access to secret documents.
  Mr. W. PEEL: Is it not beyond the wit of any one man to distinguish his own capacity, as to whether he is acting as the correspondent of the "Times" or the editor of this paper the "Army Review"?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that it is beyond the wit of this man. I do not think he will make a similar mistake again.
  Mr. KING: Is this gentleman Colonel Repington, the gentleman who exposed the Leader of the Opposition?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that that has anything to do with it He is correspondent, for a newspaper which is not very favourable to the Government in its general politics. I do not know his politics, but from conversation I gather that he by no means agrees with the policy of the Government of the day.
  Earl WINTERTONasked upon what date it is expected that the General Annual Report for the year ending 30th
  1170
  September last will be ready for circulation?
  Colonel SEELY: The report is being circulated to-day.
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether Colonel Repington continues to be officially connected with a War Office publication; and, if so, whether there is any agreement binding him not to write upon military subjects for the non-official Press?
  Mr. LEEasked what official position, if any, is or has been held by Lieutenant-Colonel Repington since he became the military correspondent of the "Times" newspaper; what is the amount of the salary, if any, that he receives or has received from public funds in connection with any such official position, and under what sub-head of the Estimates is such salary accounted for; whether any official office accommodation inside or outside of the War Office is or has been provided for Lieutenant-Colonel Repington; and what is the exact nature of any official duties that may have been performed by him since be became military correspondent of the "Times"?
  Mr. LEEasked what precedent, if any, there is for the official employment and State remuneration of a newspaper correspondent in connection with the War Office or other Government Department; and whether it is proposed to continue the employment of the military correspondent of the "Times" in an official capacity?
  Colonel SEELY: Lieutenant-Colonel Repington is editor of the "Army Review," and has held this appointment since 1st April, 1911, when the "Review" was first started. His salary as such is £500 a year, and will be found provided founder Vote 12. He has been allowed the use of a room at the War Office. His exceptional capacity for writing on military subjects was the reason for his selection for this new post. There is no engagement binding him not to write upon military subjects for the non-official Press, and his employment by the "Times" as their military correspondent has not been found in any way to interfere with his duties as editor of the "Army Review."
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War stated in another place the other day that Colonel Repington had not been provided with a room in the War Office, and will he inform us what are the facts of the case?
  Colonel SEELY: There was no special room allotted to Colonel Repington with his name placed on the door. The hon. Gentleman knows the way in which rooms are allotted in a public office. But for the purpose of the editing of the "Army Review" he goes to the War Office two or three times a week. It is not what is called a whole-time appointment. He has been in several different rooms, and has been moved from place to place in order to find a desk to write upon.

  Army Aeroplanes.
  Mr. SANDYSasked how many aeroplanes are at present in the possession of the French and German War Departments, respectively; and how many officers are at present serving in the aviation branch of the French and German Armies, respectively?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows, so far as is known:—

  France—

  Aeroplanes

  …

  …

  …

  208

  Officers

  …

  …

  …

  150

  Germany—

  Aeroplanes

  …

  …

  …

  30

  Officers

  …

  …

  …

  85

  Army Air Battalion.
  Mr. SANDYSasked: (1) how many officers belonging to the permanent establishment of the Air Battalion are at present engaged in aeroplane work; (2) how many aeroplanes effective for military purposes are now owned by the War Department; (3) whether it is intended to increase the number of officers permanently attached to the Air Battalion apart from officers temporarily attached to the Air Battalion for a course in military aviation; and (4) whether the Army Council have come to a decision with regard to pay and allowances of officers of the Air Battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope to make a general statement on aviation on the introduction of Army Estimates, and I will then endeavour to reply to all the points raised in the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  Mr. SANDYS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any information now on which I could base a conclusion?
  Colonel SEELY: I shall be very glad to circulate among the hon. Gentlemen, and any other hon. Gentleman who may desire it, any information which they may ask of me.
  Mr. LEE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman circulate the answers to all the Members of the House?
  Colonel SEELY: I will consider that. If there are any particular points in these four questions which hon. Gentlemen want I shall be glad to circulate them.

  Territorial Force (Report of Inspector-General).
  Earl WINTERTONasked why the Report of the Inspector-General of the Forces on the Territorial Force, dated 5th December, 1910, was not presented to Parliament and published until December, 1911?
  Colonel SEELY: The Report of the Inspector-General was under the consideration of the Army Council, and it was not considered proper to publish it until this consideration had been completed.
  Colonel YATE: Does not the fact that this report having appeared a year late diminish seriously its practical value?
  Colonel SEELY: It does appear to be a fact that it took some time.

  Royal Artillery Officers.
  Major STANLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the five senior lieutenants of the district officers, Royal Artillery, have had twelve years' service in that rank, and that they lose considerably in pay through not being promoted; and whether there is any intention of altering the regulation with regard to district officers so as to remove this hardship?
  Colonel SEELY: The facts are as stated. Any steps, however, such as the substitution of promotion by time for promotion to the establishment, that might be taken to benefit these senior officers would affect unfavourably those lower down the list. The present situation is due to the large augmentation to the list in 1900.

  Regular Army (Age).
  Major HENDERSONasked if the Under-Secretary for War would give a Return of the number of men serving in the Regular Army at Home under the age of twenty in the Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, and Departmental Corps, respectively; and if he will give the percentages of men serving in the Special Reserve under the ages of eighteen and twenty, respectively?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures for the rank and file of the Regular Army are as follows:—

  Cavalry (including Household Cavalry)

  2,221

  Artillery

  5,435

  Infantry (including Foot Guards)

  19,177

  Departmental Corps

  3,271

  Total

  30,104

  As regards the Special Reserve there are no figures available later than the 1st October, 1911, when the percentage of those under eighteen was 6.2, and of those between eighteen and twenty was 22.8, making a total under twenty of 29 per cent.

  Works of Art (Export Duty).
  Mr. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will consider the advantages to the nation of introducing into his forthcoming Budget a substantial Export Duty on all works of art produced twenty or more years ago when leaving the United Kingdom, excepting only such works of art as may be temporarily consigned to an exhibition abroad?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will refer the hon. Member to the answer that was given to a similar question asked by him on the 14th March last, to which I have nothing to add.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether, where persons served with notice by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax to make a return for Super-tax purposes are prepared to swear on oath that their total income for Super-tax purposes is below the amount on which Super-tax is charged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will release such persons from the obligation to make a return of their incomes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see my way to accept the hon. Member's suggestion. It frequently occurs that, through an incomplete understanding of the correct method of computing the income, returns of income under £5,000 are made in cases where, after investigation of the return, liability to the Super-tax is found to exist.
  Mr. WHELER: By what authority do the Commissioners call for this return? Can they call upon anybody they think likely to give it, and is there anything to justify the action they take up in those cases?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. They can call upon anybody if they anticipate it will produce fruitful results.
  Mr. WHELER: May I ask how they are to anticipate, and how do they know that?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a secret. I do not think it would be wise for me to give it away.
  Mr. CASSELasked why Income Tax under Schedule A, in respect of rents and royalties payable to mine owners, is not classified among Land Values Duty; and in what respect such Income Tax differs from Mineral Rights Duty so as to make Mineral Rights Duty fall within the category of Land Values Duties, while such Income Tax is excluded from the category?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: While income derived from the ownership of minerals comes under the same general law of taxation as income derived from any other source, the Legislature has imposed a further duty on mineral rights on account of the monopoly value of this particular class of property. In the circumstances, Income Tax on income derived from minerals and Mineral Rights Duty are appropriately placed in different categories.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that the Mineral Rights Duty is purely a percentage of income, and has nothing whatever to do with the valuation of property?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me in reply to a question to enter into a general argument which occupied a whole afternoon once last year.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether it has been the practice previously to give the amounts collected in respect of Mineral Rights Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, Reversion Duty, and Increment Duty, separately, and, in particular, whether this was done on the 15th November, 1911; and what has happened since the last-mentioned date to make a change in this respect necessary or desirable?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first question—assuming that it relates to an unexpired year—is in the negative; the answer to the second question is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in refusing to give these details to the House last week, explained that he was following the ordinary practice

  1175
  of not anticipating in such matters the annual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious that there is a distinction in this respect between information given when little more than half the financial year has expired and information given a few weeks before its close, but I agree with the hon. Member that uniformity is desirable, and I propose that in future the old practice shall be strictly followed.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that the figures were given separately on the 15th November, which was after the expiration of a considerable period of the year, and has the recent departure from that practice anything to do with speeches recently delivered at the Albert Hall?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The practice is not to give the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not follow the answer to the question.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it not the fact that the figures were given up to the 7th November as regards undeveloped land alone, and in respect of the uncompleted year then current?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have discovered that I have stated that already, and given an explanation of it.

  Customs Port Clerks.
  Mr. WHELERasked (1) whether, under the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services, it is proposed to extend the hours of service of the Customs port clerks from seven to eight hours per day; and whether the increased pay of these clerks will amount to £3 a year; (2) whether the examination which had to be passed by Customs port clerks before entering the Service was of a superior character to that of the Excise and Customs assistants; and whether, under the fusion of the three grades of clerks, the chances of promotion of the Customs port clerks will be lessened?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The points raised in these two questions have already been brought before me by the clerks concerned, who have made certain representations to me, as to the effect on their position of the Hobhouse Report at one deputation,
  1176
  and are coming to see me again. Meantime, I would ask the hon. Member to excuse me from expressing an opinion on particular points forming part of the general case.

  Tuberculosis (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked whether any of the gentlemen appointed to the Committee of Inquiry into the problem of tuberculosis are professors of the veterinary profession; and, if not, whether, in View of the intimate connection of the problems of human and animal tuberculosis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to add such representation to the Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion before the Chairman of the Committee.

  Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to be able to expedite the Treasury concurrence in the Admiralty proposals on the Macnamara Staffing Committee's Report, so as to enable a reply to be given to the petition sent in four years ago by the Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation, their pay having remained practically stationary for a period of over thirty years?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my predecessor on 12th December last.

  Undeveloped Land Duty (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked whether there are numbers of leaseholders in Ireland for a term of 10,000 years who are called upon to pay Undeveloped Land Duty at the rate of from £600 to £1,000 per acre, whereas holders of fee farm grants, which are not regarded as more valuable than these leases, are exempt from this duty; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take any steps to have this alleged grievance remedied?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 21st instant to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

  Development Commission (Salary of Vice-Chairman).
  Captain GILMOURasked what is the salary of the vice-chairman of the Development Commission, and if any change has been made in the amount of it since the institution of that office?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The salary of the new vice-chairman will be £1,500 a year. The late vice-chairman received a personal salary of £3,000 a year.

  Local and Imperial Finance (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish forthwith, and from time to time the evidence given before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Relations of Local and Imperial Finance so as to enable persons interested to determine whether it is desirable for them to submit any and, if so, what evidence in reply; and what are the terms of the reference to the Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Committee hope to complete by the end of next month an important part of their evidence, chiefly that offered by representative associations; it is proposed to publish this instalment as soon as it is ready. The terms of reference were given in a reply by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 3rd April, 1911.

  Afforestation.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state at what date the scheme of afforestation prepared by the Board was submitted to the Treasury; and whether it has yet been approved or is likely to be so at an early date?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board's scheme for the development of forestry was submitted to the Treasury on 17th February, 1911. Certain sections of the scheme bearing on education and experiments in forestry have been approved by the Commissioners and the Treasury, but the main proposals are still under consideration. I have lately appointed an Advisory Committee further to advise the Board in this connection.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will any steps be taken to hasten the decision of the Commissioners as to the main proposals now heard before the Commissioners?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; that is one of the objects of appointing the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will any opportunity be given to this House to discuss this very important matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what sort of opportunity the hon. Gentleman desires.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I wish to know whether upon the Estimates or otherwise this scheme will be open to discussion in the House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It will be impossible to discuss it on the Estimates unless Monday is taken for the purpose, and I cannot make any announcement as to that.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is this Advisory Committee purely for England and Wales, or will it be for Scotland also?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is for the purpose of taking into consideration the whole problem of forestry for England, Scotland, and Wales. Whether the Development Commission will give a separate Grant for Scotland I am not able to say; I do not know.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will this Advisory Committee have anything to do with the Scottish Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Advisory Committee has no control whatever over the work of the Board. It is purely an Advisory Committee, and if the Scottish Board does not wish to take the advice of the Advisory Committee it need not do so; nor need I.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. RENDALLasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture will give a Table showing what portion of the sum of £200,000 granted by the Treasury in 1908 on account of the Small Holdings Act has been expended, giving the amounts spent in each year, and the various heads under which such expenditure has been made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The amount voted by Parliament in 1907–8 for the purposes of the Small Holdings Account was £100,000, not £200,000, and I shall be glad to circulate with the Votes a classified statement showing the expenditure out of the account in each financial year to the 26th instant, inclusive. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. BATHURST: May I ask what is left at the present time to the credit of this account?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say off-hand. I think something like £35,000.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the total amount of land, exclusive of houses and buildings, bought by county councils for the purposes of the Small Holdings Acts; the total purchase price of same; what the sinking fund charges for capital and interest are per annum on such amount; and the total amount of sinking fund charges on the houses and buildings found upon the land at the time of purchase and on the new houses, buildings, and alterations to existing buildings erected by the county councils?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot give all the figures to-day, and perhaps the hon. Member would postpone his question until Monday.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: When the right hon. Gentleman gives the answer, will he separately mention the amount in each country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think I could give that in reply to a question. If the hon. Member cares to put down an un-starred question I should be glad to circulate a full statement like that with the Votes.

  African Railways.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give any information regarding the proposed construction of a railway from Beira to the Zambesi and thence into Nyasaland; and, if so, whether he can state what are the proposed financial arrangements for the construction of the line?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): In reply to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury on the 19th instant. I have only to add that the Portuguese Government have now agreed in principle to the construction of the line in their territory. The financial arrangements, so far as we are concerned, are, briefly, that the Government of the Nyasaland Protectorate will repurchase at a total cost of £180,800 the subsidy
  1180
  lands to which the Shire Highlands Railway Company are entitled under their agreements with the Government, and will further guarantee for ten years interest at 4 per cent. on the capital (not exceeding £500,000) of the company, which will be formed to construct the line from the Zambesi to Port Herald.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I ask if, when the scheme is further advanced, the right hon. Gentleman will have a sketch map of the proposed route put in the Library for the convenience of Members?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall keep the House informed if they let me have a little time.

  Panama Canal.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked whether, in view of the approaching opening of the Panama Canal, His Majesty's Government will undertake to make inquiry as to the desirability of providing better docking and repairing facilities at Kingston?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is not easy to forecast the situation which will result from the opening of the Canal, and I can only say at present that His Majesty's Government have not lost sight of that aspect of it to which the hon. Member's question refers.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will they make inquiry?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am keeping myself constantly informed of all the facts.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked whether an American syndicate contemplates spending £300,000 to provide new docks and harbour at Kingston, Jamaica; and, if so, whether he can take any steps to secure that British capital should be employed in any such enterprise; and whether, in view of the early opening of the Panama Canal, he can make any statement to the House as to the intentions of the Government with regard to providing further facilities for trade and shipping in Jamaica and other West India islands?
  Mr. HARCOURT: My hon. Friend has, no doubt, seen the statement which appeared in the "Times" of the 23rd instant. I have not yet received any communication from the Government of Jamaica on the subject. As regards the general question, I am not in a position to go beyond the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member for North Down.

  Mombasa Waterworks.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether official sanction has yet been given to the now waterworks scheme at Mombasa; and, if so, what progress, if any, has been made with the work?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The expenditure required in connection with the scheme has been sanctioned, and an engineer is at present employed in locating a suitable alignment for the pipe which is to convey the water from the spring in the Shimba Hills to Mombasa.

  Civil Service Appointments.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the forthcoming inquiry into appointments in the Civil Service will include the case of temporary boy clerks and boy messengers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister is unavoidably absent. There is no intention of excluding this subject from the consideration of the Commission.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether it is a tradition of the Civil Service that in making appointments and promotions political opinions are not inquired into; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to take a new departure by inquiring what political views were held by public servants at a date anterior to their appointments?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): The tradition is as stated by the hon. Member, and His Majesty's Government do not intend to depart from it.
  Mr. KING: May I ask what is the meaning of the Return in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or whether it is intended to grant that Return?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is intended to grant that Return, but as to the precise meaning that the right hon. Gentleman himself attaches to the language the hon. Member had better inquire from him.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman also grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset?

  Home Rule Bill.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if he will state if the decision whether or not the Report of the Committee upon the Financial Relations between Ireland and Great Britain shall be presented to this House will be come to in time to enable the Report, if the decision is in the affirmative, to be laid upon the Table of the House before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I have nothing to add to my statement of the 19th instant that it would be contrary to precedent to produce the Report of a Committee of this nature before legislation either founded upon it or ignoring it has been presented to Parliament.
  Mr. MOORE: Will it be produced after the legislation?
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question to the Prime Minister at a later date.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in the forthcoming Home Rule Bill, is going to adopt the recommendations of the Commission appointed by them to inquire into the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): It is not possible for me at this stage to make any statement on the matter.
  Mr. HORNER: Was there a recommendation at all made by this Secret Committee; if so, was it announced by the Committee, and was it so adverse that the Government would not disclose it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Member had better postpone that question until the Prime Minister is here.
  Mr. JOHNasked the Prime Minister whether, under the provisions of the measure the Government propose to introduce for the establishment of self-government in Ireland, it will still be competent for Irish Members of this House to oppose Welsh Private Bills dealing exclusively with local affairs, as in the case this Session of the Bedwellty Urban District Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill for the better government of Ireland.

  Marriage Laws.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain persons legally married in our Colonies find themselves no longer man and wife when they set foot on these shores; and whether he will institute either an inquiry or legislation with the object of obtaining uniform marriage laws throughout the British Empire?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the legal position. Marriages which are legally celebrated in British Colonies are recognised as legal in this country. With regard to the latter part of the question, I regret that I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on the 22nd February of last year.
  Mr. KING: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a case in point and on all fours with my question, will he look into it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of ultimately arriving at uniform marriage laws for the whole British Empire, he will expressly exclude from the powers of the Irish Parliment under the Home Rule Bill any right to pass legislation affecting marriage?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): It is not possible for me at this stage to make any statement on the matter, and I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask if the Government have not yet come to a decision as to whether or not the new Parliament can legislate on the lines of the Ne Temere Decree?

  Lord Lieutenant (County of London).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether any appointment has been made as Lord Lieutenant of the county of London?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): No, Sir, no appointment has yet been made.
  Mr. KING: Will an appointment be made shortly?

  Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many smiths'
  1184
  hammermen there are employed at the Royal dockyards at Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, and Sheerness, and the rates of wage paid them at the several yards?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of hammermen employed is as follows:—Chatham, 172; Devonport, 145; Portsmouth, 188; Sheerness, 27. Hammermen are classed as skilled labourers, and their rates of pay are within the scale allowed for the class, namely, 22s. minimum, ordinary maximum 26s. 6d. for established men, and 28s. for hired men, with special rates for limited numbers up to 28s. 6d. for established men, and 30s. for hired men.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any of the men at Devonport have received an increase?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into the details of Devonport and communicate them to the hon. Member?
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the granite to be supplied to Rosyth dockyard is now being delivered from the Norwegian quarries; and if any tests have been made or proof obtained that such granite possesses the lasting qualities of Scotch or Cornwall granite?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): The granite for Rosyth dockyard is being delivered from Norwegian quarries. The tests which have been made are satisfactory, and it is considered that the granite being delivered is in every way suitable for Admiralty purposes.
  Mr. FELL: Have there been any tests as to durability?
  Mr. LAMBERT: If the hon. Gentleman is in the neighbourhood I would invite him to go and look at the granite for himself.

  Post Office Servants.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements that the same rate of pay shall be given to postmen employed at Sutton Coldfield, a district adjoining Birmingham, and to Erdington, a district recently added to the city of Birmingham, as are given to Harborne, Moseley, Selly Oak, Stirchley, Aston, and other places in the immediate neighbourhood?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The present classification of the offices in question was decided upon in 1908 after full consideration of all the circumstances, and in view especially of the forthcoming Parliamentary Committee I do not see my way to revise it.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Erdington and Sutton Coldfield the postmen are paid 25s. per week. Whereas in the places named in the question, they are paid 27s. per week, though they are exactly the same district with the same expenses of living and the same expense of rent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Wherever there is a boundary line there are variations on either side of it.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of this district in Erdington is now in the City of Birmingham, so that there is no boundary line?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would be impossible to open and reopen the question of classification as it affects Birmingham alone. There are a great many questions affecting other towns, and in fact almost all the towns of the country where similar claims are made, and the House will probably appoint a Select Committee to look into questions relating to Post Office servants in a few weeks. I am afraid the question of classification cannot be reopened until that Committee has reported.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will that be a subject within the reference to that Committee?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, certainly the Committee will have power to inquire into the question.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Select Parliamentary Committee of 1906 on Postal Servants commenced its sittings about one month after the first public announcement that it had been granted, and that statistics necessary for the evidence of the various associations were supplied by his Department; and whether, in view of the fact that in the case of the forthcoming inquiry an interval of over five months will probably elapse between the granting of the Committee and its first meeting, he will inquire into the fact that
  1186
  his Department are declining to give certain information to the associations on the ground that the inquiry is now announced for a date much earlier than that originally fixed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member. Applications for information from the Post Office staff in connection with the forthcoming Parliamentary Inquiry have, as on the previous occasion in 1906, been complied with whenever the information has been readily available. But some of the applications have been for information of such scope and complexity that it could only be obtained at considerable inconvenience and expense, and in view of the pressure entailed on the whole clerical establishment of the Post Office, both at headquarters and elsewhere, by the transfer of the telephone system and the preparation of Departmental statistics for the Parliamentary Inquiry, I have been unable to comply with such applications. The same course was adopted in 1906.
  Mr. COOPER: May I ask if the fact that the telephone is being taken over by the Government is a just reason why postal servants should be deprived of the full and fair opportunity of stating their case to the Committee?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They will not be deprived in the least of any opportunity of stating their case to the Committee, but my staff is now so heavily pressed that it is impossible for me to lay upon it the additional burthen of making statistical inquiries for the information of the staff, which perhaps, if the work had been lighter, they would have been able to do. The course that is being taken by the Department is precisely the same as that in 1906.
  Mr. COOPER: May the postal servants rely on being granted any reasonable request, necessary for their case, not involving too much statistics?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not only may they rely upon that, but it is now being done. They have already been supplied with a great amount of information on various points.

  Postal Telegraph Service (Military Officials).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM(Dublin, Harbour)asked the Postmaster-General whether the positions of superintending

  1187
  engineers at the telegraph and telephone headquarters, Aldborough House, Dublin, were filled by military officers, in receipt of pay both from the War Office and the Post Office, and if those posts had hitherto been filled by civilians; whether military officers had also been placed in charge at Cork, Limerick, and Waterford; and if he would explain why he had substituted military men for civilians in this department of the Post Office?
  Mr. NANNETTIasked whether civilians who had been acting in the engineering department at Aldborough House, Dublin, were being superseded by Regular soldiers and ex-soldiers; whether those soldiers were receiving civil pay for their work as well as military pay; whether those soldiers were supposed to be in training for telegraph and telephone work and had to be taught by civilian engineers; and if, when promotion in the department was being made, preference was given by the military superintendent to soldiers and ex-soldiers, who were placed in charge of efficient engineers who served a long period of years in learning the details of the work, and in many cases were teachers of these men?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Military officers are now employed on engineering work in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland, as they have been employed for more than forty years in various parts of the United Kingdom, and they are paid at a composite rate which, in the aggregate, somewhat exceeds their military pay and allowances. Their numbers are no greater than before, but they are now employed chiefly in Ireland, rather than in England, at the wish of the War Office, which finds it can assimilate their training more closely to actual service conditions in Ireland. Naturally, this change results in the employment of fewer civilians on engineering duty in Ireland, and of more in the districts from which the Royal Engineers were withdrawn. The officers still serving as Royal Engineers cannot disturb the promotion of the civilians, since they are not on the same establishment. I am aware of no complaints of partiality or favouritism.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise was given in this House that when the superintending engineer retired on a pension the position would be filled by a civilian, and that that promise has not been carried out? Also, has a civilian who was in charge been
  1188
  sent to Glasgow, and a soldier appointed in his place? Is not this—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of these details.
  Mr. MOORE: Having regard to the fact that the attack on these soldiers is entirely political, will any safeguard be provided for them in future legislation?
  Mr. NANNETTI: I entirely repudiate that suggestion. May I ask for an answer to my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked three or four questions of detail in respect of certain individuals. He cannot expect the Postmaster-General to be able to reply on such points without notice.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Postmaster-General whether soldiers were being trained in Dublin and elsewhere in the engineering departments of the Post Office so as to be able to cope with any emergency in the telegraph and telephone service; if a portion of their duty was to learn such work as would fit them to act as strike-breakers in trade disputes; if during the late railway strike in Ireland they actually helped the railway companies, both by driving engines and handling goods; and whether at the present moment a company of engineers were being trained at Crewe and other stations for that purpose?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The soldiers who are being trained in the engineering department of the Post Office are being so trained because it is desirable for military reasons that a certain proportion of soldiers should be acquainted with telegraph engineering duties. Since their employment has continued for over forty years it has no reference to recent or existing labour disputes. Neither in Dublin nor elsewhere are soldiers in the Post Office service trained to act as strike-breakers or employed on any other than the normal and ordinary duties of the Post Office. If any soldiers were engaged in driving engines or handling goods, they were not men attached to the Post Office. The last portion of the question refers to a matter of which I have no cognisance.

  Green Park (Walk).
  Colonel BURNasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why the broad

  1189
  gravel walk through the Green Park from Piccadilly to the Mall which was recently made was being again laid down in grass, and what was the approximate cost of this change?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The walk is being laid down in grass in order to improve the vista from Piccadilly of the Queen Victoria Memorial, accommodation for pedestrians being provided by the construction of two foot-paths in the avenues on either side of the Broad Walk. No charge falls on public funds in respect of this work.
  Mr. LEE: May we take it that this change has nothing whatever to do with the proposed site for the King Edward Memorial?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what fund this work is charged?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The Queen Victoria Memorial Fund.
  Colonel YATE: To what fund was the original work of turning the walk from grass to gravel charged?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: To the same fund.
  Colonel YATE: What was the cost?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot expect the hon. Member to give details of that kind without notice.

  County Court Registrars and High Bailiffs.
  Mr. COOPERasked if the staff of the registrars and high bailiffs of County Courts were appointed and their salaries fixed and paid by the Home Office, or by the judge or higher officials of the County Court in which they were employed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The registrars are appointed by the County Court judge, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. The high bailiffs are appointed by the judge. All are removeable from office by the Lord Chancellor. Salaries are settled by the Treasury under limits prescribed by Statute, the Lord Chancellor's concurrence being required in certain cases.

  Convict Prison Officers.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked whether a reduction was contemplated in the number of convict prison officers; and whether the duties hitherto discharged by convict prison officers were to be discharged in future by local prison officers?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of convict prison officers varies from year to year with the number of convicts. Owing to the the fall in the number of convicts, it has become possible to close the convict wing of Wakefield Prison, and the convict prison officers employed there will be absorbed in other convict prisons. It has further been decided to staff the Maidstone Prison with local prison officers, the discipline and routine at that prison being substantially the same as in local prisons, and to staff the new prison at Camp Hill for persons under sentence of preventive detention with convict officers. This will absorb the Maidstone convict staff, and will also involve an addition of twelve new convict officers.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain heavy expenses have been incurred by convict prison officers being removed?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I will look into that.

  Metropolitan Police (Employment in Wales).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether any part of the expense of sending members of the Metropolitan police force to Wales in the course of last year had been or would be a charge on the rates, or whether the whole of such expenditure had been or would be paid out of Imperial funds; and, if so, under what Vote?
  Mr. McKENNA: No part of the expenditure in question will remain a charge on the Metropolitan police rates. Provision for paying it from Imperial funds has been made in the Vote for Police (England and Wales) in the Estimates for the next financial year—but of course without prejudice to its ultimate repayment by the county of Glamorgan.
  Lord BALCARRES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reintroduce the Expenses of Police Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not reply to that question now.
  Lord BALCARRES: If the Bill is not reintroduced, will it be possible to charge this money to the county of Glamorgan?
  Mr. McKENNA: A kindred question is being decided by the Courts at the present time. Meanwhile, I should not like to express an opinion as to the legal liability of the county.
  Mr. CASSEL: Has it at present been charged on the London rates? The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not remain a charge.
  Mr. McKENNA: The police are a charge upon the London rates, and any expenditure incurred by them is primarily defrayed out of the ordinary charge for the police. In cases like the one in question the money expended is recovered. As the county of Glamorgan has not yet paid the money, it will be recovered in the first instance from the Treasury.
  Mr. REMNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor distinctly told us that this money would not be charged to the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is so, and it will not be.

  Debtors (Committals).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the number of orders made to commit debtors to prison for non-payment of debts was increasing; and if he could give the numbers of the persons imprisoned for debt under such orders in each of the past three years?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will circulate the Answer with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these committals are increasing?
  Mr. McKENNA: From year to year they fluctuate. It would not be fair to say they are increasing.

  Trades Board Act (Definitions).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the definition of the term "ordinary worker" in the Trades Board Act; whether any representation had been made to define the terms by percentages of workpeople in the clothing trade earning a certain wage; if so, would he state the associations or persons making such representations; and whether a minimum wage had been fixed as a result?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): No definition of the term "ordinary worker" is given in the Trades Board Act. Application was made to the Board of Trade a short time ago by the Wholesale Clothiers' Federation to define these words, but the Board have, of course, no power so to do. Minimum time rates of wages have been proposed by the Beady-made and Wholesale Bespoke Tailoring Trade Board, but have not yet been fixed.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. DORISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he would cause directions to be given to the Registrar-General, Somerset House, that the English Census Schedules of 1851 might be searched for evidence of age by or on behalf of Irish-born claimants for old ago pensions who resided in England in 1851, and who had no other means of establishing their age qualifications for such pensions, or that certified extracts from the schedules might be issued to such claimants on payment of fees at the rates charged in similar circumstances by the Deputy-keeper of Public Records in Ireland?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and I am in communication with the Registrar-General on the subject.

  Buenos Aires Dock Workers' Strike.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the strike of dock workers and others at the port of Buenos Aires during January, 1912, and to the action of the British Consul at that port in avowing his determination of putting the strike down by forcing the crew of the steamship "Vienna," of Glasgow, and other ships to work cargo, although the crews were in danger of being shot by the strikers, and of his intention of putting the crew in prison if they refused to work cargo; and whether he is aware that the crews of six ships have been put in prison, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The attention of the-Board of Trade has been called to the strike at Buenos Aires to which my hon. Friend refers. On 29th January the Board received a cablegram from His

  1193
  Majesty's Consul stating that the dispute had come to an end, but they have no information with regard to any action taken by the Consul. I will have inquiries made in the matter and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Railway Rates and Fares.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will call for a Return of the extra revenue which has been realised by or which it is expected will be realised by the increases in rates and fares at present in force, or which it is intended to put in force by the railway companies, and the estimated cost of the increased wages, actual or prospective, which have been or are proposed to be granted for the first half of 1912?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend doubts whether it would be practicable for the railway companies to give such a return, and he does not propose to call for it.
  Mr. WARDLE: Will no steps be taken to show how much has been raised by the advances in the rates?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member can suggest anything of a practicable kind the Board will be glad to consider it.

  Metropolitan Railway Companies (Anti-Socialist Union).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Metropolitan Railway Company in subscribing £100 to the funds of the Anti-Socialist Union, which is ultra tires of the powers granted to the company by Act of Parliament; and whether he intends to put in force Section 17 of the Act of 1844 to restrain the company from such action as being subversive of the public interest?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade are informed by the railway company that they have not subscribed, and do not propose to subscribe, to this union.

  Industrial Census.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what, according to the last Census, is the industry in which in the United Kingdom and in Great Britain, respectively, the largest number of persons are engaged, and to what extent such number exceeds that of those engaged in the next largest industry in the Kingdom?
  Mr. BURNS: The information which the hon. Member asks for is not yet available.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is correct, as a Labour Member recently stated, that agriculture no longer is the leading industry of this country?
  Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Member will look at the figures of the Census of 1901 he will see that there is some justification for such a statement, if it was made. The figures reveal the fact that agriculture is fourth in order of the men and women employed, and not first.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member asked for England and Wales.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. FELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps, if any, are being taken to organise meetings of those who are not members of friendly societies or trade unions to be addressed by the official lecturers, who can explain to them the advantages which will accrue to the members of approved societies and the advantages of those who remain outside and become deposit contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is hoped that the majority of those who are not already members of friendly societies or trade unions in England will obtain the necessary information directly or indirectly through the conferences and lectures held at the request of organisations or persons who contemplate forming approved societies. If this proves insufficient further steps will be taken, as in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; and, as I announced last Wednesday, these will probably be necessary in the cases of the women and labourers of the remoter rural districts of England.
    Mr. REMNANT: How long will these lecturers have to go through their training before they are allowed to lecture on their own account?
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a circular issued in Ireland, giving no address to apply to, by the Insurance Commissioners, in accordance with instructions received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, requesting business firms to grant facilities to organising

    1195
    instructors to explain the objects and provisions of the National Insurance Act to their employés; can he set out the nature of the facilities required; and whether the cost of such is intended to be borne by the employers, the employés, or the State?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen a copy of the circular referred to. The words "National Health Insurance Commission (Ireland)" appear at the head of it and constitute a sufficient address. With regard to the nature of the meetings, I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the White Paper which I hope to circulate today. No cost is entailed beyond the lecturer's salary and expenses, which are paid by the Commission.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have sanctioned Sunday lectures by official lecturers under the National Insurance Act, paid out of public funds; and, if not, will he take steps to prohibit Sunday lectures in future?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In England two conferences on Sunday have been held with shop assistants and railway servants on their own representation that on no other day was it possible for them to assemble. In Ireland the Commissioners have sanctioned Sunday lectures on the Insurance Act which have been presided over by parish priests, and in at least one case by the Bishop of the Diocese. In Wales and Scotland no Sunday lectures have been held.
    Captain CRAIG: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is to be any restriction in regard to Sunday lectures or lecturers in any part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know of no restriction. I think it depends upon the necessity of the population.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the views of the hon. and gallant Member on the question of prohibiting meetings on Thursday?
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury what precautions are taken to ensure that in the province of Ulster the lecturers appointed by the National Insurance Commissioners who are themselves members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, United Irish League, Sinn Fein, Gaelic League, or other Nationalist
    1196
    organisations, do not use their official position to persuade people to join-these bodies for the purpose of insurance in preference to other associations more in accord with the feelings of the majority of the people of Ulster; and whether he will give instructions to such State-paid lecturers that any meetings they attend are to be free to the public Press?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Lecturers have been specifically forbidden by instructions-issued by all the Commissions to recommend one form of society for the purposes of insurance in preference to another. These instructions will be printed in the White Paper, which I hope to circulate to-day. I do not believe that any lecturer has abused his official position in the manner suggested, but I shall be quite willing to investigate at once any specific charge of any such abuse if the hon. and gallant Member has any case which he can bring to my notice. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Colchester on Thursday last, no objection will be raised to the admission of the Press where the organisations convening the conferences so desire.
    Mr. MOORE: Are these lecturers entitled to praise the Budget? Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report in to-day's "Times" by one of these lecturers called Doyle, of county Wicklow?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no authentic information on the subject; perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will communicate with me?
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it true that the Portadown Urban District Council refused to allow these lectures to be given in a hall in the hon. Member's constituency?
    Captain CRAIG: Can the hon. Gentleman state what objection there is to the Press attending meetings in order to ascertain and publish what actually goes on at these lectures?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That depends upon the nature of the meetings. There are some organisations that wish their business details discussed in connection with their becoming approved societies, and they specially ask that those business details should not be made public.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if in any of the many other countries which have national insurance there have been partisan attempts to wreck the administration of the Act?

    SEAMEN'S SOCIETY.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade what action had been taken by the Board, if any, with regard to causing the formation of the Seamen's National Insurance Society as provided for in Section 48, Subsection (4), of the National Insurance Act, 1911; and if he could state what action had been taken by the Board, if any, with reference to the preparation of the scheme for the constitution of the committee of management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society as provided for in Section 48, Sub-section (5), of the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have appointed a small Departmental Committee to advise as to the action to be taken by them under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 48 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and they understand that this Committee will submit its Report at an early date.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement with regard to the nature of the business on Thursday; and is it possible to say anything in regard to the coal crisis?
Mr. McKENNA: We propose to allocate an extra day for Supplementary Estimates, namely, Thursday, in the hope that the House will enable us to finish them and to attain Report on that evening. We shall also ask the House to give us the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill before we rise on Thursday. This Bill, it will be remembered, passed this House last Session.
It will be for the convenience of the House if I now state that on Monday next we propose to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates. I regret that I am unable to make any statment with regard to proceedings in connection with the coal crisis.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the Naval Estimates?
Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill, although uncontroversial, is a subject on which a good many
1198
Metropolitan Members would like to have the opportunity of speaking?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but the hon. and learned Member will observe that an extra day is to be given to the Estimates. I do not wish to raise any controversial point, but it is hoped that on Thursday we shall have sufficient time to finish both the Report on the Estimates and to have adequate discussion on the Police Bill.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Does that mean that the Government propose to take the Police Bill whatever time the Estimates are concluded on Thursday?
Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put himself in touch with the party officials. It is hoped we shall get that Bill on Thursday.
Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. Is not the Debate on the question of William Ball, which was interrupted last night by lapse of time, to be resumed this evening? If not I will give notice to bring the matter up.
Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Army Estimates will be circulated?
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will find them in the Vote Office now.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  COST OF LIVING.
  This day fortnight; to call attention to the increased cost of living to the people of this country, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Wheler.]
  To call attention to the question of town tenants, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Rowlands.]
  FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
  To call attention to the administration of the Fair-Wages Clause of this House with regard to Government contract, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Hudson.]
BILL PRESENTED.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To continue and amend The Light Railways Act, 1896." Presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; supported by Mr. Robertson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1911–12).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  CLASS 2.—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department."
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I desire to ask whether precautions have been taken to avoid overlapping on the question of research carried out in Ireland and that carried out in this country and in Scotland, because it seems to me quite possible that a good deal of work might be duplicated unless some precaution is taken to avoid it? I should also like to ask whether steps have been taken to ensure the free interchange of results as to discoveries in all the different countries, so that the department of research in Ireland should work as far as possible with the departments in this country, so that the results might be beneficial to both?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): Yes, the hon. Member may rest assured every care will be taken.
  Captain CRAIG: There were a large number of questions addressed to the right hon. Gentlemen by Members on this side of the House last night, and at this stage I would like him to answer one particular question, and that is as regards the new dredger. I do not see how, if the local harbours are to be kept properly dredged irrespective of their geographical situation, it can be done if we have to depend upon the service of one small dredger. I myself drew attention to that particular point before, and others touched upon the same point, but we got no answer. As everybody is aware, there are certain small harbours which constantly require dredging. The traders themselves, in some
  1200
  instances, maintain a dredger, but some of these dredgers have now become obsolete, and I am confident it will give these people great gratification to know that they will be spared the cost of providing a new dredger and that they can count absolutely upon the fairness of the Department of Agriculture to send the dredger to their assistance. I ask also whether this dredger, costing a sum of £4,250, is a new dredger constructed specially for the work which is necessary in Irish harbours or whether it is an old dredger bought at second-hand? I should also like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that unless the Department show no partiality in the use of the dredger local industries would be handicapped very much in certain quarters, as the fishing industry has been hit in many parts of Ireland owing to the partiality of the Department? If the dredger is only allowed to assist certain harbours, it would place a premium on certain places as against those who by their own industry and at their own expense have been dredging harbours. It would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would make a precise statement on the matter, and say how the work of this dredger is to be apportioned?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The dredger will be given to all harbour authorities that require it. The Department will not offer any objection. On any application made by a harbour body the dredger will, as far as is possible, be supplied. It cannot be supplied to all at once, and one dredger is too small to keep up the whole work, but certainly there will be no partisanship or partiality shown. Every application for its use will be considered. The dredger is not a new one. A new dredger would cost a great deal more, but the Department have satisfied themselves that this dredger is capable of doing the work.
  Captain CRAIG: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, because there is great interest in this matter in Ireland, whether he will not circularise all the harbour authorities in Ireland to say that this dredger will be available, and is at their disposal?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That would be rather an extraordinary duty to put upon the Department. All those authorities know perfectly well that the dredger is there, and as a matter of fact we have already many applications for it. I will consider the matter.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this dredger would only be available for work on application by the harbour authority. Does the right hon. Gentleman know there are many harbours in Ireland where, in a sense, there is no harbour authority, but where the harbour is under the control of some local person or persons. Will the dredger will be available on the application of such people as those?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I used the words "harbour authorities" in the widest sense.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOORE: I desire to say a few words as to the progress made as a result of the expenditure under Section (a) for preventing cattle disease. A great deal of money has been spent from time to time, and I should like to know what the outlook in Ireland is. I know the Vice-President says further legislation is required if this epizootic disease is to be stamped out. I am not disposed to say that that is unfair, because a diseased bull or cow may affect the whole country to the great loss of the farmers. There are other diseases in regard to which from time to time circulars and leaflets have been issued by the Department. I would like to deal with the question of red water. There is no doubt that in various parts of the country and generally on poor land, there are certain local cures.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that that point was debated at some length yesterday, and it is my duty to prevent a repetition of its discussion to-day.
  Mr. MOORE: I apologise, but I was not here yesterday.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then perhaps the hon. and learned Member will read yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not know whether the cattle disease known as warbles has been dealt with, but I know that is a disease which has resulted in most serious loss to the hide trade in Ireland. Attention has frequently been called to the injury done to the leather trade and the Irish hide trade by the presence of warbles. The Department issued a leaflet advising the smearing of every beast on its back with a mixture of train oil and sulphur in order to prevent the fly settling on the back of the cattle—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of general administration, and it must come in the discussion on the main Vote of the year.
  Mr. MOORE: This Supplementary Vote is for the investigation of diseases affecting cattle, and if I cannot raise it on this Vote surely I cannot raise it on any other Vote?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There is nothing in this Supplementary Vote dealing with the warble fly.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member himself referred to certain leaflets which have been issued by the Department on this matter showing that it is a question of the ordinary administration paid for out of the ordinary Vote.
  Mr. MOORE: Then may I put a question about another disease? There is no doubt that Johne's disease has broken out and has caused great mortality on the borders of Kilkenny and Waterford. I know the Department sent down an inspector and nothing has been heard about the matter since. If that disease spreads throughout the country it means ruin to the farmers. I also hear that the disease has broken out in Leitrim. We are voting money to investigate these diseases, and I think we ought to know what decision has been arrived at in regard to it. It is no answer to us to say that a particular disease is not included in this Vote, because what we say is that it ought to be included. I would like to know what is being done in regard to Johne's disease. What has been done by the Committee which has been appointed in the direction of investigating these three important cattle diseases which are doing so much harm to the cattle industry of Ireland?
  Mr. REMNANT: With regard to this item for agricultural research there does not appear to be any original Estimate. This is a subsequent Grant, which the Department asked for to meet a proportion of the expenses of testing agricultural seeds and diseases of plants. I want to know whether the Government are devoting money towards experiments in tobacco growing?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the original Estimate he will see that tobacco growing is provided for, and it cannot be raised on this Vote.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will any of this money be devoted to that purpose?
  The CHAIRMAN: That question was put and answered yesterday, and I cannot permit hon. Members to repeat matters which have already been dealt with at some length.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I wish to ask how far the Board of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Ireland co-operate to effect economy in regard to dealing with these diseases?
  The CHAIRMAN: Apparently the Noble Lord was not here yesterday or he would have known that that question was repeatedly put and answered.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I asked some of my hon. Friends, and I was told that this point was not dealt with yesterday.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was the first question raised by the hon. Member for Wiltshire, and it was dealt with at considerable length.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: This question was very specifically raised before, and we asked under what heads had their been collaboration between the Board of Agriculture in England and in Ireland, and we received no answer. We went on discussing the matter until eleven o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity of answering our questions.
  The CHAIRMAN: It was because hon. Members were not satisfied that I allowed the question to be put again.
  Mr. MOORE: With regard to the question of the testing of seeds, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Department tested a flax seed bought abroad, which was sent to the North of Ireland. In spite of that testing, a very heavy loss was sustained, in regard to which there were various law suits. I want to know if that loss was made up to the purchasers, who bought as a result of the Department having passed the seed as being fertile. The seed was bought in Belgium, and there was great disappointment and loss in consequence of the testing done by the Department having absolutely broken down. I want to know what steps have been taken to prevent such a deplorable loss falling again upon the local farmers.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which ought to be raised on the main Vote.
  Mr. MOORE: May I point out that this Vote is to meet the proportion of the expenditure on the testing of agricultural
  1204
  seeds, and this is a proportion of it, and why am I not allowed to raise the whole question?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was raising a question with regard to something which has been done already by the Department, for which money was voted in the original Estimate. He can raise this question again when the main Estimate comes up. The purpose for which this additional money is asked for is the only question which can be discussed now.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Why is it, when we come down to this House to raise such questions as the disease known as warbles, we are not allowed to do so because the right hon. Gentleman says that not one penny of this money has been spent upon that particular disease. We do not know what diseases are included.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement at some length yesterday, describing the way in which this money was spent, and I do not think it is right for him to repeat that statement now.
  Mr. MOORE: With reference to the incident that has passed, the Department made a grievous mistake, and I hope when the money voted by this Estimate reaches the Department they will not make a similar mistake. Surely that is a question which comes within the scope of this Estimate.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it in order for an hon. Member to argue with the Chair repeatedly?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is a matter upon which I can look after myself. The hon. Member is entitled to put the matter in the form of a question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was going to ask to what diseases of animals this money is going to be devoted. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us. We know that a certain proportion is going to be devoted to certain diseases of animals, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what diseases are going to be dealt with?
  The CHAIRMAN: I know the hon. Baronet was here most of the time yesterday, and if he looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that this matter was dealt with.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and to enable it to make good certain statutory advances."
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am very glad that the Treasury has placed this down as a Supplementary Estimate, although, strictly speaking, I do not think any such Estimate was necessary, because the Labourers Act specially provided by one of its Sections what was to happen in the event which has happened, namely, a deficiency in one of the funds to meet its natural demands. I quite agree that the circumstances of this Supplementary Estimate and the guarantee of the Treasury are very properly made the subject-matter of inquiry. I therefore desire to give the explanation that I can. By the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911, with the consent at all events of all the Members from Ireland from all parts, an extra sum of £1,000,000 was provided to supplement the £4,500,000 which had been provided by an earlier Act in order that we might proceed to increase the beneficent operation—we are all agreed now it was a beneficent operation—of building labourers' cottages for all parts of Ireland, north, south, east, and west. The question was how £1,000,000 was to be obtained. We had a precedent—I daresay the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) may think it a bad precedent—for laying our hands upon funds which seemed for the most part to be free from demand for purposes of this kind. It had been done in England, and it was also done, I believe, some time ago in Ireland. I believe the excellent library in the Four Courts was provided out of this fund, and in the Workmen's Housing Act the same Dormant Suitors' Funds were laid hands upon by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was part of the bargain that the Treasury had to be behind it. It was no question of taking money which belonged to somebody else. It was part and parcel of the whole scheme that the Treasury should in each of these Acts say the suitor need have no apprehension, because, if this fund is required,
  1206
  the Treasury will always see there is enough money in the Bank of Ireland to-meet his demands. That was the principle on which the last Act proceeded. I have looked up some observations of my own upon the subject. I had a friendly note from the hon. Baronet saying he would like to call my attention to the matter, and I therefore looked up to see what I had said. I said:—
  "I notice that there has been a mistake in some parts of Ireland in supposing that the provision in the Bill we are now reading a second time which lays hands on £36,000 cash of the Dormant Suitors' Fund, and another sum of £30,000 Consols from the same Irish money does something which the Bill of 1906 did not do. That is a mistake, because, under the provisions of the Bill of 1906, the sum of £150,000 was transferred from the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund, and the sum of £70,000 from the Ireland Development Grant. Then there was a sum equivalent to the reduction of the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and various judges These were Irish funds, which I think were very usefully employed in the reduction of the rate charge upon the ratepayers of Ireland concerning the building of these cottages. We followed that scheme in this Bill, taking from the Dormant Suitors £36,000 cash, and £30,000 Consols. Of course, the Treasury, under the provisions of this Bill, undertake to make good the money in the extremely improbable—I might almost say impossible—event of the Dormant Suitors' Fund requiring the money which is taken from it for the purposes of enabling cottages to be built. Therefore, no dormant suitor need be alarmed if he awakes from his long sleep. He will find that there is a solvent guarantor able to make good the sum. We leave balances of £112,198 and also £85,376. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who is the guardian of the funds, is satisfied they may be very properly taken and applied in the same manner as these as well as other Irish funds were applied under the Act of 1906."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1911, cols. 1167–8.]
  The Bill was passed taking these funds and providing, as I have already said, that the Treasury should bear the brunt of the transaction if it was found more money was taken from one or other of these funds, than ought properly to have been done. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, now, I am sorry to say, no more, was, as everybody—Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and all Gentlemen from Ireland—will recognise, not only an able man but an accomplished lawyer. He was the very perfection and acme of caution. I never in the whole course of my life came across a more cautious man than Sir Samuel Walker. He went into this matter with the utmost care, and, after considering it, he made certain proposals rather different from those actually carried out. He proposed we should take £40,000 Consols from one account, £10,000 from another account, and £20,000 cash from the balance at the bank. That was his proposal, and not £36,000, £20,000 cash, and a greater sum of Consols. The cash originally suggested by him was £20,000, but it was afterwards increased to £36,000. This is a fund most carefully guarded. The hon. Baronet may

  1207
  think it was not sufficiently guarded, but it had watch-dogs of very exceptional powers, because, not only was the Lord Chancellor himself everything I have described, but there was the Treasury behind fully alive to the fact that by the Act of Parliament they became eventually the persons who had to provide this money. They have a permanent Treasury official of their own in Ireland, wholly unconnected with Dublin Castle, and over whom I exercise no sort of control or pressure and no sort of influence. The Treasury suggested they would like to investigate this matter themselves. That fact was communicated to my lamented friend, Sir Samuel Walker, and I think it only fair to read the following letter which he wrote in reply:—
  "There is nothing more I desire than that the Treasury officials should investigate these figures themselves. It would be a great protection to me. Please convey that wish of mine to them. I think a Treasury official doing it here would be much the best."
  That was immediately carried out. The Treasury sent their emissary, and he was a whole long day going through the matter with the Lord Chancellor, with the result that he recommended the Treasury to alter the figures, to reduce the Consols and to increase the cash from £20,000 to £36,000. It was thought that could be safely done. That was taken from the balance at the Bank of Ireland standing to the general account of the Suitors' Fund. It was no concern of mine in any shape, form, or way. I could not get at these moneys. I was not the custodian of them. It was entirely a matter for the custodian and the Treasury, and emphatically was it a matter for the Treasury. The Treasury sanctioned the insertion in the Bill of these figures, including the £36,000 cash. That is the way the deficiency has arisen. Consols have in no way affected the position of the other two dormant accounts, but owing to circumstances, for which I admit I cannot wholly account, the balance, which certainly seemed a very large one at the time, when reduced by this extra amount imposed upon it—it had already borne a certain amount of depletion in respect of the working of the Housing Act—fell short. There is no question of insolvency. There is no question of anybody being kept out of his money. The whole question is the liability of the Treasury. The result has happened which often does happen when people back bills or put their names to a liability which they do not perhaps fully realise. The Treasury had to bear the brunt of this sum, and, consequently, this
  1208
  Supplementary Estimate—not necessary, because, as I say, there was no occasion to come to Parliament for it at all—was put down in order that an explanation should be given. Of course, the Treasury is the aggrieved party. The Labourers Act of 1911 was a Government measure. It was a measure to which they put their full name and authority, and this was an idea of getting a "buffer State," or, at all events, a period apparently of repose, to some extent relieving the Treasury of the full burden of their obligations.
  The House will bear in mind that under all the Labourers Acts 36 per cent. of the cost of the cottages is borne by public moneys, and the balance, 64 per cent., by the ratepayers. There has always been these contributions, the larger contribution being by the ratepayers and the smaller by the Treasury. It must not therefore be supposed by the hon. Baronet that we should not have got our Act if this "buffer State," as I call it, had not been introduced. We were bound to get the money in the interests of Ireland as a whole. This has come about in the way I have described. Consequently, it has been found necessary to provide the sum of £20,000 immediately to fill up what was taken from the bank balance, and another £30,000 may be required. We have therefore put down a Supplementary Estimate of £50,000. I am sure my poor friend, Sir Samuel Walker, who has been taken away from all troubles of this sort, would have been somewhat perturbed, but he would have rejoiced to know that he wrote the letter I have read, namely, that he was only too happy that the Treasury officials should investigate the figures for themselves. They did, and made the matter rather worse; they lightened the burden where, as a matter of fact, no great harm could be done, and they increased the burden on the weak spot. However, we shall all, I am sure, be glad to have the Treasury contribute rather more than they contemplated as their share of this public work. These things were introduced hoping to reduce the burden of the Treasury. They have failed to do so, and therefore the general body of the taxpayers has the satisfaction, or the sorrow, of contributing rather more than they at one time expected towards completing the building of labourers' cottages in Ireland. That really is, I think, a full explanation of the matter. I hope the Committee will not think I am in any way taking blame off myself. I am the last person to do that. I am altogether

  1209
  blameworthy, I know, and I am quite prepared to stand the racket of blame when I do not altogether deserve it, but in this case I had no knowledge of the figures except as they were communicated to me by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. I have no responsibility in the matter whatever. The idea of my putting pressure on Sir Samuel Walker in such a matter would be perfectly ridiculous. He went into the whole matter with care, and called the Treasury to his assistance. The Treasury went into it too, and they came to a decision in the way I have described. I agree this matter requires the fullest explanation, and I hope the Committee will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the explanation he has given on this matter. It is an important question. This is a new item. So far as I know, it has never before occurred, not only in a Supplementary Estimate, but in an ordinary Estimate. It amounts to a considerable sum. I am sorry there is no representative of the Treasury present at this moment. Someone should have been here in order to give their explanation of how it is that this sum of £50,000 is asked for. The right hon. Gentleman feels satisfaction in the knowledge that certain cottages have been built. But that is really not the point in question. The point is whether statements which were made upon the particular item now before us are statements which are correct, and whether the statements of one of the Members below the Gangway and of the right hon. Gentleman himself are borne out by the facts. The abjection that I have to the granting of this money is that it is granted in a wrong way. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a speech of his on the 31st May, 1911. But before dealing with that, I should like to ask him to look at the footnote on this Estimate, and he will see that this £50,000 is asked for for two purposes. One is pursuant to Section (4) of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, and the other is Section (1) of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911. I think I recognise the extract of one of the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. It was delivered on the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911.
  1210
  The right hon. Gentleman did not give any explanation of what took place on the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1908. If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying so, he rather avoided that point. He read out certain words, but he avoided the chief point, which was that it was impossible that this money would ever be required. That is the whole point. The understanding in this bargain was that the money would never be required. The right hon. Gentleman said it was dangerous to back a Bill. No doubt it is, but then it depends upon the person for whom you are backing it. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway gave assurances to the person called upon to back this Bill that he would never be asked to fulfil the engagement, and presumably those who gave that assurance were people who had real knowledge of the question. But the people who are to blame are those who gave this House the assurance without any real knowledge of the question. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had no knowledge of the fund.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I had the assurance given me by one who had paid the most careful attention to the matter and who, while he was very desirous that the Treasury should check the figures, came to the conclusion that the Grant, could very properly be made without any criticism. That was, of course, the Lord Chancellor of the day.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the Lord Chancellor deceived the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, no.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Or led him astray, the fact still remains, we have still to look to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I entirely agree.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Now I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of certain statements made on the Labourers (Ireland) Bill. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) said, for instance, that the rents would yield £162,500 a year, from which should be made a deduction of 30 per cent. for rates, insurance, and repairs. That would give a net rental of £114,000, leaving a deficit of £39,000. Two sources were suggested from which this might be drawn: first, the Irish Suitors' Fund—a fund consisting of moneys lodged

  1211
  in Court to the credit of pending suits. The greater part of that could not be touched, but there was a portion of it called the Dormant Fund to which no man now living or ever likely to be born could successfully lay claim.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Who said that?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That was said by the hon. Member for North Dublin, who was in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. CLANCY: It is true so far as the money portion of the Act of 1908 is concerned.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then why is it put in a Supplementary Estimate that this money is now required?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is due to the joint operation of both Acts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose some of the money goes to one and some to the other. Under these circumstances someone must have lived or must have been born since 1908 who could lay claim, otherwise it would have been impossible to arrive at the conclusion that this money will have to be payable by the State. The hon. Gentleman went on to say—and I hope he will give some explanation of these words:—
  "Strictly speaking, we ask not for a penny of British money."
  Yet here is £50,000 of British money being asked for.
  Mr. CLANCY: It is not British money only.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman did not speak of "British money only." He said, "we ask for not a 1d. of British money." If he was so scornful of British money four years ago, why does he now come down to the House and ask through his representative, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that we should pay this £50,000? I opposed this on the ground that the finance of it was wrong. I stated that on several occasions. I have read my speeches, a thing I do not often do, and I confess I am astonished at their moderation. The right hon. Gentleman a little later on made certain observations and referred to the fact that the hon. Member for West Kerry had stated that they depended solely on Irish money to finance the scheme. Evidently that is not correct. They have only depended on it for four years, and that is not a very long
  1212
  time. Then I come to another speech by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he said:—
  "Lawyers having got those funds, and the Treasury having got control over them, it was supposed that the money should be spent on legal matters. A very handsome and charming library at the Four Courts had been built out of the Suitors' Fund in the time of the present Secretary of State for India, and in that, beautiful room I have seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University pursuing his lucrative calling. But I think the time is coming when the rest of Ireland should get a benefit from the fund, and I am glad to think that the Treasury are fully in accord with me in this matter, and do not see why the money should not be invested in trust securities, and the interest from it used by way of easing the burden and making up what I am afraid will be a very considerable deficit between the obligation to pay interest on the loan and the rent from the houses themselves."
  The hon. Member for North Dublin said, further, on the Report Stage:—
  "The judges considered so much of the fund under their control as they thought would never be called upon should be released, and had stipulated that in the improbable event of any of those monies being called upon, the Treasury should, as in many other cases, guarantee their repayment."
  What I really object to is the right hon. Gentleman coming down and asking us for this money in face of the fact that when the Bills were originally introduced it was not stated that any deficiency would have to be made up by the Treasury. It must have been evident from the very beginning that this particular fund would be called upon and would be exhausted. I complain that the right hon. Gentleman did not take steps to ascertain for himself whether or not any people were likely to live who would have a claim upon this fund. I can see a reason why he did not do so. A great deal of English money was being spent at the time, and it was not thought wise to ask for a direct Grant. Therefore this fund was taken, and, in order to soothe the susceptibilities of economists like myself, we were told that it would never be required. That statement was evidently made without any grounds for it. It was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin, who I should have thought had some knowledge of the question. But evidently he knew nothing about it, and only made a statement in order to get the Bill through. I understand that, as recently as November last year, in reply to a question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir John B. Lonsdale), the right hon. Gentleman said that no deficiency had arisen in this fund and that no deficiency was likely to arise.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think I said that. I speak from memory, but I think the hon. Baronet used the expression

  1213
  "insolvent fund." I said there was no question of a fund being insolvent, because the Treasury was bound to contribute in order to make up any deficiency that might arise. That is my recollection.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I must admit that I have not looked up the matter myself. My hon. Friend told me yesterday that that was what occurred. I was rather occupied yesterday, and I had not time to look it up for myself. Of course I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I speak from memory. The hon. Member used the term "insolvent fund." I pointed out that there was no question of insolvency, because the Fund will be restored to whatever amount is required by the Treasury.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I accept that. Of course hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway having got the guarantee of the Treasury, so long as England is solvent the Fund will be solvent. That was not what was in the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh. What he wanted to know was whether the moneys in this Fund had been exhausted, and whether the Treasury would have to make up the deficiency which had arisen. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer that that occasion had not arisen. I quite see where the mistake arose. It was because the right hon. Gentleman was rather harping on the word insolvent and the word insolvency cannot be applied to anything which is guaranteed by the Treasury of England. I would like to point out that the note at the bottom of the page says this:—
  "The Suitors' Fund, having now sunk below its normal requirements, a sum of £30,000 has been temporarily advanced to it. This estimate is presented to enable the Local Government Board to cover the advance and to restore a further sum amounting to £20,000 to the Suitors' Fund."
  I do not quite understand what that means. Does it mean that all the money in the Suitors' Fund has been taken away, and that £30,000 more than there was in it has been taken away, or does it mean that there was an actual deficiency in the Fund of £30,000? Does it mean that the Treasury are to advance that sum of £30,000, and, if that is so, what is the meaning of the next few lines:—
  "This Estimate is presented to enable the Local Government Board to cover the advance and to restore a further sum."
  I do not understand the meaning of "to restore a further sum." I do not understand the difference between £50,000
  1214
  and £20,000, unless it were that the Suitors' Fund was short by £30,000, and that there is another demand for £20,000 to be taken directly from the Treasury. I am sorry that there is no representative of the Treasury present on what, after all, is an important question.
  Captain CRAIG: Move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to do that, but I think it would be a little more decent, at any rate, if there were some, representative of the Treasury present to inform us upon this point.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have sent for him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Thank you. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give me some explanation why the £50,000 is divided into the two sums of £30,000 and £20,000, and also what is going to happen in the future. I presume that might be in order for this reason, that if we vote these sums we ought to know if we are going to be called upon or not for other sums. That might affect whether or not we oppose the Vote. If there is this deficiency, and it were necessary to put the money back we might be willing to vote the money for that purpose; but I want to know, if we do that, whether it is to be taken as a precedent, and that in every February or March a further Supplementary Estimate is to be brought forward of £30,000 or £20,000.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not suggest that that occasion will arise, because Section 4 limits the amount to £84,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Shall we be asked for another £50,000?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In 1911 the right hon. Gentleman not only hoped not, but he said it would not arise. It may be possible that it will arise again. The right hon. Gentleman used the eloquent language and picturesque imagination which is at the disposal of all hon. Members below and above the Gangway to show that it was impossible that this money ever could be touched, I propose, therefore, to move a reduction in the Vote of £1,000. I do not know whether I shall divide upon it. That depends upon the further explanations from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Treasury. I move it in order to show my disapproval of the manner in which this sum has been

  1215
  asked for, and of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has allowed a fund to be used which he said never would be used, without having ascertained whether there were people who had claims upon it. That is really the secret of the whole mistake. This fund never was dormant. There were people in existence then who had a claim to the money. What he really did was to take other people's money and use it for a particular purpose. That is a very bad thing, and a very dangerous thing. With the general tendency now of being so generous with other people's money, which is increasing, not only in this House, but outside it, I feel it my duty to call the serious attention of the Committee to what has taken place, and I have therefore much pleasure in moving the reduction of £1,000.
  Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Baronet was good enough to give me notice towards the close of last week that he would quote from a speech of mine on this subject when the matter came up here to-day. From some observations he has made, it appears that he expects some explanation from me. Really I do not know that he is entitled to any explanation from any private Member. At any rate, I beg to assure him that I have nothing to explain, and that there was nothing in anything I have said or done in this matter of which I am not very proud. There is really very little in the indictment he has levelled against the Government. He has quoted me as saying that this money would never be called upon. As a matter of fact, what I really did say, and what the Act of Parliament says in plain English is, that it is very improbable that any call would ever be made upon the Dormant Suitors' Fund. The Act of Parliament says most distinctly and clearly that if it is called upon, that in the improbable event of its being called upon, then the Treasury should make it good. Where is there anything wrong in all that? The hon. Baronet was warned beforehand that there was a possibility of this Dormant Suitors' Fund being called upon.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  Mr. CLANCY: He was warned of the possibility by the very words of the Act of Parliament, and if he says he opposed it—I do not recollect whether he did so or not—then, of course, he did his duty, but the House of Commons, including the Unionist portion of the present House of Commons,
  1216
  agreed to this proposal. I do not understand what is the ground on which the hon. Baronet frames his indictment against the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is what the hon. Member calls a full warning. He said:—
  "There is a portion of it called the Dormant Fund to which no man now living, or ever likely to be born can successfully lay claim."
  They have now laid claim to the money, and therefore I say I did not have full warning, or, rather, that the warning I had was incorrect.
  Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Baronet has two or three times said that already. I repeat that it was made quite plain to the House of Commons that while it was extremely improbable that this fund would ever be called upon, at the same time it was felt it was possible that it might be called upon, and in that very improbable event the Treasury would have to make it good. It is not so exceptional a case as the hon. Baronet would like the Committee to understand. There is a precedent in England for the proceedings that have been taken in this matter. Out of what fund does the hon. Baronet imagine that the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand were built? They were not built out of a Vote by Parliament, except as to two or three small items. The money was taken out of the Dormant Suitors' Fund for England, or out of the analogous fund in the Bank of England remaining to the credit of pending suits, and of the suitors who-might turn up. If I am not mistaken—I do not pledge myself to this, because it is a good while ago that I investigated the matter—Parliament and the Treasury had afterwards to come to the rescue and vote some small sums which, on the same hypothesis, were never to be taken out of the Suitors' Fund. This extreme economic virtue which the hon. Baronet now exhibits was never exhibited then by him or anybody else.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think I was in the House at the time.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CLANCY: It was not when you were in the House. I protest against this exceptional treatment being meted out in criticism in the case of this very small matter relating to Ireland, especially when the object for which the money is used is considered—namely, the provision of houses for the most miserably-housed people in the whole civilised world. I should have thought that a representative

  1217
  of a great and wealthy community like that of London—I think I might say of the richest parts of London, should have thought it necessary to raise the question at all. It is exactly, in my opinion, because men like him raise these questions in regard to the poor that you have the labour unrest which is now patent to the world, and which perhaps the hon. Baronet may not be so unmindful of in the future as he appears to have been in the past. When the Act of 1908, for which I had some responsibility, was being framed—I say this not to excuse myself at all; I took a personal part in this transaction—I myself consulted the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he called together all the judges of the Chancery Division, and they never gave their consent to the sum appropriated under the Act until they had satisfied themselves, and so informed the Government that the money might be appropriated by that Act. After that, if I had any responsibility for the matter, I think I should be excused, but I had no responsibility whatever, and of course I do not recognise the right of the hon. Baronet to question me on the subject at all. I think it is a miserable and a paltry thing for the representative of the richest part of the British Dominions to object on any specious ground whatever to a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 being devoted to improving the housing conditions of the most wretchedly situated set of towns in the whole world, and also, I shall be greatly surprised if the Members for the North of Ireland who sit around him, including the Members for Belfast, will say a single word in support of the indictment which the hon. Baronet has made against the Government.
  The CHAIRMAN: I ought to say there has been a good deal of reference to legislation, which is not usual in Committee of Supply. We cannot discus the merits of an Act, but merely the question whether the Treasury is justified in giving the amount under the Act.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I did not understand that the hon. Baronet referred to the principle of the Act. There is a good deal in what he said that I agree with and a good deal that I disagree with. If I understood him rightly, his attack upon this Vote consisted of two parts. Roughly speaking, in the first place, he said he objected to this method by which a guarantee was given by the Treasury at all; and, in the second place, he objected
  1218
  to the Parliamentary methods by which the guarantee of the Treasury was extracted from the House of Commons. With regard to the last proposition, I admit that I think he stands upon a certain amount of foundation. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted quite frankly, and those who were associated with the Bills in their earlier stages must also admit, that perhaps the estimate formed was unduly optimistic. There is no doubt that the facts have borne that out. But then the right hon. Gentleman presses his case a little too far, because he talked to the Committee a moment ago as though this was something which was sprung upon him at a moment's notice without any warning whatever. That is not the fact. The facts are that in the case of the first Act, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1908, in the very Debate which the hon. Baronet quoted, he was told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the object of the Clause was to make it perfectly manifest that this was a double guarantee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so. Everyone, of course, must have known that there was a guarantee by the Treasury, but what I said was that we were assured that the guarantee would never be required, that there were funds which no one had any claim to, and they were sufficient to answer the purpose, and the guarantee of the Treasury was a formal thing which would not be required.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Baronet went much further than that, because he objected, not only to the method by which the guarantee was obtained from Parliament, but to the method of this form of guarantee at all. He said it was bad finance. I want to put it to him that he had full warning of the form of finance which was going to be adopted. Here is the financial Resolution on the Labourers Bill, 19th June, 1911. The first Clause says the object of the Resolution was to authorise the advance out of the Consolidated Fund of any sum necessary to meet any deficiency in the Fund of Suitors in the Supreme Court of Ireland. That Resolution was put to the House, and the hon. Baronet did not object to it, either in Committee or on Report. He said the House should have been told that they would not suddenly find that this liability had been imposed upon them. The hon. Baronet suggested that this form of guarantee was radically bad, and that it was without precedent. One precedent has been referred

  1219
  to, and I should like to point out how exactly the precedent squares with the actual facts. XXVIII. and XXIX. Victoria, Cap. 48, is the Act for the building of the Courts of Justice in London, and, just as it was proposed in the two previous Acts to have a certain amount of money, so in this Act it was proposed to take a certain amount of money. In Section 17 of the Act there is a provision, precisely analogous to this one, by which any deficiency in the Suitors' Fund is to be made up from the Consolidated Fund. My hon. Friend may say it is true that the provision existed in the Act, but it was never called upon, and no such Vote as this was ever required for the Law Courts to make good a deficiency in the Suitors' Fund. If he says that he will be wrong, because in the finance accounts for the year 1871 a sum of £18,017 19s. 11d. was voted, and in the finance accounts for 1872 a sum of £131,322 8s. 5d. was voted from the Consolidated Fund to make good a deficiency in the Suitors' Fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could the hon. Member inform me whether at the time the Irish Members were told it was to be financed solely out of English money?
  The CHAIRMAN: This may be very interesting, but it is quite out of order. It really is a discussion on the merits of legislation, and it is not in order in Committee of Supply. I must ask hon. Members to leave that point alone.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think I have shown sufficiently that this is not a new item, and is not without precedent. There is this precedent which exactly squares with the fact. I admit frankly that in my judgment there is a certain amount of optimism in the way in which the Estimate was framed. It is very unfortunate that we have no representative of the Treasury here, because, although the right hon. Gentleman is the person whom we have to blame at present, and he is responsible for the Vote, he has cast a good deal of the burden of responsibility from his own shoulders on to those of the Treasury. He said he had no knowledge of the figures, but was advised by the Treasury.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, the new Financial Secretary had nothing whatever to do with this, and I do not know that he will be able to throw any further light
  1220
  upon the matter as it stands now; but with reference to the hon. Baronet's question about what the footnote means, it means that you require a sum of £30,000 to cover the actual advances which have been necessary, and you want a further sum of £20,000 to restore the balance at the bank to what may be called a normal and a proper amount, because, of course, you cannot run to the Treasury every minute in order to cash a cheque. The custodians of the cash fund require £30,000 to make good what is absolutely necessary, and another sum of £20,000 to make the balance, the comfortable kind of balance on which the hon. Baronet and I like to draw. That is the explanation.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The thanks of the House are due to the hon. Baronet for having raised the question. The hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) made rather a violent attack on him and asked, "What is £20,000?" Surely it is the duty of every Member of the House to consider the question of the finance of the country with the greatest possible vigilance. The principle underlying the matter is one which may carry with it a certain amount of danger. The financing of various Acts from the Suitors' Fund has taken the place of a Treasury Grant. If only this matter had come before the House in the shape of a Treasury Grant it would have incurred a certain amount of criticism, whereas by the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman in taking this money from a fund it was believed that no questions would be asked. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) talks about a precedent, but two wrongs do not make a right, and I hope, in matters of this kind, the House will consider it with more vigilance than they have done in the past. The original Estimate of £107,000 is, by this means, increased by £50,000, and it comes to this, that the money has been spent and we are called upon in this House to ratify the expenditure after the money has - disappeared. That is another mode of procedure which I do not think would be commended by any Member of the House. It is a matter which affects the expenditure of the country, and one which calls for the attention of every individual Member. I would suggest that we should have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that this mode of procedure will not be followed again. There must have been some mistake in regard to this dormant suitors' account, for it appeared that it is very much alive.
  Captain CRAIG: I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment to a Division. I agree with the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) that the hon. Baronet has done the Committee great good on many occasions in pointing out these very erroneous methods of finance. The attack made by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) was quite unwarranted and unmerited, because the hon. Baronet is not opposed to the two Acts. I take it that the real objection raised by his criticism is to the method of finance adopted on this occasion. It is on that single point that he is interested at the present moment. The Chief Secretary started this Debate by giving his defence for the action he took on the occasion when the 1908 and 1909 Acts were passed. He quoted the statement then made that he believed there was no chance of this money having to be made good by the Treasury at any future time. There was a very curious divergence of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Hobhouse), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and who had charge of the finance of these measures. I have in my hand an account of the receipts given by Mr. Teening, Accountant-General to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, for a number of years. It is very significant that, in 1908, on page 3 of the report signed by the Secretary to the Treasury of that day, it is stated on the authority of the Accountant-General that the Consolidated Fund is liable for the amount of the deficiency in the event of any Court having at any time to meet the payments to suitors. The report adds that this liability may, however, be said to be nominal. I presume that was the feeling which animated the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in dealing with the two Bills to which reference has been made. It is most significant that from 1908 these words have been omitted, showing that from that year down to the present day those in charge of the fund and the auditing of the accounts of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland must have expected there would be a deficit which would have to be made up. In spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman, answering my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh, in December last said there had not been any deficiency in the Suitors' Fund. Therefore I think the House will require this matter to be cleared up. If as late as December there was no deficiency
  1222
  in the Suitors' Fund, how is it necessary now, not only to ask £30,000 to cover the actual liabilities incurred, but a further sum of £20,000 to bring the balance up to what the right hon. Gentleman considers a safe and normal balance for such an important fund.
  I would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether when consulting the Lord Chancellor of the day and the other Chancery judges, he took the trouble to consult Mr. Teening, because I think an matters of finance, although the Lord Chancellor and the other judges may be very able in their own lines of business, it does not follow that they are expert financiers, and surely on such an important matter as the voting of money in this way, even although for a temporary loan, the Government should have the best advice from the Accountant-General himself. If the Accountant-General, who is responsible for presenting the accounts in the most proper manner, put his foot down and said that he did not think this was a judicious way to deal with the fund, how was it that his decision, if there were such a decision, was overridden by the Lord Chancellor and the other Chancery judges? As to the financing of the two Bills to which the House gave absolutely unanimous approval, there is a point to which I wish to call attention. It might be that at the back of the minds of some hon. Members with respect to each Bill there was a sympathetic feeling, and that it received support in all parts of the House when it was pointed out that it was to be financed (by dormant balances, and that, therefore, it would cost nothing to this country. Hon. Members might be inclined to give support to the measure more on that ground than on the merits of the Bill, and, consequently, legislation might be got through the House through the sympathetic feeling of Members on all sides. They might say, "Here are dormant balances; the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Secretary and his colleagues give their word to this House, and the hon. Member for North Dublin gives his word that the country is never to be called upon for money," and it is possible that the House might pass legislation on this ground. Only after a short period the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and says, "They were all wrong, and instead of bringing forward legislation in this way, they should have asked the whole sum of money from the British Treasury in the first instance." The whole point is really whether in future more care will be taken by those

  1223
  concerned in the disposal of dormant balances which prove not to be dormant at all, so that legislation shall not be obtained in this House by what might almost be called false pretences. Perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell us whether a larger sum of money will be necessary to meet the deficiencies, or whether there is any intention to take the opinion of the Accountant-General on this matter. I would take his word before that of the Lord Chancellor himself as to whether bottom has now been touched, and whether the House will not be required to make good further mistakes if they have been made.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think the hon. Gentleman has made an excellent speech, and I fully appreciate the difficulty of the point he has raised. The hon. Gentleman referred to my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh in December last. At that time, when that reply was given, I was perfectly well aware that a deficiency was probable, and that it was necessary that the Suitors' Fund and the cash account should be supplied with the funds under guarantee. There was no misapprehension on that point. I wished the House to understand the circumstances, and to thoroughly understand that a deficiency was anticipated. The hon. Member referred to Mr. Teening, the Accountant-General, and asked whether he was consulted. At the time referred to Mr. Teening was unfortunately unwell. The Treasury Remembrancer went over the whole of the figures. He went into the accounts with the Lord Chancellor. I deeply regret that Mr. Teening was not able to be present during these particular negotiations in order to give the Treasury the benefit of his great experience. I want to explain to the Committee what is understood by dormant accounts. There are three accounts which are called dormant accounts. The first is the account which relates to funds not paid for a long time, and the dividends on these funds are not liable to reinvestment. About that no difficulty has arisen here. The dormant are still dormant, and long may they remain so. Number 2 is a more modern account, and in July, 1910, consisted of £90,000 of stock, and the dividends accruing on that sum which have to be reinvested. Consequently that is an account which has not been touched. Number 3 is the Land Judges' Account, which in July, 1910, amounted to £15,000 in Consols. These are called dormant accounts. Two
  1224
  of them are genuinely dormant, but it would be risky to deal with the other. Then there was a cash balance in the Bank in Ireland, out of which we had to take £20,000, but in communications with the Treasury it was suggested that instead of reducing the Consols of No. 1 Account we should take a larger sum from the cash balance. We took £36,000 from the cash balance, and it is on that cash balance that difficulty has arisen. It was not so much a dormant account, but a cash balance into which dividends were paid when they became due. In past times there was very little interference with the money which was kept at the bank in Ireland. The fact that these experienced persons to whom I have referred thought that we could take £36,000 out of that balance only shows how very difficult it is to estimate beforehand what money will be available in a fund upon which other people have a right to draw.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand you took from a cash balance on which you were giving no interest, which was a very proper transaction, instead of taking Consols on which there was interest. What was the difficulty in taking from No. 1 dormant fund and selling Consols to replace the cash balance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. 1 was not a very large account. In July, 1910, it only consisted of £51,000 Consols, and in 1908 we had taken £70,000 to assist the Housing Bill. We did not wish to take any more from that other account, because the custodians of that account did not consider that it would be safe to take away from it. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we might have replaced with Consols. I do not know how that may be. The Lord Chancellor's suggestion was to take something from No. 1, nothing from No. 2, and a little from No. 3, and £20,000 from the cash balance. But the Treasury officials came to the conclusion that it was safer to reduce the amounts taken from these-accounts and to increase the amount taken from the cash balance. It is on that increased sum of £36,000 that the difficulty has arisen. I quite see that the matter-has required some explanation, which I hope that I have given to the best of my ability.
  Mr. MOORE: I wish to draw attention to the unnecessary red tape which there seems to have been around this whole subject. This money was taken from funds in the Supreme Court of Judicature. They

  1225
  are under control of the Lord Chancellor by Act of Parliament, and if they sink below the proper amount of the security, the Treasury is to advance out of the Consolidated Fund whatever sum may be necessary to replace the amount. The only part the Local Government Board have to play in the matter is that they are recipients of the first £80,000. Once they get it they are done with it. I gather from a footnote that the Local Government Board, having got that money from the Suitors' Funds, which have to be replenished, the statutory obligation has now arisen to get from the Treasury the money necessary to replace the fund in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Why, then, is this brought under the Local Government Board Vote at all? They are surely out of the question. It is only multiplying red tape to hand it over to the Local Government Board, who have no further claim on it to be a burden on them to replace the fund.
  Mr. BIRRELL: There was really no occasion for a Supplementary Estimate at all, but the Treasury said that it was necessary to explain to the House of Commons how this came about, and as it was Local Government Board business, and as the Act of Parliament was promoted by me as President of the Local Government Board, and as the Debates took place on the Local Government Board, it was thought desirable to put it down for a Supplemental Estimate for full explanation if desired, and it was put down under the Local Government Board.
  Mr. MOORE: I quite welcome the course which the Government took in putting it down as an Estimate, but it is simply a multiplicity of red tape to put it down under the Local Government Board, who have got all they can under the Act. Why not put it down directly, by an Estimate if you like, under the Supreme Court of Judicature? You have separate Votes for that. By this Estimate you are throwing an additional burden on the Local Government Board. Instead of paying, as the Statute directs, into these funds which are in the Bank of Ireland, you are adopting this course, which is only an instance of the misconception which has run through the right hon. Gentleman's mind about this whole business.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The Chief Secretary seems to take credit to himself or the
  1226
  Treasury for having put down this Supplementary Estimate. I would like to know if that is actually the case, and is it owing to the good will of the Treasury that this Committee is discussing the question? Because, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, this taking of the money was authorised by an Act of Parliament, and if the money was needed for the ordinary purpose for which it was earmarked, then the Treasury would have to make good the deficiency. This expenditure was authorised by legislation. Surely that applies to all this expenditure of this House. Take the expenditure under the Development Fund. That does not invalidate the necessity of having an Estimate, and if more is required a Supplementary Estimate. Was it not absolutely necessary in the course of their procedure that this should be submitted as a Supplementary Estimate, as it could not have been done in any other way?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not pretend to be an authority on this matter. The Treasury themselves informed me that in their opinion no Supplementary Estimate was necessary, but it was desirable that there should be one, with which I concurred.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for North Dublin, who said that this was a question of misery or of sympathy or something of that nature, attempted to draw a red-herring across the path and enlist the sympathy of hon. Members in favour of his proposal. This has got nothing whatever to do with the object of the Bill, which I did not oppose, but I did oppose the financial part of the Bill because I thought it was unsound finance. That is what I am opposing at the present moment. I do not quite understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman about the £36,000. He says the deficiency arose from the fact that the Lord Chancellor objected to his taking a sum from the No. 1 Account, and suggested that it should be taken from the cash balance to cover the deficiency of £36,000.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. We were going to take £20,000 in cash, and it was suggested that we should take £36,000 instead of £20,000 and a less amount from the accounts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Now I understand how the deficiency arose. I wish to draw

  1227
  attention to the great contempt with which the Treasury has treated the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says that he had requested a representative of the Treasury to be here. Forty minutes have elapsed and not a single person from the Treasury has condescended to come down to the House. That is treating an important question like this with contempt, and therefore I feel compelled to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is quite true that I did get up to say that I had sent for an explanation from the Treasury, but the reply I got from the Treasury was the simple explanation which I gave about the £20,000 and the £30,000, making up the £50,000, and they could not add anything; and, being very much occupied, I told them I thought that perhaps it would meet the views of the hon. Baronet. I should be very sorry indeed if the hon. Baronet thought that they were in any way to

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES.

  [5.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, C. S.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Waller

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cassel, Fellx

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lewisham, viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Locker Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Younger, Sir George

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Sanderson.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  blame, because I told them that I had made the explanation and that I thought it was satisfactory.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not casting any blame on anyone. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely courteous, but I blame the Treasury, who seem to think that all they have got to do is to send a message down to the House that they are rather busy. What are they paid for? They are paid to come here when matters in which they are concerned arise in this House. I feel bound, in the interests of the House, to move the adjournment of the Debate as a protest against the continual disregard by the officials of the Treasury of the ordinary customs of the House of Commons.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 239.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Dowd, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hackett, J.

  O'Grady, James

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Malley, William

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Hinds, John

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hodge, John

  Pringle, M. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hogge, James Myles

  Radford, G. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Brace, William

  Hughes, S. L.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brady, P. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, J, M. (Tyneside)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, M.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Clough, William

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Leach, Charles

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lundon, T.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crooks, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  McGhee, Richard

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Devlin, Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Doris, W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duffy, William J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Waring, Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meagher, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Molloy, M.

  Webb, H.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro, R.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Neilson, Francis

  Winfrey, Richard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to divide on the Amendment for the reduction, although I think the method of finance is not a proper one. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he has taken in coming down to the Committee and thoroughly explaining his wrongdoing. The right hon. Gentleman had certain qualms of conscience, and he told us he might be blamed, and that he was prepared to take the blame. In order to encourage Ministers to take the same attitude on future occasions, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment for the reduction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS 3.—MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to have some explanation about this Vote. There are charges for inquiries before magistrates, shorthand writers, and remuneration of assessors. The first shows a small increase of £100. There is only a very short foot-note which explains that the charge is required to pay the fees of stipendiary magistrates, magistrates' clerks, and local court-keepers. I do not know whether the reason of the increase is because it was originally a bad estimate of the sum required, or whether it is due to the greater length of the sittings of the Courts. In previous years the sittings of the Courts were exactly the length of the sittings of the House of Commons, but whether it is that there are more criminals in the country or not, I do not know, but the Courts now sit for a protracted time, and for each sitting there is an additional fee of £100. I am afraid that the country is suffering very badly from the administration of the powers that be at the present moment. In regard to the remuneration there is an increase from £2,100 to £2,700, an increase of £600, or, roughly speaking, 30 per cent. I presume it is not for travelling expenses, because we have a different item for that. I should like to know why this Supplementary Vote is required on a small item of £2,100. In the case of the shorthand writers the increase is from £200 to £350, an increase of
  1232
  75 per cent. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, and perhaps he will explain to us how it becomes necessary to have this increase of 75 per cent. on the original Estimate. The fact that it is a small sum makes the case no better. It docs not matter whether it is £100 or a larger sum. It shows slovenly book-keeping, slovenly financial methods, and a disregard altogether of those sound and economical methods by which alone can the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintain control. I have endeavoured to put my questions to the hon. Gentleman as shortly as possible, and I hope he will give you some satisfactory answer on these points.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The question raised by the hon. Baronet is capable of a simple explanation, which I think has already been suggested to him by the hon. and learned Member beside him. It is impossible for the Government to forecast how many wrecks there will be, what the weather will be like, or what the size of the wrecks will be into which there will have to be inquiry in the future. Especially is that the case in three wrecks, the names of which are probably known to hon. Members, the "British Standard," the "Waratah," and the "Dunsley." These wrecks necessitated that the Court should sit longer. The scale of expenses was the same as in previous years, but on account of the length of the inquiry which took place the amount expended on the same scale was much larger. That is the simple explanation of the increased Estimate. It is an automatic increase; it depends entirely on the number of days occupied in the inquiry.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the explanation is altogether satisfactory, though it is better than I thought it would be. I do not know what the increase of remuneration of assessors means, and I beg to move to reduce Item G (Assessors—remuneration) by £100.
  Mr. FELL: I was considerably interested to know whether this increase of the Vote is due to further wrecks or the policy of the Government in increasing the salaries. We have just, been informed of the cause of the increase, and I suppose the payment is so much per day. With regard to the "Waratah"—
  The CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is Item G (Assessors—remuneration).
  Mr. FELL: Yes, assessors' remuneration with regard to the loss of the ship, but to this day I believe some people maintain that the "Waratah" was not wrecked, and that she might turn up. To this very day she is not accounted for in any way, and nothing has been heard of her.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now going back on the general question.
  Mr. FELL: Then the only question is as to the assessors, who have done more work and received more pay, and this additional expense is thrown upon the public. Whether the Department could have foreseen this or not, I think, in the case of the vessel, to the name of which I must not refer, they might have foreseen, after she was missing such a very long time, that something might be required for an inquiry. In regard to the other cases, the names of which I must not mention, I suppose they could not have been foreseen. We do not know how many wrecks or inquiries there will be next year, but we can hope that the Government, will take an average and be able to arrive at the number, so that we will not have an increase in the Vote in this manner again.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) objects to this Vote on the ground that the assessors are remunerated disproportionately from any of the other persons in the Vote. I would be better able to form a judgment whether he was right or not if I knew exactly what an assessor was and what he does. My conception is that he is a well-informed person who is allowed to give advice but not to decide, and that the judge, who is less well informed, is to form his own judgment. He may also be a person who assesses the damage done in a wreck or exercises some function of that kind. No doubt, the Attorney-General knows what an assessor is. Docs he not know? I though he looked as if he indicated a negative point of view. I should like if he would tell us what an assessor does for this additional sum of £600, and we might be told how many are paid by that £600. Those are points on which I think the Government ought to inform the Committee if the Committee is to have any control. Some people think that the Committee ought not to control the Government, but if we are to exercise any control we must know, I submit, what an assessor is, how many there are, and what they are paid.
  Mr. GRETTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Noble Lord's curiosity. I desire to carry the inquiry a little further. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the increase is automatic, but he did not tell us how the assessors are paid, and as to how the increase has arisen. I do not suppose there is anyone in the House who knows how they are paid, and whether by fee for the whole of the inquiry, or by the day, or in various amounts in the different cases. These are all questions of great importance to the maritime community, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy my curiosity with regard to them. My inquiry is really a business inquiry which would be asked by any board of directors before they pass the Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Supplementary Estimate is based on exactly the same rate of pay as is set out in the original Estimate. The only increase is due to the fact that there have been longer sittings and consequently a greater amount of pay at the same rate. The Noble Lord has asked me what an assessor is. I suppose he has heard of both nautical and legal assessors. I would refer him to the Noble Lord who sits behind him for an explanation as to what a legal assessor is, as that Noble Lord has himself sat in that capacity.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will do my best to instruct the Committee. Of course, we all know what an assessor is; but there are different kinds of assessors, and, as has been justly remarked, sometimes they may be legal and sometimes nautical. In these cases, I presume, they are nautical, and I do not know that I am familiar with the practice as to them. The Attorney-General has evaded all the other questions by saying, with that courtesy with which he always addresses us, but not with very great fullness, that the assessors are remunerated in precisely the same way as the others under the original Estimate. That still leaves us—
  The CHAIRMAN: If it is the case that this Supplementary Vote only represents an additional number of inquiries, and that there is no alteration in the remuneration or status of the assessors, we cannot discuss that subject, now, and we can only discuss the question as to the number of wrecks.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Surely we are entitled to discuss whether the extra amount we are asked to vote is a proper

  1235
  amount to vote for these assessors, and otherwise it is a pure farce to refer the Estimate to the Committee at all. If it be really true that all we can discuss is the number of wrecks that have taken place, that is not really worth asking the Committee to vote about. I submit that the only possible advantage in asking the Committee to sanction this Vote is to see that the public money is not being wasted. We must, I contend, be entitled to such information and such inquiry as will enable us to be satisfied that the money is being expended with due advantage. If that is not the case under the rules then the sooner we have an alteration in the rules of the House the better.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord was not here yesterday when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) took exactly the same point. In reply to him I pointed out that we are not permitted to go into the whole question of the General Estimates on the Supplementary Estimates. That is a well-known rule of the House. The only thing open here is the number of wrecks.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I find in the original Estimate that these assessors are different sorts of people. The Vote is for nautical engineering and other assessors £3,100, and the previous Vote was for £1,950. There is a star which says some of those assessors are officers of the Royal Navy on the active or retired lists, Therefore, I venture to submit, that those assessors are varying in profession and that their pay does not automatically rise at all, and that this increase has arisen because some of them have had to be called in and paid for their services, therefore I submit we are entitled surely to consider whether we are justified in voting this sum to those gentlemen who are so called in.
  The CHAIRMAN: If I am informed, as I am, by the representative of the Government that there is no alteration whatever in the rate or method of remuneration, and that this Vote is introduced solely owing to the increased number of wrecks, clearly I cannot allow the Committee to reopen the question of the method or mode of remuneration.
  Mr. SANDYS: If the hon. Baronet is going to press the Amendment to a Division, I shall follow him into the Lobby in view of the very unsatisfactory answer which has been given by the Attorney-General.
  1236
  The right hon. Gentleman stated that the reason for this increase was that the Government in their calculation as to the number of wrecks had made a mistake. It would have been far more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had told us how many wrecks had been estimated for the original Estimate, and how many had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his reply gave us to understand that the expenses of the inquiries were to a large extent regulated by the size of the vessels (Sir Rufus Isaacs indicated dissent). I think that is a statement which requires some further explanation, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some explanation as to the reason for these additional charges then I shall support the Amendment. I am not going to mention the vessel which the right hon. Gentleman indicated in the course of his replies, because from the ruling of the Chairman I should be, I think, out of order in dealing with any of the details involved in the catastrophe which unfortunately overtook those three vessels. With regard to one of the vessels, I certainly think that the Government might well have anticipated that an inquiry would ultimately have to be held because the wreck took place a year before the inquiry was actually concluded. The question also arises on the Vote as to why there should have been more wrecks taking place round our coast during the last twelve months. For one of the reasons the Government are, in my opinion, responsible, because they have abolished the coast guard system by which our coasts were far better protected a few years ago than has been possible since the unnecessary economies were affected by the Government. I saw reported in the papers only a few days ago a case where a vessel was seriously endangered and a largo number of lives imperilled, and the explanation given was that the coast guards were not on duty at night since the regulation—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is clearly a question of policy to be discussed on the main Estimate.
  Mr. SANDYS: I was trying to indicate that one of the reasons why there had been a larger number of wrecks, so far as our own coasts are concerned, must be the policy pursued by the Government in withdrawing the coast guards. In view of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman has not given a satisfactory reply to the very reasonable inquiries which have been

  1237
  addressed to him, and that this question of wrecks is of the very gravest importance to a nation like ours having such widespread interest in our mercantile marine in every part of the world, I shall support the hon. Baronet if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I have been trying to follow the explanation given by the Attorney-General, who said that this Vote was for the remuneration of assessors and is paid under Section 491 of the Merchant Shipping Act. That Section deals with a great many other persons than assessors. It says for instance:—
  "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to any wreck commissioner, judge of a Court of Survey, Assessor in any Court of Survey, or investigation under this part of this Act, Registrar of Court of Survey, Scientific Referee, or any other officer or person appointed for the purpose of any Court of Survey or investigation under this part of this Act, such salary or remuneration, if any, as the Treasury may direct."
  Has there been a Court of Survey in respect of which this assessors' remuneration arises, or is it solely in respect of investigations under this part of the Act? If so, are any of these assessors really what are termed in the Statute, "scientific referees"? We have had no explanation. I dare say the money has been properly spent, and that it is necessary to pay these sums; but the Committee are entitled to know what are the fees paid to these assessors, whether they are assessors in a Court of Survey, whether they have been appointed specially for the purpose of the inquiries to which the Attorney-General referred, or whether they are scientific referees. In the case of the "Waratah" there were a great number of scientific persons engaged. The questions put by

  Division No. 15.]

  AYES.

  [6.23 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Barnston, Harry

  Cassel, Felix

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cator, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cave, George

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  my hon. Friends have not been answered, and I think we are entitled to more information.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: However restricted our rights may be on this Estimate, we must be entitled to know what is the nature of the assessors who are to be paid by this money. There are different classes of assessors on wreck inquiries, some more highly paid, others less highly paid. It is evident that the amount required on this Supplementary Estimate must depend partly on whether the Government have employed the more highly paid or the less highly paid assessors. That is a matter of some importance, particularly in view of the doubts which some of us have about the way in which the Government select the officials under their control. Without making the slightest imputation in this case, I shall be glad to know who the assessors were, how they were selected, and why that particular class of assessor was selected?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought I had given the explanation, but I will repeat it The assessors in the particular cases dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate were appointed on exactly the same system, and under the same sanction, as the assessors on the original Estimate. The increase is due to more days having been occupied in the inquiries than it was thought would be necessary when the original Estimate was framed. The basis is exactly the same, the policy is the same, but the Estimate has turned out to be insufficient on account of the long inquiries which have been held.
  Question put, "That Item G (Assessors—remuneration) be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 240.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Gretton, John

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Yate, Colonel, C. E.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Younger, Sir George

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Doris, W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Armitage, R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, M.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Edwards, Clement

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockermth)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Leach, Charles

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beale, William Phipson

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lundon, T.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bentham, G. J.

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McGhee, Richard

  Boland, John Pius

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner J. F. L.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hackett, J.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clough, William

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molloy, M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hinds, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Burning

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Munro, R.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Neilson, Francis

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Delany, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  1240

  1241

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G, R. (Wolverhampton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Dowd, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Grady, James

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Rowlands, James

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Waring, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Shortt, Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Radford, G. H.

  Snowden, P.

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Winfrey, Richard

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark W.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AND COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for such of th Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  The amount asked for is much more than the original Estimate. The total sum for the Services, as explained in a foot-note, is £4,480. I think the Committee ought to have some explanation as to how that sum is arrived at. It may be a very difficult thing to estimate exactly the amount that is required to defray the cost of election petitions, but, after all, this Estimate was made and submitted to the House in March of last year, and the information in possession of the Government should have enabled them to bring this amount nearer to the real cost. I am not complaining about election petitions on principle. There is no doubt that election petitions from time to time tend to keep elections clear from corrupt practices and bribery, and they are therefore useful to candidates and those who take part in elections. But on this occasion the number of petitions is certainly abnormal, and a great many of them failed. It
  1242
  appears that in many cases the country has been put to quite unnecessary and unreasonable expense by persons calling for reports, and taking up the time of His Majesty's justices in the investigation of claims which did not sufficiently justify the statements made when these petitions were launched. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to tell us what is the cost of each one of these petitions, for I note that they took place at East Nottingham, Cheltenham, Kingston-upon-Hull, Exeter, West Bromwich, King's Lynn, and the Northern Division of West Ham.
  There is another item information about which would be of value to the Committee. It is stated that a saving to the extent of £800 have been made on money already voted, and that this £800 reduces the total sum now required. Upon what items have this saving been effected? It is a matter of some importance, because the transfer of money from one Vote to another under sanction of the Treasury is an objecionable matter. The Vote ought to come before this House, and receive the sanction of the House and Committee. Then an opportunity would occur of investigating these transfers of money from one head to another with merely Treasury sanction. Personally I hold very strong views on this matter.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I think it is only natural to expect some information about this matter. As has already been mentioned, the increase upon the original Estimate is a very large one, from £2,000 to £3,600. It is almost double the original

  1243
  amount. When you come to think that the previous Vote was only £10 it makes this Vote all the more extraordinary. There can only be two reasons for this increase: Either the Government must have miscalculated the number of election petitions or else there must have been a great many more expenses than anticipated. The Government can scarcely have miscalculated, because these election petitions have to be put in within a certain time. The Government, therefore, considerably before this Estimate was put before the House must have known how many election petitions would require to be heard. This, therefore, does not seem an adequate reason. How this extra £1,600 is justified is what I do not understand. The main cost of election petitions, of course, are borne by the parties. The judges are paid no extra salary. They get no more expenses than when they are on circuit. In many cases the petitions are tried in the Assizes Court, for which no extra rent has to be paid, and the judges themselves are lodged in the lodgings which are supplied by the county.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether it would be possible under this discussion for an hon. Member to discuss the question as to whether this was the most economic and the least expensive way of dealing with contested elections, or petitions after elections? I do not know whether it would be possible to enter into a discussion on this Supplementary Estimate of that problem—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That would not be in order.
  Mr. J. WARD: There is a very great deal that I would like to say about these election petitions, especially those that are mentioned in this list. At any rate, I should hope, when the Government are bringing forward Supplementary Estimates for a matter of this description that they might give the House some guidance as to whether they think this is the proper and economical way of deciding election petitions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is dealing with the question of policy now.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The reason for the Supplementary Estimates is that it was not foreseen at the time that the
  1244
  original Estimate was made that so much time would be consumed in making inquiries into these election petitions, although undoubtedly a considerable sum was taken into account in the original Estimates. The basis of remuneration and of expenses is exactly the same as it was in the original Estimate. There is no change made of any kind or description. The increase is due entirely to the greater number of days which were taken up in the hearing of the election petitions. Nothing new is paid. I do not quite see how, under these circumstances, there are any grounds for the criticism which has been directed at the Estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke raised a very interesting question, but one which we cannot discuss under the rules. Further, I do not think it is quite germane in respect of the £800 mentioned, but I might perhaps say that this is a sum saved on an important item of £333,000. It was consequently available for use on this Supplementary Estimate. I think that is perhaps sufficient explanation. Nobody can possibly tell how long an election petition is going to last, or, when the additional Estimates are framed, how many petitions there will be.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really think we are entitled to a little more explanation than that given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is rather hard on the taxpayers that they should be called upon to pay for the cost of these election petitions by the Liberal party. It is sufficient to wreck the reputation of the Liberal party. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Exeter?"] Well, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter remains the Member for Exeter.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine his remarks within the ruling which has already been given?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am exceedingly sorry, Mr. Maclean. I was tempted by the perhaps irrelevant interruptions of hon. Members to reply to them. I do think we are entitled to ask the Attorney-General whether he has really seen the particulars of these Supplementary Estimates. It is not really an increase of £1,600 upon the original £2,000; it is an increase of £2,480 upon the £2,000, an increase of 125 per cent. That is a very considerable increase even in an Estimate of this kind. Has the Attorney-General gone through these Estimates? Has any-body

  1245
  gone through them? Is he prepared to tell this Committee that these expenses are normal? The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that the judges have sat longer and that counsel, I suppose, have been more prolix than he expected they would be. It is rather hard for the country to be called upon to pay this additional 125 per cent. without some further explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown. The explanation given is really no explanation. All the right hon. Gentleman says is that the various items are more than expected. He really might just as well have printed at the head of the Vote a statement that the expense of these Estimates are greater because they are greater. It would save us a lot of trouble, and it would save the time of the House and of this Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend has pointed out very accurately that the increase of these Estimates is 125 per cent.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me that I stated particularly that I was dealing with the £1,600 on the Supplementary Estimate, which we were asking the House to pass. I also pointed out that I would mention the £800, as I did, although it did not arise. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction did so that I might answer his question, and I have answered it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Anybody listening to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would say that the £1,600 was all the increase that was asked for. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman said he would deal with what was asked for, £1,600, but what he was really asked is about £2,485. My hon. Friend pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the answer which he had given could not be regarded as an answer at all, because the judges got no more when they tried election petitions than when they were doing anything else. They are paid a fixed sum in the way of salaries, like Members in the House of Commons. We are paid no more because the Government makes the House sit for a longer period. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but let him show me where I am wrong. It is an extremely difficult thing for the layman to enlarge upon these legal technicalities.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I referred to the judges' allowances in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Sanderson). These are allowance
  1246
  made to the judges when they try election petitions, the same as when they go to Assizes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What are these allowances? My hon. Friend pointed out that as a rule the judges' lodgings are paid for by the county, and therefore they do not come upon this Vote, but the Attorney-General omitted to make any reference to that statement. Then he talked of allowances. What are these allowances? How many judges were there concerned? There cannot have been a very large number of extra allowances for these judges, and certainly nothing that would be sufficient to total up £2,480. I should like to know where the other expenses came from. All the expenses in connection with the trial lasting for a long time are paid by the parties to the trial. They are not paid by the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman in some case may make eloquent speeches of great length in favour of his clients, either defendant or plaintiff, as the case may be. That may increase the amount, no doubt, because he gets refreshers, and the longer he speaks the more he gets, but that is not paid by the Vote in the House of Commons. It is paid by the parties who employ him. How can the length of a trial of these election petitions have anything to do with this extra expense? The length of the trial does no doubt add expense for the parties to the trial. They have to put their hands in their pockets and pay, but that is not the question here. We are not to put our hands into the pockets of the taxpayer and pay these expenses again. I think I have shown that the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer in any kind of way the criticism of my hon. Friends.
  The right hon. Gentleman found an answer on the last Vote very successfully no doubt from the Parliamentary point of view, for we on this side of the House, not being quite as alert as hon. Gentlemen opposite, have not always seized the point. We were slightly upset by the statement of the Attorney-General and did not rise to the occasion. This time we have risen to the occasion. The right hon. Gentlman will remember the old saying, "You may fool some people some time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." The same applies to hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to give him a little piece of

  1247
  advice, and that is let him take the Committee into his confidence by telling them what the true reasons for this increase is. If he will do that he will find that his conduct is appreciated by every hon. Member on this side of the House above the Gangway—I do not attempt to speak for hon. Members from Ireland—and then the Committee will be able to exercise that control over the finances of the country which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they sat on this side of the House, were always telling us ought to be exercised.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: There is one discrepancy I find in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He said it was not reasonable to expect that the Government should know how many election petitions there were going to be, but when was the Election and when was the Estimate framed? The Election was in December, and obviously the time in which petitions could be brought expired before the Estimates were framed. They know the number of election petitions that were coming on, although they may not have known the number of days they would take; and it would appear that the Government underestimated the amount of time petitions would take by practically one-half. That is bad business, although the sum involved is not very serious. What business assembly in the world is there that would consent to do its business in the way we are doing it? When we ask questions as to how the money is spent, we get some sort of an assurance that it is all right. In any other assembly the gentlemen responsible for the spending of the money would come down and say, "It has been spent in such and such a direction." It is most unsatisfactory that we could get no detailed answer either upon this Vote or upon the last Vote, and it is impossible to say that the control of the House of Commons has been properly exercised if this is the only sort of answer we get in response to our inquiry.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The Attorney-General has not satisfied this side of the House by giving any adequate reason for this increased Vote. May I suggest that as he is not able to give us any answer or any solution for it—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is confining his remarks to the immediate matter before
  1248
  the House. His remarks as to the unsatisfactory character of the reply given from the Treasury Bench was previously used by at least three other hon. Members. It is not in order to keep repeating these observations.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. Seeing that this extra Vote is required owing to the increased cost of election petitions, is it not in order to inquire why there have been more election petitions—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lord is not in order.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether, in the event of an unsatisfactory reply being given from the Minister, Members on this side are not entitled to go on asking for a reply?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a Standing Order against unnecessary repetition.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I suggest it is not unnecessary, as we have not got an answer?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. Is it not the universal practice in this House to ask questions of Ministers, and then, if what we hear from them is not satisfactory, to move that you do report Progress, which I shall do unless we get a satisfactory answer?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Minister has, to the best of his ability, given an answer to the questions put to him. The mere fact that it is not satisfactory to every Member of the Committee would not entitle them to repeat the question for any length of time.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is it not really the rule of this House that repetition should not be indulged in by an individual Member, but that anyone who has not made a statement before can repeat the question?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the correct view of the rule.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that the repetitions refer to previous argument, and not to questions. My repetition was merely pressing a question that was not answered, and I press for an answer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought I had expressly and explicitly answered the questions put to me. I repeat again the substance of the answer, as apparently it does not seem to have gone quite home to the minds of hon. Members. What I said was that, in accordance with the ruling of the Chair, we were confined to giving the reason for the Supplementary Estimate; I have explained that the Supplementary Estimate was based entirely on the same system as the original Estimate was framed. The increase is automatic, simply arising from a greater number of days spent upon election petitions than was anticipated. There is not a single new charge or basis of charge. Every charge is exactly the same, except that it is multiplied four times more than was originally thought to be necessary. I do not know how anyone who framed the Estimate was to give with accuracy the number of days that was to be taken up with the hearing of the election petitions, or the number of election petitions that would go to trial. Moreover, the original Estimates were framed before the number of election petitions were actually known. I think therefore I have answered every one of the questions.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I think the explanation given is a little, I will not say unfortunate, but a little incomplete. I think the Attorney-General assumed much greater knowledge on the part of the Members on this side than unfortunately they are able to have. He assumes they have the same knowledge on this matter as he has. The essence of his answer seems to indicate that this charge is a charge only for extra expenses on account of the days spent by the judges in hearing petitions. I do not think that is quite right, and I do not think the Attorney-General intended that, but his answer conveyed that meaning. I ask him whether this sum does not also include the costs which are necessary at election petitions, for instance, for the attendance of the Public Prosecutor, who is represented to safeguard the interest of the public. It is necessary for the Public Prosecutor to attend and see that no public offence is committed. Another thing: a report has to be made of election petitions to Mr. Speaker, and for that purpose, if I recollect rightly, a special secretary has to be appointed for the judges at each particular place, and a report has to be drawn up by this secretary and afterwards transmitted to Mr. Speaker, and these charges are included. These are
  1250
  not charges that can be attributed to the cost of sending down judges; it is incidental to the Court. There is another charge. You have the necessary number of persons in attendance upon the judges, including their marshals. I suppose these items are included? I ask the right hon. Gentleman am I right in this, because I think it would be very unfortunate if it were to be assumed that the whole of this sum was expense incurred by the judges receiving their allowances. If I am right the Committee will have gained a certain amount of information which up to the present has not been placed at our disposal.
  7.0 P.M.
  Viscount WOLMER: This Vote is nearly double the amount of the original Estimate, and one reason given for the increase is that a great many more election petitions were brought into Court than the Government expected. Are we to understand that a year ago about half of the election petitions had so little foundation that extra expense had to be provided for?
  Mr. BUTCHER: What are the particulars of this extra sum? The Attorney-General thinks we are here simply to register formally our vote for anything we are asked to sanction. I think we are entitled to know what we are voting for. The only information which has been given to us is that this extra money is exactly of the same nature as that which has been voted before. I think we are entitled to have all the particulars of this £2,480, and I would like to know if the Attorney-General has got that information. If he has, surely he ought to give it to the House. We want to ascertain whether it is proper expenditure or not, and how can we do that unless we have the items given to us. If he has not got the information, and for some reason or other his officials have failed to provide it for him, are we not in the position of enacting an absurd farce here? We are here to protect the public purse, and if the Attorney-General has not got these details, it is his business to get them, and unless he can assure me that he has got them, I shall move the Adjournment of the Debate to give him an opportunity of getting the information.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is really becoming a matter of some importance. Hon. Members opposite seem to regard the proceedings of this Committee as a joke, but that is not the view we take of it. The

  1251
  point is that we are asked to sanction an additional Estimate beyond the Estimate originally made for certain expenses. Surely we are entitled to know whether this new expenditure has been fairly arrived at by the Government or not. We ought to be told what any man in his own business would be told. Supposing you employed a servant or an agent, and he said, "I want £2,000 for a particular business." Later on he comes back and says, "Instead of £2,000, I have spent £4,400." The business man would not be satisfied merely with the statement, "I assure you that sum has been arrived at precisely on the same basis as the £2,000," and he would probably reply, "If that is all the account you can give, the sooner you leave my service the better." That is what an ordinary business man would say. He would say, "Show me what are the figures on which you have estimated, and how has your original Estimate been increased." There were seven different petitions mentioned and several cases of miscalculation. We do not know what the original £2,000 was based upon, and we are merely told that it is upon the same foundation for the £4,480 as for the £2,000. If the Government are allowed to ride off on an explanation of that kind, there is absolutely no control at all. The hon. Member for Stoke sits there and makes offensive observations, but he takes no useful part in the Debate, while the rest of the supporters of the Government are perfectly satisfied when the Attorney-General says that this Estimate is framed on the same basis as the previous one. They do not ask how the miscalculation has been made, but they regard it as a joke when we press the matter and ask for the items which the Attorney-General could give in five minutes. We want the items of the original Estimate and those of the increased Estimate, showing how the

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Boland, John Pius

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clough, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Clynes, John R.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Beale, W. P.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cotton, William Francis

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crooks, William

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Bentham, G. J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  additional cost has been incurred. Although the Attorney-General has treated the House with great courtesy, he has failed altogether to answer the original questions put, and I shall support the Motion for a reduction.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I see the Secretary for the Treasury is now in his place, and I should like to know definitely how these Estimates are arrived at. There are two alternative ways, and if the Committee knew which method had been adopted it would be an advantage to us in exercising that control over the expenditure which we ought to have. What has happened in previous years is for the Treasury to say after a General Election, "You usually have so many election petitions and the cost will be so much," and then you strike an average and put that down as the Estimate required. That is one method of doing it. The other method would be to consider what petitions are likely to come forward and make a detailed Estimate of the expenditure under the different services for those petitions in order to see what they come to. That would be a more detailed and accurate way of making Estimates. Is that the way which has been adopted by the Treasury, or do they adopt the policy of striking an average which must be inaccurate? If the Secretary to the Treasury will inform us on that point the Committee will be obliged to him. If we do not get an answer, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 135.

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dillon, John

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, Michael

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Doris, W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyvneside)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rowlands, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Furness, Stephen W.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Gill, A. H.

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

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sheehy, David

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hackett, J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Snowden, Philip

  Hancock, John George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Havelock Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wardle, George J.

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, John (K'ldare, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Grady, James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Webb, H.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bird, A.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Fell, Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Barnston, Harry

  Cassel, Felix

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cator, John

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Becket, Hon. Gervase

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  1254

  1255

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsord)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Gretton, John

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

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

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Horner, A. L.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Younger, Sir George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Royds, Edmund

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wheler and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Question put "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted for the said service."

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [7.18 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goldman, C. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Royds, Edmund

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hills, J. W.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, J.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutslord)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Touche, George Alexander

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cassel, Felix

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cator, John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

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

  Lloyd, G. A.

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Younger, Sir George

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Shirley Benn and Mr. Astor.

  Fell, Arthur

  Neville, Reginald J. M.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 236.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Grady, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Malley, William

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

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

  Armitage, R.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hinds, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hodge, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Radford, G. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hughes, S. L.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Reddy, M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brady, P. J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Keating, M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Leach, Charles

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lundon, T.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shortt, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  McGhee, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crooks, William

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Snowden, P.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Delany, William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Derman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doris, W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, Willim J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meagher, Michael

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wardle, George J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molloy, M.

  Waring, Walter

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Munro, R.

  Webb, H.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sir RUFUS ISAACSclaimed, "That the original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Malley, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Armitage, Robert

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Radford, G. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hudson, Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, S. L.

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roch, Walter F.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Keating, M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Leach, Charles

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lundon, T.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shortt, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  McGhee, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crooks, William

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Snowden, Philip

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Delany, William

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doris, William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meagher, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Molloy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waring, Walter

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  Warner, Sir T. C. T.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Furness, Stephen

  Munro, Robert

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Webb, H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Nuttall, Harry

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

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Grady, James

  The committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 133.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray Major William

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gardner, Ernest

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

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goldman, C. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rolleston, Sir John

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Stanier, Beville

  Bird, Alfred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hills, John Waller

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Boyton, James

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Butcher, J. G.

  Horner, A. L.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Cassel, Felix

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cator, John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Younger, Sir George

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Fell.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  CROFTERS COMMISSION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Crofters Commission."
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, to be good enough to tell the Committee how this additional expense is made up. Fifty pounds more was taken this year than for the previous year in the original Estimate, and that, with this Estimate, makes an increase this year of £170 for these Commissioners. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that their functions are coming to an end that they have been having a farewell trip round their district to say good-bye to those they have been benefiting. Either that must be the case, or there have been more demands than usual for the reduction of rents, in which event
  1262
  more frequent visits have had to be paid than those anticipated in the original Estimate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what occurred.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The question is a perfectly fair one. It so happens that this year is the first year since the Crofters Act was passed that the original Estimate has been exceeded. The reason for that is that this year they were found to be many more disputes in connection with common grazing. The extra sum is not in connection with the fixing of fair rents, but is in connection with common grazing under a comparatively recent Act. Considerable expense is incurred if farms have to be visited, as they had in this case, in the Outer Hebrides.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £20. We ought to look with the greatest possible jealously at increases of this particular description. When we look at the original Estimate we find there are only five people

  1263
  who could possibly have travelled. There is the Chief Commissioner, who gets £1,000 a year and another £800 as Under-Sheriff of Renfrewshire. There are two sub-Commissioners, a secretary, a clerk and assistant clerk. I suppose the gentleman who has been attending to these grazing matters would be the grazings officer. If that is the gentleman who has had £920 of travelling this year instead of £800, I think it is a little bit of a scandal that a gentleman with a salary of £150 a year, which is presumably all he is worth, should be travelling about the distant Hebrides and other parts of Scotland at a cost of no less than £920 a year. I am aware that it is not permissible in discussing Supplementary Estimates to entrench upon the principle of granting money, but when you see a Department like this which is spending £5,000 a year, of which the duties are practically over, I think we are entitled to a little more information. That sum represents £150,000 of capital at 3 per cent., and the question arises whether it would not be cheaper to buy up some more land at a cost of £150,000, and thereby save this £5,000 a year, and all these travelling expenses. It is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that there has been extra duties to do this year. This is a very subordinate Department, which has little to do with the Crofters Commission, and yet it has cost £920 for travelling. I think we should press for some explicit statement as to how this enormous sum has been spent in travelling. If you take these five gentlemen of which the Commission consists, and of which this grazings officer with £150 a year is one, and if you divide up these travelling expenses, you find that, on the average, the gentlemen who constitute this Commission—one of whom must have spent a considerable portion of his time in Renfrewshire attending to his duties as sheriff—have spent about £200 apiece in travelling. I live in Liverpool, and I have to attend the meetings of this House, but I do not spend that much a year in travelling. If the right hon. Gentleman himself had been travelling about with the Commission, seeing that they did their duty, and he had to be attended with that state which ought to accompany a high official of the Government, I could understand £920 not being exorbitant, but in the circumstances I think these Commissioners and sub-Commissioners and the grazings officer
  1264
  have spent a great deal too much in travelling. I therefore move to reduce the Vote by £20.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: I should like to support the appeal for more particulars with regard to these travelling expenses. Nine hundred pounds is a very large sum for travelling. The right hon. Gentleman has said that communications are difficult in the Western Hebrides. Then that is true, but they are cheap. I think it would be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would give us as an illustration some comparatively minute details with regard to these expenses. He could tell us what the first-class fare would be from Edinburgh to the Lewis, what hotel accommodation was enjoyed on that voyage, whether these travelling officials had anything to do with the policy pursued in regard to certain islands, Barra and others, and whether or not the policy which the Government pursued in regard to those islands necessitated any of this first-class travelling. If we were made aware that this very large sum for travelling had been so occasioned I think a good many Members might be inclined to support the reduction which has been moved, and which I shall certainly support, unless we have some more satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SANDYS: When I first examined this Supplementary Estimate it appeared to me that the sum required was so small that we might well pass the amount without very much consideration. But after the speeches which have been made, I think there is something in the objections which have been made, and therefore the Vote requires further consideration before it is actually passed. It would be advisable that some further details should be given us, apart from the very general statement which the right hon. Gentleman thought was all that was necessary, as to whether the actual expenses have been incurred. The right hon. Gentleman made a very general statement in regard to the Outer Hebrides, and indicated that a considerable amount of additional travelling expenditure had been incurred in connection with the visit of the Commission over that portion of the sphere of their activity. But that was only a very general indication, and one particular detail of this additional expenditure, and I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give any indication as to whether that is the only direction in which their activities have been quickened or whether

  1265
  we are to assume that this Commission is now ranging over a much wider sphere than was originally intended.
  The right hon. Gentleman urged that this was the first year in which the Vote had been exceeded. That is all the more reason why a very careful investigation should be made, although the amount is a very small one. Unless that is done we are setting a very bad precedent. At the bottom of the page there is a note to the effect that the additional sum is required for travelling in consequence of the Commission being engaged in the country to a greater extent than was anticipated. What is the meaning of that phrase "in the country"? Where was the Commission originally intended to operate? Was it intended that it should examine the conditions in the great towns? Surely the whole idea of the Commission was to in-vetigate conditions in the country. I do not quite see the point of the phrase. There is another word which I do not quite understand in the Estimate. We find that an increased Estimate is required in reference to the subsistence of the men engaged in this particular work. I do not quite understand why we should be asked to sanction an additional charge for the subsistence of these men. There is no indication that there have been any increase of the staff or the personnel of the Crofters Commission. Simply because they are travelling further afield why should we be asked for an additional sum to be granted on the ground of subsistence? The matter requires a certain amount of further investigation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a more satisfactory reply than he has already given, otherwise I shall feel inclined to support the reduction.
  Mr. MORTON: The work done by this Commission has been done more economically than by any other Commission you will find in the history of this country. Those who know anything about the work know, what the hon. Gentleman does not know, that this only applies to the crofting counties, that there are no big towns at all in those counties, and that it is absolutely necessary that the Commission should visit the localities and hold inquiries. I hope they will do more work rather than less, and if any reasonable

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bennett-Goldney. Francis

  Ashley, W. W.

  Barnston, Harry

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Astor, Waldorf

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  sum is wanted to complete the grand work of the Crofters Act of 1886, for which this £120 is wanted, I hope the Committee will not object to it. I am certain that those who audit the accounts take care there is no waste. I hope, under the new Land Act, these Gentlemen will have more to do than heretofore.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I had always looked on the hon. Gentleman as the sole exponent of economy on that side of the House. Many a time when I have been speaking in the desert I have been supported by the hon. Member opposite. Now, to my horrror, he gets up and makes a speech which is slightly out of order, because he was complaining of the fact that the Government had not spent more money than they have. I am almost driven to the conclusion that it is because the money is being spent in the hon. Member's constituency, or some other hon. Member's constituency, that he has changed his whole attitude, and now become an advocate of extravagance instead of economy. The hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) showed a strict regard for consistency. He is always prepared to check the Government when they do what they ought not to do, whether it is in his own or any other constituency. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) thinks it is advisable that the travelling expenses should be increased, because I cannot see what good is done by the travelling expenses. The mere fact that the travelling expenses have been increased does not meet the argument brought forward by the hon. Member that certain good has been done. I do not know whether these people go first class or third class. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish them to go first class when there is a comfortable third class. I shall have very great pleasure in dividing with my hon. Friend, and still greater pleasure, because I think I shall have taught the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) a lesson that he really must not, because he himself is concerned, indulge in extravagence of this kind.
  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 210.

  Bird, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Hill-Wood, S.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Castlercagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horner, A. L.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Steel Maitland, A. D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Fabet, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Col C. E.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Boyton.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  NOES.

  Abraham William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Leach, Charles

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Furness, Stephen

  Lundon, Thomas

  Armitage, Robert

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Black, Arthur W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Boland, John Pius

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

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gulland, John William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hackett, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hancock, J. G.

  Mason, D. M. (Coventry)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Harmsworth, R L. (Caithness-shire)

  Molloy, Michael

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

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

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clough, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, Robert

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cullinan, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Grady, James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, Leif stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Dillon, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charlés (Armagh, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Doris, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lansbury, George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

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

  1268

  1269

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wardle, George J.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Webb, H.

  Reddy, Michael

  Sheehy, David

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Younger, Sir George

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roch, Walter F.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. G. Howard.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Rowlands, James

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate a question, justified by the fact that we are English Members still responsible for Scottish affairs, and, therefore, we ought, before voting on them, to have a sufficient knowledge of the facts. I want to ask what is exactly the position of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. I speak as an ignorant southerner, although I am, literally, of Scottish descent. I want to appreciate the functions of this official and his relations to the Controller and Auditor-General, or to the Paymaster-General of England.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question which can now be raised.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I thought as it appeared on the Estimate I would just ask the question. But I want to say a word of protest against the assumption, based on ironical laughter and similar demonstrations from the other side, that we are not entitled to go into minutiæ. That is not the opinion of Lord Morley, who once

  Division No. 20.]

  AYES.

  [8.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finabury, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Furness, Stephen

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Beale, W. P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brady, P. J.

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

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Delany, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Penman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hackett, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Doris, W.

  Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  said that if you wanted to reduce expenditure there were only two ways of doing it. This was stated in a speech the Noble Lord made in 1901. He said one way was by having a Chancellor of the Exchequer who insisted on scrutinising all Votes and keeping the expenditure down. That is not the position to-day. Then the Noble Lord went on to say that the only other way was for the individual Member to confine himself to small details. That, in fact, was one of the fundamental principles on which Mr. Gladstone acted, for when he went on a mission in connection with the Ionian Islands, it is stated he was so careful in regard to expenditure that he would not buy new luggage labels, but turned the old labels upside down so as to avoid the expense of fresh ones. I think we are entitled to see that these Crofter Commissioners do not take special steamers, and that their expenses are not excessive. I therefore think the whole Vote should be opposed.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 92.

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molloy, M.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Munro, Robert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Sheehy, David

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shortt, Edward

  John, Edward Thomas

  Neilson, Francis

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Keating, M.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Dowd, John

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Grady, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lansbury, George

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

  Wardle, George J.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Leach, Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Watt, Henry A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Webb, H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  McGhee, Richard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon Dr. T. J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Reddy, Michael

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bird, Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hohler, G. F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Horner, A. L.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnston and Capt. Morrison-Bell.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed,
  1272
  without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move, "That this House is of opinion that National Expenditure has been increased by His Majesty's Government in contravention of their pledges, so that past and future commitments of the country are a matter for serious anxiety; and considers further that recent taxation and its methods have damaged our financial credit by shaking public confidence."
The Motion is, I hope, as it is intended to be, simple and unadorned by epithets and unvarnished by oratorical devices. It is merely a statement of facts, which I intend to prove. I am only sorry that, as I understand, the very serious crisis with regard to the coal strike will prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from being present, for I should have very much liked to put my argument before him personally. No doubt he has an excellent substitute, and I shall perhaps obtain some observations, satisfactory or otherwise, from him. I propose in the first place to take this Resolution piecemeal, step by step, and prove each of its assertions. In the first place, it states that national expenditure has been increased by His Majesty's Government. I imagine few will deny that. None can deny it reasonably, and the only question really is, what is the amount of that increase? It is well to bear in mind, in the first place, that the whole of this increase since His Majesty's present Government came into office is an increase which has occurred in time of peace, and it is quite unprecedented, I believe, that so large an increase should have taken place when the nation was not at war and there was no special warlike reason for expenditure increasing.
I propose to take for the purpose of comparison the expenditure during the last year the late Unionist Government was responsible, and to contrast that with the Radical expenditure as estimated for 1911–12. I merely make a statement of facts at present. In 1905–6 the Unionist expenditure on the Navy was £33,300,000. The Radical expenditure for 1911–12 is £44,393,000—that is to say, an increase of £11,093,000. On the Civil Services—excluding old age pensions, national insurance, and payment of Members—the Unionist expenditure for 1905–6 was £28,430,000, and the Radical expenditure is now £34,373,000. That is an increase of £5,943,000. Under the Unionist Government there was no payment for old age pensions. The Radical expenditure is
1274
£12,415,000. That is increased expenditure. There was nothing for national insurance under the Unionist Government, and the estimated amount for that this year is £50,000, with prospective increases. There was nothing in 1906 for payment of Members. The amount for 1911–12 is £250,000. The Army cost £28,850,000 under the Unionist Government, while under the Radical Government the amount is now £27,690,000. That is a decrease of £1,160,000, partly the result of the reduction in our number of men and the substitution of Territorials for Regular soldiers. The total expenditure chargeable to revenue for 1905–6, including payments out of revenue to local taxation account, was £150,413,245. The Radical expenditure estimated for this year is £181,284,000. That is an increase of £30,870,755. I think I am entitled to add that the New Sinking Fund has been raided by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as compared with the year 1905–6, to the extent of £3,525,027, which makes a total increase of expenditure—adding the £3,525,027 to the £30,870,755—of £34,395,782.
It is perfectly true, and I wish to give credit to the Government where they deserve it, that the amount of debt which they have repaid in the five years they have been in office amounts, I believe, roughly, to £56,000,000 as compared with £32,000,000 in the five years immediately preceding the South African war. I give them all due praise for that action, but that action, after all, was intended to raise the price of Consols. It has not done so, and there is no indication of its doing so. I think it is worth while to call the attention of the House to the circumstance that in the last year before the South African war, which I think is the fairest year to take for this particular comparison—namely, 1898–99—Lord St. Aldwyn allotted about 7 per cent. of the revenue—£7,576,000 out of a revenue of £108,336,000—to the extinction of national indebtedness. The revenue has very largely increased, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has only allotted £6,855,000 to the repayment of national debt, or 3¾ per cent. as against 7 per cent.
To some of these increases we on this side do not object. There are three classes of increase: those to which we do not object at all, those to which we do not object on principle, and those to which we do object on principle. Obviously among those to which we do not object is the increase with regard to the Navy. Let that

1275
be perfectly clear. Nor do we object to the increases with regard to Labour Exchanges or the Post Office, because while the expenditure on the Post Office has increased the revenue from the Post Office has increased to almost a proportionate extent. The increases to which we do not object on principle are those for old age pensions and the Insurance Act. The increase to which I certainly object for myself very strongly—it may be considered a small one in one respect perhaps—is for the payment of Members, and we also object to the increase due to the creation of the large number of Government officials which all their legislation has necessitated. Take the land valuation staffs, who are appointed more particularly to value for Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Value Duty. The annual charge for salaries for the payment of these staffs, according to the Government return of last November, was £378,480. I do not know-to what figure that is likely to swell. The yield on the other hand is absurdly small, and it is also very problematical what it is going to be. The money spent on the salaries of these staffs all at once in such profusion are totally unreasonable compared with the yield produced. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robertson) is likely to ask me on this point will I repeal the Old Age Pensions Act, or the Insurance Act? The hon. Gentleman knows very well that obligations partly performed into which this country has solemnly entered, are not obligations which anybody can lightly throw aside. Naturally in those circumstances I say no. But what I do blame the Government for severely is the incurring of these liabilities all together and piling one on top of the other all at once so that they cannot be met without shaking seriously the credit of the country.
In a matter of private concern no one would dream of incurring these enormous liabilities all at once. Many of us have preached in the small clubs in our constituencies that the great secret of future success is to have a good balance-sheet and not incur undue liabilities. That applies just as much to nations as to people. I believe strongly that the real duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to incur these enormous liabilities in so wholesale a fashion, all together, but to proceed if necessary step by step. Take old age pensions. He ought to have made them contributory, and not non-contributory. I voted for that in this House, and
1276
I have a very strong opinion on the subject. He ought to have proceeded with greater caution as regards the Insurance Act, and I should have thought that he would have been wise if he had limited compulsory insurance in the first instance to permanent disablement. He could then have foreseen how the thing would work out, and acted according to the principle that in the incurring of these constant fresh liabilities it is desirable to proceed by cautious experiment. The fact is that he is far too ready to yield to influences within his own party or influences from his supporters. He is influenced also, no doubt, by Members of the Labour party, and though I do not agree as a rule with the observations of Lord Welby—in fact, I disagree fundamentally with almost every one of them—I do agree with this particular observation of his:—
"The Labour party distinctly favours expenditure. It does not recognise that strict vigilance over expenditure is essential to sound finance, and that the working, classes are deeply interested in the maintenance of sound finance."
I am sorry to say that this constant pressure from his own supporters in various quarters of the House is not sufficiently resisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far I have dealt only with past commitments. My Resolution also refers to proposed future commitments. I object still more to future commitments largely because of their indefiniteness. We really do not know where we are. We do not know to what these vague Estimates will swell, and it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's successors who will have to provide the payment. It is, no doubt, very satisfactory to escape responsibility for doing so, but the Chancellor cannot escape this responsibility if he is the man who incurs it in the manner in which he has done. The individual Members of the Government used to be fond in this House of denouncing the Unionist Government for incurring loans to meet special expenses. They all of them maintained that that was bad policy, but surely the kind of future commitment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now incurred is just as much charging posterity as any loans could have done, and is just as reprehensible, if it is reprehensible.
Take old age pensions. Where are we as regards the Estimates? The Estimate for the old age pensions is to be found in the Budget speech of the present Prime Minister delivered on 7th May, 1908. He there tells us that the maximum cost is not likely to exceed, and will probably fall somewhat short of, about £6,000,000

1277
sterling a year. What has become of that £6,000,000? What is it going to grow to? The right hon. Gentleman made that statement in the full knowledge that in the case of old age pensions in other places the Estimates had been seriously exceeded. That was so in Denmark and in New Zealand. In New Zealand, in 1898–99, the cost was £127,319. Eight years afterwards the cost was £338,084, or more than twice and a half the original amount. In the case of the United Kingdom the amount has gone up from an Estimate of £6,000,000 sterling to £12,500,000. That is to say, the Government in four years are spending on old age pensions more than double the figure which they estimated for in the beginning, and for aught we know, it may go up to £26,000,000 before very long. Translate that £12,500,000 into a capital addition to the National Debt, calculated at 3 per cent., and it means an addition of £400,000,000. Is that trivial? Is that to be undertaken airily? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done it when he combined it with all the other expenses which he has incurred. The Insurance Act, again, is estimated to have cost £50,000 this year, and it is likely to be £6,000,000 a year. I believe that is not seriously denied.
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: It has been denied on your side.
Mr. E. CECIL: We take your Estimates, which appear to be too low, and if they are anything like that amount of £6,000,000 a year it means £200,000,000 added to the National Debt. So that we have got £400,000,000 in respect of old age pensions and £200,000,000 in respect of the Insurance Act—that is to say, £600,000,000 of the amounts are capitalised, added to the National Debt—something like the total amount at which it now stands. No wonder there were searchings of heart among the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman when the National Insurance Act was passed. This is a very serious matter, in regard to which I seriously complain that he should continually foist these vast and increasing liabilities and expenses upon the nation, and, at the same time, do so in the airy way in which he has undertaken them. Where is our reserve in time of war? He does not appear to attempt to answer that. And if we had to borrow now it would be at a rate greatly above 3 per cent. Those facts are elementary; they are facts which appear to be disregarded, but which every Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have at his finger's ends. My
1278
Resolution goes on to say that all this in crease by His Majesty's Government has been made in contravention of their pledges. I do not know whether they are prepared to deny that. The history of their position is an extremely interesting one.
As a small child I remember being told that the great watchwords of the Liberal party under Mr. Gladstone were, "Peace, retrenchment, and reform." Retrenchment was one of the cardinal virtues of the old Liberal party. What has become of it now? Retrenchment was the watchword, was the pledge, I will say, by which they aspired to get into office in 1906, and it had been the attitude which they had held out, blazoned out to the country, so many years previously. In 1901 the late Lord Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Fowler) moved an Amendment on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the 20th May, 1901. He made a long speech on the subject, in which he pointed out that he thought that the then gross expenditure of the country, exclusive of war, £125,500,000, was excessive, and he wanted not merely a particular reduction as regarded the War Office, but, as his speech was directed to showing he wanted a reduction in education, the Post Office, local taxation, and so on. His Amendment was:—
"That this House, while ready to make adequate provision for the Naval and Military requirements of the Empire, is of opinion that the financial proposals of His Majesty's Government are objectionable, both with regard to taxation and to debt, are calculated injuriously to affect industry and commerce, and do not exhibit that regard for economy which the alarming increase that has recently taken place in the normal expenditure of the country imperatively demands."
For that Amendment there voted, among others, the Prime Minister, the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the present Home Secretary, the present Lord Chancellor, the present Chief Whip, the President of the Board of Trade, and other Members of the Ministry. But that is only the beginning of their action. In the following year, 1902, on the 14th May—this is after all only a sample of what other Members on that side of the House keep repeating—the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) said, in criticising Unionist finance:—
"We must revert to the principles which still survive on this side of the House—the principles of economy in finance and efficiency in administration."
The late Sir William Harcourt in 1903, on the Budget, made a memorable speech, and he concluded by observing:—
"For dilapidated finance such as yours"
(pointing with the finger of scorn to these benches)
"there remain only the sovereign remedies of retrenchment and reform."

1279
In 1904, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman spoke on the Finance Bill, on the 16th May. He made some very interesting remarks. He said:—
"I believe that the Eastern—the Oriental - fiscal method is to say, 'here is a taxable matter; let us tax it.' Here is a man with money, let us take some of it from him. But that has never been our way. Our principle has been to take only what is strictly required for public purposes. It is largely due to the watchfulness exercised over expenditure that the wealth of the country, which is being cut to pieces by taxation, is increased, and that its commerce is greatly developed."
He moved, in making this speech, the following Amendment to the Finance Bill:—
"That this House, having regard to the heavy burden of taxation proposed by this Bill in a time of peace, deems it necessary to declare its condemnation of the large and continuous increase of the national expenditure in recent years."
That is interesting, but by no means abnormal. Let us go to the next year, 1905, the year before the present Government came into office. So anxious were they to emphasise the position they intended to take up with regard to expenditure to economy, that an Amendment to the Address was moved on the 1st March, 1905. It was moved by Mr. Buchanan, who was afterwards made Under-Secretary for India. The Amendment was as follows:—
"That the increase of national expenditure has been excessive, and has imposed heavy burdens upon the people, for the relief of which it is urgently necessary that at the earliest moment the expenditure of the State should be revised and reduced."
He supported that Amendment at the end of his speech in very interesting sentences. He said:—
"The final words of the Amendment were taken from a Motion moved by Mr. Gladstone in 1857."
They were obviously following out the traditions of the Liberal party.
"A dissolution was impending, and he supposed the Government would not deny that another was impending now. Mr. Gladstone said then, and he tried to urge now, that these matters were of supreme importance to the welfare of the country, and that they should be brought prominently before the judgment of the country at the General Election, so that when the new Parliament came into being the Government which should represent its opinion should be irrevocably committed, after a full discussion before the nation, and with their approval, to a real retrenchment and a substantial reduction of our expenditure."
For that Motion the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Morley, Lord Haldane, the President of the Board of Agriculture, the Solicitor-General, the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, and others voted. In 1906, after they had taken their places on the other side, we have had one more statement to show that economy was still, I suppose, their watchword.
1280
Speaking on 30th April, 1906, the Prime Minister, after quoting figures showing the increased expenditure of Unionists, said that:—
"They (the figures) make a return to a more thrifty and economical administration the first and paramount duty of the Government."
Where are we now? Are all those pledges to be relegated to the rubbish heap now that they have served their purpose, very much like that interesting contortion of veracity which the Lord Advocate indulged in when he said that this party, the Unionist party, were going to repeal the Old Age Pensions Act when they came into office—[An HON. MEMBER: "He never said that!"]—or to be put aside like that curious statement about black bread and horse-flesh which was telegraphed all over the country, and which everybody knew was not a correct statement of the facts; or like that still more notorious terminological inexactitude about Chinese slavery? Those protestations of economy sound indeed queer when we see what His Majesty's Government have since resorted to. My Motion goes on to observe that recent taxation and its methods have damaged our financial credit. As to the recent taxation I do not propose to enlarge. Those who follow me may do so, but we all have clearly in our minds what it is. We have the enormously increased Income Tax, the preposterously increased Land Taxes, the vastly increased Death Duties, to say nothing of the Super-tax, the effect of which altogether probably makes those imposts far greater I believe, according to the authorities of Somerset House from their evidence put before the Income Tax Committee, than any other country in the world, and causes a more flagrant sense of injustice in consequence of their imposition; to say nothing of the Licence Duties, which are a particular duty on a particular trade, and for which no adequate defence has yet been given. As to their methods, we know that they have been inquisitorial, menacing demands that taxes should be paid within ten days, Government valuers prying into people's houses, Form IV., Form VIII., futile, irritating, illegal. Those are the methods that we complain of, those are the causes of the feeling of injustice which is so widespread, along with the enormous imposition of taxes themselves.
I say that those tremendous taxes have damaged our financial credit. I do not know whether the Government is prepared to deny that. One of the best tests no

1281
doubt is the value of Consols. Consols in 1905, on the average, were—[An HON. MEMBER: "Go back further."] I will do that with pleasure, but I was merely giving the year for which the Unionist Government were last responsible. In 1905 the average price of Consols was 89 13–16ths, and to-day the price is 78¾. Last year they were down to a fraction above 76. Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked me to go back. I am ready to do that, especially because I want to deal with one of the defences which I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings forward. He says that those prices are entirely discounted because of the reductions in interest which have taken place. The interest on Consols was reduced in the first place in 1888 from 3 per cent. to 2¾ per cent., and again in 1903 from 2¾ per cent. to 2½ per cent. In 1888 the price of Consols was 101. In the following year, although the interest had been reduced, and one would have expected a greater fall, the price was 98. Is that the particular figure to which hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to go back? After that reduction in interest had taken place, and in the years 1896–7–8 Consols not only rose, but went to the very high figure of 113 during those three years, and I believe some say even to 114. Coming then to the next reduction in interest in 1903, we find that in 1902 the price of Consols was 94⅜, and in 1903, when the reduction had taken place, they only went down to 90¾, so that the fall was by no means commensurate with the reduction in the interest.
I will ask the House to bear in mind, and I think it is important to do so, that when the interest is at 2½ per cent. that 83 is the price at which Consols ought to be in order to be equivalent to Consols at 100 with 3 per cent. interest. Thus 83 is the equivalent of the old par value of Consols. In 1905, when the Unionists were last in office, and bearing in mind that calculation, Consols were not 83 but 89 13–16ths, so that they were well above the old par value, and nobody could say that the national credit therefore was severely shaken so long as the Unionist Government were in office. It is a very different story now. They are not 83, they are 78, and they have been hovering at a lower figure, and, for aught I know, will go lower if this Government remains in office. There is another excuse which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very fond of making, and that is that trustees have been allowed to make investments in Colonial and other securities, which they were not able
1282
to do before 1888–89, and that their inability to do so was the cause of Consols keeping up to their then value. The field for trustee investments was widened mainly in the years 1889, 1893, and 1900. Will the hon. Gentleman really tell me that that is a cause which continues to persistently operate? I submit that it is a cause, the force of which must have become extinct. The year 1900 is now twelve years ago, and if the value of Consols was affected by these alterations, and no doubt it was to some extent, I think that the effect of those alterations is now discounted. You cannot suppose that the price of Consols will persistently fall because additional trustee investments have been allowed. So far as it has fallen, it ought to have fallen to its full extent by this time, and no further reduction can be due to that particular cause. I assert that everyone, who is not a Radical first and a financier afterwards, would admit that these were only very partial causes.
9.0 P.M.
There is, however, quite a different argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is apt to use in regard to this particular matter. He says, "Oh, the low price of Consols is quite unreasonable. Look at the excellence of our commercial returns. The increase in our external trade last year was £27,000,000. We are in a state of prosperity, and Consols are no barometer as to that prosperity." No doubt there was an increase in our external trade, but the merest tyro in politics knows perfectly well that there are cycles in the condition of our trade, that sometimes there are periods of increase and prosperity, sometimes periods of depression; sometimes fat years, sometimes lean years. No doubt we are in the midst of a cycle of prosperity at present. Our trade has increased; but you ought to look at what the trade of other countries has done. In the United States the similar figure is £40,000,000, and in Germany £60,000,000. Observe that these are not percentages of increase, but bulk increases. It is quite clear that those countries are on the crest of the wave of prosperity, whereas, to my mind, our figures show that we are in the wash and backwater. My resolution further says that this damage to our financial credit, which I submit the value of Consols very clearly shows, has been caused by shaking public confidence. I do not know whether the party opposite are prepared to doubt that they have shaken public confidence. We can test the truth

1283
of the assertion very well by taking, for instance, the price of land, more particularly in regard to its prospective building value. I will not give specific instances; possibly some of my hon. Friends will do that; but valuers who have been professionally engaged in such inquiries have told me that the prospective building value of land has almost everywhere gone down, and that it is directly owing to the Finance Act of 1909–10. Still better, or at any rate quite as well, we can take the price of British industrial securities. I have had supplied to me a few representative samples of the changes in price. I will compare the prices of February, 1906, with the prices of February, 1912, the first year being just after the General Election, when the party opposite came into power. Take for instance the London and North-Western Railway. The ordinary shares in 1906 were 160⅛, now 138¼; the debentures in 1906 were 96, now 82. Take a different kind of British industry—W. G. Armstrong. Whitworth and Co. Their ordinary shares in 1906 was 3⅛, now 2¼. Take again a different kind of trade—I am taking these largely haphazard, but they are intended to be representative of different trades—Dick Kerr and Co., Engineers and Contractors. The price of the equivalent of a £1 share in 1906 was £1 16s., now 18s. 1½d. Bass, Ratcliffe and Gretton's 5 per cent. preference stock, in 1906, 111½, now 96½. City of London Brewery ordinary stock, in 1906, 49½, now 10½. D. H. Evans and Co., drapers and silk mercers, ordinary £1 shares in 1906, 4, now 2½, In all these cases, which I have tried to make as representative as possible, the price of British industrial securities has gone down, and I submit with confidence that that shows that public confidence has been shaken.
It is an equally well-known fact that capital has been going abroad to an enormous extent. In the five years before the Unionist party left office it is on record that £114,000,000 worth of capital went abroad. In the five years after the present Government took office £387,000,000 went abroad—a vast increase, and to my mind a most obvious proof that public confidence has been shaken. I know the Prime Minister has observed before now that he rejoices in this capital going abroad. Hon. Members opposite seem to share that delight. How they imagine that the investing of British money in, say, American rails or Brazilian bonds is going to benefit this country I am at a loss to understand.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Do you include the Colonies?
Mr. E. CECIL: I do not think that figure does, but I am not quite sure as to that. It may be that it does include the Colonies. In any case, it makes very little difference. The amount of money that went abroad before the Government took office, as compared with what has gone abroad since, is something quite phenomenal, and needs a very marked explanation. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should set themselves to explain how this investment of British capital in the United States or Brazil can possibly benefit the commercial prosperity of this country. I say, on the contrary, that it shows that public confidence has been shaken. There are one or two results which have been brought about which I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can altogether rejoice over, and which I should like just to call the attention of the House to. I was in Canada last autumn, under doctor's advice, and I came across more than one person who said that he had either emigrated there himself or had friends who had done so, in order to avoid the injustices of the taxation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] I do not see that it is any laughing matter. I have no doubt they were very good emigrants. Certainly, Canada is to be congratulated upon their arrival, and I daresay that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated, from one point of view, on the result of his legislation. Nevertheless the fact remains, and I do not think that, in truth, it is altogether to the credit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is another effect that legislation of the right hon. Gentleman is having, and that is that this enormously increased expenditure is a splendid fillip to Tariff Reform. If he really wants to thoroughly unite every shade of opinion amongst his opponents the right hon. Gentleman cannot do better than increase the expenditure of the country, because it will become more and more evident that the only way of fairly obtaining revenue to meet the charges put upon the country is by Tariff Reform. Several remedies have been suggested for this vast increase of national expenditure. I know it has been canvassed as to whether it would not be desirable to institute a Standing Committee on Estimates. I think the matter is worth consideration. It may possibly be useful; but, after all, it only touches the very fringe of the question: it will not make any great difference in itself to the amount that we

1285
annually spend. Some have suggested the rehabilitation of Consols, and putting them again on a 3 per cent. basis. Others have suggested that you should repay the Income Tax of holders of Consols. I am very doubtful whether any of these remedies would be efficient, but they are worth considering. We want something much more radical than these if we are to stop this constant flow of expenditure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be so ready to give in to the doctrines of his extreme supporters. Socialism discourages the production of wealth, and weakens the sense of civic responsibility. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lend himself to the suggestions of increased expenditure so far as they come from his Socialistic supporters, and that altogether he would nerve himself, as is the absolutely necessary duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to resist increased expenditure, and not to propose it to anything like the extent he does. "Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint"—I am the spirit who is constantly saying "No." "No" should be the motto of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he ought to be much more frequently disposed to say "No," and to stick to his guns. I am sorry to say that it is not merely in that respect that we want a change. I think we want a change in the personality of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. We do not want that rude ineptitude of the Limehouse speeches, that setting of class against class, that consulting of electioneering success rather than wise statesmanship, or the seeking for popularity rather than for sound finance. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that sound finance does not mix well with party politics. In the case of a private individual we usually measure his riches or prosperity by the margin he has between his income and expenditure, and by the reserve upon which he is able to fall back. Those are excellent tests for the nation, but in the hands of the present. Chancellor of the Exchequer I am afraid the national property has been very much in the position of an estate in the hands of a spendthrift. What we really want, and what the object of this Resolution is to bring about, is a complete change. I cannot urge that better than in the words of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who, speaking on the 1st March, 1905, said:—
"Our high expenditure. … is the fruit of the policy of His Majesty's Government, and it is by changing that policy, and by such means alone, that expenditure can be reduced."
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to second the Resolution. I think that the indifferent benches opposite are characteristic of the attitude towards finance of the Liberal party at the present time. The Liberal party got into office largely upon a policy of retrenchment. They have been in office six years, and they have largely increased the national expenditure, as my hon. Friend has shown, and they have largely reduced the repayment of the debt. Now that a Motion on finance is made in a very able speech by my hon. Friend there are exactly six Members on the Government Benches. It seems to me that the motto of hon. Members is, especially in view of recent by-elections:—
"Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die."
After the very able and exhaustive speech of my hon. Friend, I propose to be quite brief. I think he has absolutely proved his point. He has proved conclusively that the Liberal party came in on a cry of retrenchment. Hon. Members know very well that, in 1906, that after the Chinese Slavery fraud the thing that gave most votes to the other side was the cry of retrenchment. I can remember in my own Constituency every hoarding being placarded with geometrical figures showing the enormous amount of extra taxes that the Conservative Government had put on the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, and the people were told that if they returned a Liberal Government there would be retrenchment in the future. My hon. Friend has referred to a Debate on the Budget in the year 1904. I remember that Debate very well. He has quoted the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Let me quote the present Prime Minister, who said, in that Debate, on 16th May, 1904:—
"The sum and substance of the Debate which has taken place in the last two nights may, I think, be fairly expressed with slight modification of language, in the closing words of a Resolution once passed by this House: 'That our expenditure has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.'"
That was what the present Prime Minister said in May, 1904. He could use exactly the same language now. Not only has our expenditure increased, and is increasing, but it is a fact the increase has been at a much greater ratio since the party opposite came into power. Take what the present First Lord of the Admiralty said in the same Debate:—
"Their expenditure was advancing by 'leaps and bounds,' and had, in fact, acquired a momentum of its own. Like an estate in the hands of a spendthrift, our financial position was steadily deteriorating, and our

1287
finances were becoming more and more demoralised. He had done his best to bring forward this question of economy during the time he had been in the House."
The right hon. Gentleman, although he had been but a short time in the House then, had been for most of that time a supporter of the Government. He has since then become a Member of the Government. Has he brought the question of economy before the House of Commons since he became a Member of the present Government. Far from it. He has been a partner in the firm which has so largely increased the expenditure in the last six years. Let us see what precisely has happened. My hon. Friend has given the figures. This party of retrenchment have increased the national expenditure by over £30,000,000 a year. It is no good saying their object is a good object. It does not matter what the object is. They came into office with the absolute cry of retrenchment in every Department. They have reduced the redemption of National Debt by £3,500,000. That is all the more serious for this reason. My hon. Friend admitted that in the first few years they were in office they paid more National Debt than the Unionists had done before. Let me point out that when the Unionists were in power the price of Consols was very high, buying of stock was very expensive and an uneconomic process—£100 in cash only cancelled about £90 of stock. At the present time £100 of cash would be worth £110 or £120 of stock, but really the figure does not matter. Now, when they might be cancelling debt to the greatest advantage to the nation, the Government have deliberately raided the Sinking Fund. That is not all. The credit of the country has gone down.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the price of Consols. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, said, "Oh, yes, but the securities of leading nations have gone down also." Have they gone down to the same extent? Consols, on the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have fallen 12 points in the last six years. Take German Imperial Three per Cents.; they have only fallen 6 points. Take French Rentes; they have only fallen 4½ points. Take Japanes Four and a Half per Cents.; they have only fallen ¾ of a point. In many of these cases, especially in the case of Japan, there has been a foreign war, yet in Japan after a foreign war their 4½ per cent. stock was only three-quarters of a point
1288
down, while our Consols in times of peace have fallen 12 points. Take the question which appeals to most hon. Members opposite, the driving of capital abroad. That seems to them to be an excellent thing. I do not know myself how, if capital is driven abroad and employs foreign labour, it is going to benefit our people in this country. At all events, I submit it is far more beneficial to have the capital invested at home. At all events, it is true that we see this process of investing abroad going on, and it is a pretty clear sign that the investor believes his money is safer abroad than at home, and that in itself is a condemnation of the present Government. In 1907, according to an estimate made by the "Statist," which is, I believe, a Free Trade paper, of British capital invested, 31.7 per cent. was invested abroad, and the proportion invested at home had fallen from 31.7 to 15.3, which fact alone shows that the plans of the present Government is to drive investors abroad.
Take another case! Look at the insecurity! Look at the failures of banks, like the Birkbeck Bank. What is it that was the cause of that failure. Not reckless finance. It was the depreciation of what was considered to be gilt-edged securities. One of the leading managers of the bank, when asked his opinion as to the real reason of the failure, did not hesitate to say it was Lloyd Georgian finance. I think, in these circumstances, we have some right to question the whole finance of the present Government.
I am not quite prepared to admit that these disastrous results have of themselves entirely followed during the whole period in which the party opposite have been in office, but rather since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office. In the first two years, I agree, there was retrenchment in some respects: there was too much retrenchment. They cut down the Shipbuilding Vote in a manner which simply meant greater expenditure later on. It is quite true also they paid off a lot of debt and did not raid the Sinking Fund in the first two years. Also the greater drop in Consols dates not from the beginning of the Government, but from the year 1908. There was a drop between 1906 and 1908, but there was a recovery. The causes which the Chancellor alleged as the reason for the depreciation in Consols had worked themselves out by 1908. There had been a recovery between August, 1907, and the spring of 1908 as between 82⅞ and

1289
89¾, but then something occurred to arrest this recovery and to cause a further fall of Consols and a further depreciation in credit, and without in any way being personal, we can only attribute that to the conduct of affairs by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think I can sum up the position in a single sentence, which may sound paradoxical but which is perfectly true, namely, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a Chancellor of the Exchequer at all.
I speak with some little experience, because I was for five years private secretary to one of the greatest of modern Chancellors of the Exchequer, I mean the present Lord St. Aldwyn, formerly Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. I know in those days, and in the case of every Chancellor of the Exchequer up to the present one, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to husband the nation's resources, to take every care of the nation's credit, to resist the expensive scheme of his colleagues, and never to propose any expenditure himself. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is exactly the opposite. He is the chief spendthrift of them all. All these expensive schemes, be they good or bad, I will not go into that matter now, emanate from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we are in this position, that whereas the Treasury used to be the watchdog of the Departments, the Treasury has now become the principal spending department in the country. That is the great difficulty, and that is the reason of the fall in our credit and the extravagance that has occurred in the last four years. Not only that, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer invented a new system of taxation which has done infinite harm to the credit of the country. His system is that you should tax a man, not according to his ability to pay, but according to the character of the property he happens to possess. That is an entirely new financial doctrine. Let me give an example. There are certain forms of property which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great dislike for. He appears to think it is absolutely wicked to be a landlord, and even criminal to be in the licensed trade. If you are a land owner or happen to be in the licensed trade, you are to have special taxes put upon you, not because you are richer than other people but because you possess that particular kind of property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer openly avowed that that was his
1290
policy. I remember his speech on 23rd March, 1910, in which he spoke of 2,500 landlords who owned the greater part of the land of this country, although I believe he was speaking inaccurately in that respect. Somebody in the audience shouted out, "Tax them out of existence," and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "Well, I have made a start." That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is not finance, and that is not the business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take his tax on mineral royalties. That is nothing more nor less than a second Income Tax. I have a relation with an income largely derived from mining royalties, and this particular person pays in respect of his income from that source a double Income Tax. Next to him there is a person who is ten times richer than he is, and he only pays a single tax. That is not justice, and that sort of taxation has done an enormous amount of harm in the direction of destroying the credit of this country.
Take the liquor trade and their treatment in the Budget of 1909. We all know that the Budget, or that particular part of it, was deliberately introduced to tack on to the Finance Act a part of the Licensing Bill which was thrown out by the House of Lords the year before. I know there were certain Members of the Government who did not care in the least whether the House of Lords threw out the Licensing Bill or not, in fact, the Lord Advocate said he was Jack easy about it, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put on a swingeing Licensing Duty and accomplish the same result. That is not finance, and that was not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I charge the Government with having deliberately, on a great many occasions, sacrificed the finances of the country to the party exigencies of the moment. Let me give one or two examples. There is the well-known examples of the Government about two years ago deliberately trying to create financial chaos. It was predicted by the Government that if the House of Lords threw out the Budget there would be financial chaos. The chaos did not come off; people paid the taxes all the same, and only 1 per cent. of the duties on tea, sugar, and spirits remained unpaid when the Budget was reintroduced in May, 1910. As the Government could not create financial chaos in that way, they deliberately created it by refusing to collect the Income Tax, thereby inflicting heavy financial loss on the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that £350,000,000

1291
was absolutely lost in the shape of Income Tax to the country. But that was not all. A great deal of Income Tax is collected at the source by joint-stock companies and banks who hold the shares. This money was deducted, and it was paid; and what did the Government do with it? They put it into a Suspense Account at the Bank of England, and would not use it themselves; and then they absolutely borowed money from the Bank of England in order to pay interest on their own money. That was done simply for a political object.
We all remember quite well a year ago, just before the 31st March, the Government asked the big railway companies and others not to pay their Income Tax until after the close of the financial year, simply because anything that was paid before the 31st March would have gone to swell the realised surplus which by law goes to the Old Sinking Fund for the payment of debt. The Government wanted that money carried over until the next year in order that they might have more money to spend. If the directors of a public company kept the funds of the shareholders in that way I think there would be a public inquiry, and they would very likely find themselves in the dock. This kind of thing has been allowed to go on openly under the regime of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the postponement of the Budget. I have not the least idea why the Budget was postponed last year to nearly the end of the year, when it was discussed under the guillotine with no possibility of discussion whatever. No doubt some party bargain was being driven with the Irish Members. Nothing does more harm to the financial position of the country or affects more the conduct of commerce than the postponement of the Budget in the way it was postponed last year. I think all our finances have suffered in consequence of the way the Government have carried on the business of the country during the last few years. My hon. Friend spoke about future commitments, and that is a very serious question. What is our position? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget speech last year that we were living in very prosperous times, that our income was growing and was likely to be at the highest point during the present year, but at the same time we are living right up to our income with no margin. With the Income Tax at 1s. 2d. in the £ we are piling up future commitments to an unknown amount.
1292
My hon. Friend mentioned old age pensions. I am not going into the merits of old age pensions for one moment, but really their finance is one of the most ridiculous things in financial history. On the 7th May, 1908, the Prime Minister estimated old age pensions would cost less than £6,000,000 a year, but on the 15th June, 1908, a month later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the ultimate charge would be £7,500,000, or an increase of £1,500,000 in one month. Last year we actually found the real cost of old age pensions was £12,415,000. A financial expert in the "Times" said that old age pensions in thirty years time would probably amount to £54,000,000 per annum, and that is a nice little legacy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is leaving for his successors in office. The finance of the Insurance Act has been so skilfully arranged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself as little money as possible during the time he is in office, and he will leave as much as can be for his successors to find hereafter. In the first place, the State does not pay 2d. a week, but only 2–9ths of the benefit, and that puts off the payment of any share of invalidity benefits for two years. Then there is the reserve values for 18½ years of which the State pays 2–9ths, and these are very largely reduced in order that the societies may pay off the imaginary debt of £66,000,000 in the very short space of 18½ years. What is the result? The Insurance Act looks very cheap when first it is brought into operation, and it remains comparatively cheap during the short time remaining that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to be in office, but after that the cost mounts up very rapidly. It is estimated that in next year's Budget it will only cost £1,388,000, and in the year after £3,677,000. After that there is a tremendous rise year after year, until we come to 18½ years, and then there is another sudden jump of no less than £1,600,000, and it is estimated that In thirty years the cost will come to about £40,000,000. That is a legacy left by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to his successors in office.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always telling us of the great revenue he is going to get from the Land Taxes. Can we believe his Estimates? Taking three taxes only—the Increment Value Duty, the Undeveloped Land Duty, and the Reversion Duty—he estimated that in June, 1910, he would get £255,000 for the coming year. What has he got? The

1293
figures are really most remarkable. Up to 7th November, 1011, the Increment Value Duty only brought in £1,950. Up to the same date the Undeveloped Land Duty had only brought in £13,900, and the Reversion Duty £7,000. Altogether, in eighteen months these wonderful Land Taxes which were to bring in £255,000 had only brought in £22,850. Here is the cost on the other side for one year. One thousand one hundred and fifty-four valuers, drawing salaries amounting to £260,000, eighteen assistants drawing salaries amounting to £2,880, 128 draughts-men, drawing salaries amounting to £12,600, and 1,001 clerks, drawing salaries amounting to £47,900. The total cost comes to £323,380, or, adding postage, rent of offices, and stationery, to £368,680. In other words, it has cost 25s. to collect every single shilling that has been brought in by the Land Taxes. These facts are quite sufficient to justify the Motion of my hon. Friend. I feel it is clearly proved the Government promised retrenchment and have never attempted to retrench. They have largely destroyed the credit of the country; they have added to the burdens of the people, and in a time of peace they have reduced the amount of money laid aside to pay off debt. For these reasons, I think it is high time there was a regular inquiry into the present course of our finance, and I beg to second the Resolution so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
Mr. RICHARDSON: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution divided his indictment against the Government under three distinct heads. He stated there was part of that expenditure to which he and those for whom he spoke were opposed, and he then went on to say there were other items to which they did not object on principle, but to which they did object on account of the method and mode of procedure adopted by the Government. In the third place the hon. Gentleman said there were specific items of expenditure where he and his Friends were very stoutly opposed to the methods adopted by the Government. In the course of his interesting speech, he said the Government had been influenced by the Labour party. We do not question for a moment that in certain directions the Government has entered upon new responsibilities, and have in some measure been influenced by the Labour party in this House and in the country. It is important to note, however, that whilst, as the hon. Gentleman was careful to point out, he and his Friends were in
1294
favour of such expenditure the Labour party do not support the growing expenditure on our Navy and on our Army. Whilst the mover was careful to say he was not opposed in principle to old age pensions, the hon. Member who seconded said the finance of the Old Age Pensions Act was simply ridiculous. I imagine it is not doing hon. Members opposite and their party any justice to suggest that their serious complaint is not to the method of procedure, but to the fact that there has been placed upon the Statute Book an Old Age Pensions Act which is non-contributory, and which gives at least an instalment, though only an instalment, of that justice which is due to the aged veterans of toil and of industry in this country.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the hon. Member refers to what I said I should like to say the statement which he has just made is a complete misrepresentation of anything I said.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I cannot be responsible for what the hon. Gentleman intended me to understand he said. I quoted his words. He said specifically that the finance of the Old Age Pensions Act was simply ridiculous.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What I simply pointed out was that these Estimates were all wrong, and that was the ridiculous part of it.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman correcting his statement, but I was very careful to note down the exact words. The hon. Gentleman is very much alarmed and concerned because of a prophecy by the financial expert of one of the leading newspapers, that within a certain number of years the total expenditure under this head will be 100 per cent. more than it is now. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume in regard to the instalment that has been conceded by this House in the form of old age pensions, given at seventy years of age, even should the Opposition come into power they will find themselves so influenced by public opinion that they will have to make further concessions in the direction of dealing more fairly with the aged veterans of toil and industry in this country.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he and his party are very much concerned and alarmed about the high taxes—the Land Tax, the Income Tax, the Super-tax, and the Death Duties. But so far as we on these benches are concerned our position is well defined in this House and

1295
is well understood throughout the country. We not only commend the Government for having accepted certain social responsibilities, and for having spent a certain sum of money for the purposes of such beneficent Acts as the Old Age Pensions Act, but we say to the Government that, so far as your Death Duties and Land and other taxes are concerned, we not only approve of your line of policy and suggest that you ought to be courageous and go much further than you have attempted to do up to the present: we want you to go further in the same direction, and to take from those people who have what they possess to-day, as the result of the underpaid labour of the industrial toilers of this country, some measure of what has been withheld from them. And, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we will not rest satisfied with the present Land Taxes, we will demand an extension of the principle, and, as regards the Income Tax, the Super-tax, and the Death Duties, we submit to the Government that, in face of the fact the expenditure for social services must inevitably increase, we express the hope that they will not hesitate to take full advantage of these sources of revenue, to see that the burdens, so far as the overtaxed working classes of this country are concerned, are relieved.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have listened with very great attention and interest to the speeches delivered by the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Resolution, and the criticism I desire to make is this, that when a statement is made as to the gross expenditure of this nation it is only presenting a partial picture if that statement is given without any reference to the growth of population, or to the social needs of the nation, or to the kind of expenditure that has taken place. My criticism is that the picture which was presented to-night by the two hon. Members was a picture lacking in these vital elements. I have not time to follow in detail the statements they made, but I want to show that the hon. Members did not give us a fair picture, or one which we can accept as accurate. The hon. Member suggested that the finance of the present Government was ruining the country, and that this was proved by the depreciation in Consols. He gave certain reasons for that depreciation. I will give one instance of his methods. He quoted the statement that one cause for the depreciation of Consols was the extension of the
1296
field of trustee securities. But then he went on to give us the date of the Trustees Act, and said the effect in depreciating Consols was expected only to be temporary, and that twelve years after the Act had been passed its influence would have ceased. But I want to point out to the House that the influence of broadening the field of investment has been a permanent, and not merely a passing, influence. It grows stronger every year. I will take another example. The hon. Member spoke of the enormous difference now in the total capital invested abroad and the total invested abroad under the Conservative Government. But he could not have been aware of the fact that the total so frequently referred to as "foreign investments" includes investments in colonial securities, and I was surprised to hear criticism of British money being used for promoting the industrial and economic efficiency of our Colonies.
The final criticism I desire to make is this. The hon. Members who introduced this Motion to the House, while avoiding inquiry into the question of the burdens placed upon this nation by the great increase in the expense of the Navy, have condemned the expenditure in promoting necessary social reforms. I will refer to old age pensions. I do not wish to do an injustice to the hon. Member, but he will forgive me for saying that his second intervention in the Debate did not entirely uphold the attitude he first took up with regard to old age pensions. On this subject the hon. Gentleman said it had been stated that in thirteen years' time our annual expenditure on old age pensions would be £24,000,000, and he condemned the Chancellor of the Exchequer for committing us to a future possible expenditure of £24,000,000 for old age pensions.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member will perhaps forgive me for finishing my reference to his statement. He did say that he condemned these future commitments. He did not condemn this or any Government for having committed us to a great increase of expenditure upon the Army or the Navy in future years. Why did not the hon. Member do so? Because, he would reply, such expenditure is necessary for the defence of the nation. Our reply to this attack against being committed to this expenditure on old age pensions is that the expenditure is necessary in the interests of our aged poor. I

1297
put this further question to the hon. Member: if his own party had carried out its pledge, and had themselves introduced an old age pensions measure and carried it into law, how could they have done so without committing this nation to the future annual cost of old age pensions? Perhaps the hon. Member will say that the old age pensioners should themselves pay the pensions.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, no.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Either the nation or the pensioners have to find the pensions. Therefore, because this Motion has given us this very partial and very prejudiced, and, I think, in its material particulars, its very inaccurate picture of the expenditure of the nation and of what it stands for, I venture to resist it.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I can hardly congratulate the Government on the defence that has been made so far to the Motion which has been so admirably introduced by my hon. Friends below me. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. T. Richardson) has been perfectly candid. He has not attempted any defence whatever of the Motion, but has simply stated that those taxes which are such a burden to the whole community are a first instalment, and that so far as his party are concerned they are not satisfied with the Land Taxes as they at present stand. One has to consider what is really meant by Consols. Surely the price of Consols has always been regarded to some extent as the index of the national credit. I believe that, strictly speaking, the Government have no responsibility whatever for the price of Consols; the responsibility of the Government is to pay £2 10s. per cent. on the nominal value of the stock. They have no further responsibility of any kind, either to keep up the market or to try to regulate in any way the price of the stock. That is their responsibility. With that responsibility they have the right to deduct whatever they please from the dividends on Consols in the shape of taxation. Now we have taxation which has affected Consols—first, in the form of the Income Tax, which in the case of big incomes may amount to a deduction of 1s. 8d. in the £, or a reduction of 4s. on every £2 10s. Then you have also the heavy deduction in the shape of Death Duties, so that when the holder of Consols dies in some cases 10 per
1298
cent. is deducted, which in substance means that the Government deduct perhaps three or four years of the income That naturally tends to depreciate the value of the security, and without a doubt it has operated in that direction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed the present low price of Consols to what he called the widening of the range of trustee investments. He said that in 1888 there were a thousand millions of investments from which trustees could select their securities, and that since that date the range of these investments had been increased, so that now there is 2,500 millions. Of course, an enormous increase in the range of investments might, as has been very properly pointed out, have influenced the price of Consols for a considerable period of time, and it would divert money from our own national securities to the new securities which have been introduced for trustee investments. But if you look at the Colonial and Indian securities—in fact, if you look at every class of investment which is within the grasp of the British tax-gatherer—you find the same enormous depreciation. You would have thought that although Consols might have depreciated, Colonial and Indian securities would have appreciated. Instead of that, you find the same deplorable depreciation in every possible direction. In fact, the only securities that have shown any signs of steadiness at all are foreign government securities and foreign railways, in regard to which, where people are so disposed, they can altogether evade British taxation. I suggest that it is a matter of some importance to show that we should have a national security of fairly fixed value, which is fairly realisable, and which is subject to no violent fluctuations Consols have now been brought into greater competition, with the result that you get, a low rate of interest, with a very risky security, a security so risky that I do not think there is any other security in the market which shows a greater fluctuation. When you look at them from the point of view of what an investment a few years ago of £100 in Consols meant, you find that in 1897 they were 114, and if they were realised last December they were seventy-seven, which represents a loss of £37 of capital. During that period, if you had put by and saved the whole of the income you would receive from Consols, you would therefore have received £38 15s. of income in fifteen years, and lost £37 of capital. There is no doubt that the reason is that it is not

1299
something out of the range of the politician, but the whole reason of this depreciation is purely political. You have added to these burdens by the National Insurance Bill, which is equivalent to the creation of something like £500,000,000 of Consols. If you capitalise the contribution which the State has to make, it means an addition to the permanent debt of the country of something like £500,000,000. You can test it. It would have been a perfectly feasible transaction, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Old Age Pensions Bill, to have suggested that Consols to the extent of £500,000,000 should have been created and deposited in the hands of the Old Age Pension Commissioners. The same thing applies to the National Insurance Bill. There you get a liability which is equivalent to a sum of from £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 looking a few years ahead, and probably a great deal more if you look any distance ahead. In these two figures alone you get an increase in the capital liabilities of the country which more than double the whole Consol debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a boast that he has reduced the national liabilities in the last six years by £60,000,000. What on earth is a reduction of £60,000,000 on one hand when you get an increase of £700,000,000 or £800,000,000 on the other? You have added enormously to the liabilities of the country, and it is, I believe, on that account alone that we see the present depression in all our markets.
Though every security which is within the reach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has depreciated, yet when we look at those investments which are outside his reach, it is true we find some depreciation, but it is small in comparison. The figures were published recently, which are of some considerable interest, of the public issues of capital which were made last year. A total of £190,000,000 of capital was offered to the public in this country, of which £70,000,000 was for foreign governments and foreign railways, and hardly anything for any English industry—the great bulk was for the Colonies and other places abroad. It shows there is an anxious desire on the part of all who have anything to lose or anything at stake in the country, by any means, and at any cost, and at any risk, to escape the burden of taxation by carrying their investments out of the reach of our Chancellor. These are arguments, I know, which are laughed at by hon. Members opposite. They pay
1300
little or no attention to anything beyond their measure of social reform. No doubt one section is engrossed in social reform and another is very busily engaged in the promotion of all sorts of trusts and combines which are being constantly announced in the daily Press. We have a shipping trust, a ring which is not formed for the benefit of our people who seek to emigrate. The chief aim and object, I believe, is to put up prices. You have your chemical ring and your soap ring, and you have now a Portland cement ring, and the greatest trust of the lot is the new labour trust, a combination of the different groups of labour into one great combine, so as to enhance their interests to the detriment of every other interest in the country. If the affairs of the country are to be handed over to these various groups and rings, which are scratching one another's backs, a bad time is indeed before us. I much regret that no Member of the Cabinet has been present to listen to this Debate or to show the slightest interest in what has happened this evening, but surely the questions which have been debated are questions of vital consequence and vital interest to the country.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the House will realise that two and three-quarter hours are hardly sufficient to deal adequately with a question of this character, and that it should be relegated to a Tuesday evening is rather a commentary upon the attitude of the present House of Commons towards finance. The hon. Member (Mr. Richardson) stated the general case of the Labour party, which is that they welcome all taxation which does not fall directly upon labour. They make the rather wide assumption that labour cannot possibly feel any tax which it does not directly pay.
Mr. JOHN WARD: We know better than that.
Mr. PRETYMAN: If hon. Members know better than that, why do they adopt that policy in their speeches in this House? The hon. Member can only mean that he knows that super-taxation, in any form and whoever it may fall upon, must reduce the wages fund.
Mr. J. WARD: No.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member does not know that. I have no right to put opinions in the hon. Member's mouth. I will give it as my own view, and one which I think can be maintained, that super-taxation in any form must reduce opportunities for earning wages.
Mr. J. WARD: Not necessarily.
Mr. PRETYMAN: In the first place, because money which is withdrawn for taxation purposes and has to be spent even on such beneficial objects as old age pensions, is withdrawn from reproductive industry, which reduces the prospective wealth of the country from which the wage-earning power of future generations is to be satisfied, and secondly for the reason which has already been touched upon by the Mover and Seconder, the effect of super-taxation in any country is necessarily to drive the capital of that country abroad and out of the country of its origin. Therefore, for these two reasons, the wages fund is reduced. May I on that point say a word as to the effect of driving capital abroad? We are told that when capital is driven abroad it can only go abroad in the form of goods, manufactured products, and that consequently no evil results to labour, because those products must be the result of labour. I think that statement is open to qualification and argument, but for my part I am willing for the moment to admit that it is so, and that you can only export capital in the form of goods. Let us follow that out and see where it is that labour suffers. It is not so much the fact that a particular sum of capital has gone abroad, but it is that, having gone abroad, it is employing foreign industry, and what is important to the wage-earner in this country is not so much the actual expenditure of capital on which enterprise is founded as where the turnover which that capital induces takes place. That is where the labour of this country is suffering, and I have never yet heard any answer to that argument. In fact, it is not capable of being answered. It must be to the benefit of labour in a country that the turnover should take place in that country, and that the labour there should be thus employed.
Take the engineering industry, where, let us say, there is £100,000 capital invested. That £100,000 is the property of the citizens of this country if it is invested here. The turnover might be as much as £300,000 or £500,000 a year. I take that as a moderate estimate, for the sum might be very much greater. That at 5 per cent. would be £5,000, and the important thing to labour is not where the £100,000 goes, and not where the £5,000 interest is spent, but where the £300,000 or £500,000 turnover is used in constantly giving employment to labour. That is
1302
where labour suffers from this enormous export of capital. As to capital being driven abroad, we have heard arguments to-night, and we have heard them repeatedly, that it is an advantage for capital to go abroad from this country. I am quite prepared to admit that within certain limits, and if I may define these limits in two words I would do so in this way. So long as surplus capital is fairly attracted abroad by favourable opportunities for investment, that is a beneficent process for which we have only to express satisfaction. But when, instead of surplus capital being attracted abroad you have capital which is wanted in this country driven abroad, then it is an unmixed evil, and there is no hon. Member on the opposite side of the House who has any knowledge of the present business conditions existing in this country who will get up and tell the House of Commons that the industries of this country, such for instance as the great railways, can at this moment get the capital they require. [Several hon. Members indicated dissent.] Is there any business man in this House who will not tell me that the English railway companies have much more difficulty in getting capital to-day than they would have had five or six years ago?
Mr. AINSWORTH: I would ask the hon. Member if English railways cannot at the present moment borrow money by the issue of preference and debenture stock more easily and more cheaply than any railway companies in any Colony?
Mr. PRETYMAN: If asked that question I should answer it directly in the negative.
Mr. AINSWORTH: It is so.
Mr. PRETYMAN: My statement is not as to the parity between English and other railway companies at this moment, although I am perfectly prepared to enter into that, but that British railway companies cannot borrow money now on as good terms as they could five or six years ago.
Mr. DAVID MASON: There is no point in that.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member would not say that if he were engaged in financial business.
Mr. D. MASON: I am.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not mean any disrespect to the hon. Member, but I am

1303
rather sorry if that is the principle on which the financial business is conducted. My point is a pretty good one. The statement of the Government is that the country is so prosperous that all this vast mass of surplus capital is available for foreign expenditure. If there is this immense surplus available through the great prosperity of the country, how is it that the railways find so much difficulty in getting it, and that it all goes abroad?
Mr. D. MASON: The rate of interest has risen.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to labour it. I think that that point is fairly made good. It is a matter of common knowledge. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. T. Richardson) devoted the whole of his speech to an attempt to convict hon. Members on this side of the House of using expressions derogatory to old age pensions. I do not think that he went beyond that. However much I may approve of the principle of old age pensions or any other beneficent social reform, I do not imagine that the subject is so sacred that it is heresy to criticise the method by which the money is raised. Nor is it wrong, nor am I afraid, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was not his duty before embarking on any expenditure, however beneficent, to consider its effect upon the general finances of the country, and whether it can be afforded? It is considered apparently by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be a complete answer to any charge of extravagance if they are able to ask in return: "Don't you approve of the manner in which this money is going to be spent?"
That is the whole answer. Would hon. Gentlemen apply that to their own business, to their own daily personal expenditure? Would they consider themselves justified in spending anything, whether they could afford it or not, because the object is a desirable one? Surely the statement has only to be made to show its absurdity. But that is what the defence amounts to. This House is entitled, and not only is it entitled, but it is its bounden duty to look into the expenditure of this country, and, above all, this House would fail in its duty to the recipients of old age pensions if it did not grip the matter from the point of view of providing money both now and in the future, as well as from the point of view of paying it out and taking credit for having passed a beneficent Act,
1304
as though the money was to come like manna from Heaven. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in a recent speech, stated to the country that within a term of years the total expenditure on old age pensions and national insurance would amount to no less a sum than £42,000,000 annually—that is, of course, including the contributions, amounting to about £22,000,000 out of the £42,000,000 paid by the employers and employed. I do not think it makes very much difference to the employer or employed whether he pays his contribution to the Exchequer, in the form of a tax, or whether he pays it to the National Insurance Commissioners, in the form of a contribution. From either point of view it has to be found. There is one legitimate reduction, and that is the amount of money already devoted to the purpose, which it is impossible accurately to calculate now. Six millions of people are now making provision, and sixteen millions will make provision in the future.
Therefore, if you take something like that proportion you reduce the £42,000,000 of new burden—I do not use the word in any offensive sense—for old age pensions and national insurance to something like £35,000,000. That is a matter which demands the most careful consideration of the House. The methods of taxation adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not, to my mind, hold out much prospect that these demands can be met, supposing the strain upon all forms of taxable property is such as will jeopardise the wages fund upon which the people of this country have to depend. It is clearly the duty of this or of any other assembly to realise that the first essential of the working population of this country is the opportunity of earning wages. That is the desideratum of their existence, and compared with that old age pensions and national insurance are a luxury. It is our duty to see, in raising the money for old age pensions and national insurance, that we do nothing to impair the opportunity which they have during their working lives of earning the wages upon which their existence and that of the whole country depend. The only defence we have to deal with is that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a recent speech which he delivered in the City, and in which he referred to the nature of the expenditure.
The first item I think was naval expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked if we had any criticism upon that I point. I have criticism to make on the

1305
naval expenditure. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
"The Navy has gone up by seven and three-quarter millions, and first of all you will remember it came down."
Later on in the same speech he said:—
"Naval expenditure had gone down for two or three years, and then came a great scare and up it went, and it has gone up since then."
Do not those words arouse any recollections with the feeling of Members in this House. Why is it that the expenditure has gone up. Is it not simply because the Government, notwithstanding the warning which they had received from their predecessors, unduly reduced the expenditure on the Navy in the first two years in which they were in office. That was an encouragement to other Powers, of which they were not slow to take advantage. [An HON. MEMBER: "You reduced the expenditure also."] I was just coming to that. When we reduced the naval expenditure we had an ample margin. Notwithstanding our reduction, I have the most lively recollection when on the opposite side of undergoing the most violent attacks from Lord Robertson, who was the hon. Member for Dundee, because the reduction was insufficient, and we were accused of reckless extravagance during the last year we were in office, and our expenditure on building was contrasted with the expenditure on building programmes of other countries, and we were accused of wholly unnecessary expenditure upon naval armaments. We maintain, and I do maintain, that that reduction was a reasonable reduction, permissible because we then had an ample and sufficient margin on the two-Power standard. When we left office a certain standard of naval strength to maintain was laid down for our successors. The Government departed from that, and this immense expenditure to which we are now committed is very largely due to the attempt then made, in spite of warnings given to them at that time, by the Government to reduce naval expenditure below its proper and reasonable limits in regard to the proper requirements of this country. That is the position and, adopting the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is that penny wise and pound foolish policy which is largely responsible for our present commitments in that direction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded to refer to a speech which had been made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the cost of the Land Taxes. I have not time to deal fully with
1306
the speech, but a considerable proportion of it has already been answered by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion. I must, however, refer to one statement, because it is current on the other side of the House, and which was repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is that a large proportion of the expenditure upon the collection of the Land Taxes and on the valuation has been recovered through the increased yield of the Death Duties due to the valuation. That statement is frequently made, and I am sure is believed in. I think if hon. Gentlemen will allow me to quote a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October, 1909, before the Budget was passed, they will see that that claim has really no foundation in fact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in October, 1909, had already, under the powers which he possessed under the Finance Act of 1894, when Sir William Harcourt imposed the Death Duties, created a new valuation department for the purpose of valuing what he calls suburban land. This was the language which he then used, and I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th October, 1909:—
"The increase in the Death Duties"—
That is the increase in the Death Duties which he had already obtained in 1909—
"….is attributable partly to the very Clause pointed out by the Prime Minister, namely, the improvement already effected in valuation. One of the first things we did this year was to reorganise the Valuation Department.….Land which has been passed as agricultural laud we have discovered is valuable building land, and that has made a difference in the Death Duties, and a very substantial portion of the £1,300,000 is attributable to the fact that we have got an efficient valuation department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1909, col. 1361.]
In October, 1909, according to his own statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already got an efficient valuation department, and had already obtained the particular valuation which he now claims he has only got through the Land Taxes of the Budget passed a year later. Surely that is sufficient to condemn excuses of that character. I have some little knowledge of the working of the Land Taxes and Death Duties, and I say without hesitation that, so far as the new valuation for Land Taxes is concerned, it has had the effect of diminishing rather than of increasing the Death Duties. I quoted the other day in the public Press an instance, one out of many which have come to my knowledge, where the valuation officials have actually reduced the figures presented to them by executors and have accepted lower figures as to the

1307
value of estates—no doubt with the object of getting Increment Value Duty. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know what other object there can be.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The impartiality of the Department.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I admit that it requires a little justification. Unfortunately one of the results of this taxation, and particularly of the Land Taxing Clauses of the Budget, has been to degrade the position of the Revenue Department of the State in the mind of the public. The Revenue Department used to be regarded as impartial. Executors and their solicitors were able to go to the Department and always counted on obtaining impartial advice and a fair and proper explanation of the meaning of an Act of Parliament. That is no longer their position. A new spirit has been introduced at the Revenue Department, and, unfortunately—and I think it is a matter of far-reaching evil arising out of this method of finance—the confidence which existed between business men and the taxing department is largely shattered. Unless these methods are altered and the revenue is administered in the spirit in which it was administered before the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office, the result on the revenue and on the business community will be of a most serious character. It is very difficult to deal with a subject of this magnitude in the time at our disposal and in the time the hon. Gentleman has to reply, and I am aware that the case I have presented is very incomplete. But I am sure that this is a matter in regard to which in the course of the next year or two the Debates will be of much greater length. I do not think as time advances and as the country gains experience of the consequences of the finance of the present Government, the character of the Debates will be more pleasant to hon. Members opposite than has been the case on the present occasion.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am thankful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having given me time to reply, and may I also express my entire agreement with the last sentences that he uttered. The topics that have been raised to-night are of far greater interest and importance than can be dealt with in even a few hours'
1308
Debate. I can assure him and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that these matters should be dealt with at greater length in subsequent Sessions. I am also asked to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very greatly regrets his absence from, this Debate. I think his regret will be emphasised by the knowledge that attacks have been made upon his personality. On the other hand, I think the whole House will agree that, at least on this single night, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in another place. No one regrets his absence more than I do.
I have been listening during the whole Debate for information and suggestions in connection with my new office, for the ensuring of economy in national affairs, and during the Debate I have only received two suggestions from hon. Gentlemen on the other side. [An HON. MEMBER: "From whom?"] One was a suggestion that we should not have passed payment of Members, which accounts for one seven hundred and twentieth part of the national expenditure, and the second was a suggestion in connection with land valuation. I hope I shall be able to show in this latter case that it is more than repaying all the Government expenditure upon it.
On the general question I should like to submit to the House that I entirely agree with the various suggestions made by hon. Members opposite this afternoon in the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates that this question of national expenditure should be considered as a business proposition. In submitting the increases which have been made by the Liberal Government, I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite how far they have tried to prevent or to assist these increases, and how far they will do either in the future? If the expenditure under the various Military and other Loan Acts be added to the expenditure chargeable against revenue, and if the Local Taxation Grants, and money provided for revenue for the reduction of debt be excluded, the result is to show that for 1911–12 the net increase of expenditure over 1905 amounts to £29,000,000. The charge on interest on debt has been diminished by £1,400,000, so the real increase on the other heads of expenditure has been about £30,500,000. Let me give these various items: First, there is an increase in expenditure on the Army and Navy of £4,800,000. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite who promote this

1309
Motion object to that item of expenditure? The only influence I have known that they have exercised in the country has been to attack us frequently, and sometimes in concentrated efforts for not proposing greater expenditure on the Navy. "We want eight, and we won't wait." Schemes in the rich region of fantasy were put forward which would have increased that additional £4,000,000 to £14,000,000, or even £40,000,000. The next item in this increase is nearly £3,000,000 on education, almost entirely automatic votes due to the increase of population. Only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to stand at this box resisting demands for greater Grants for national education from hon. Members opposite in order to relieve the rates. How can they now get up and say that item is one in which there ought to be greater economy so far as the National Exchequer is concerned. The next item is £12,400,000 for old age pensions. I had the honour of being on this bench during the time the Old Age Pensions Act was being passed, and what was the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It was to make a series of impossible demands for increasing the old age pensions vote, and then in the subsequent elections to go down to the country and say that we were refusing pensions to various classes of persons. I remember a man in the subsequent election, a convinced Liberal, who refused to vote for me any longer on the ground that he had seen in print that the Conservatives supported the removal of the pauper disqualification for old age pensions, and that the Liberals were opposed to it. Of course you may make an Estimate such as was mentioned of £6,000,000 for a certain matter; but if, after making it, you are continually pressed for concessions and have to give concessions, that Estimate must of necessity go up. At the elections the Conservatives stated in widespread literature, that we were refusing to allow paupers to have old age pensions; now they criticise the plan because the expenditure has gone up. It has gone up by nearly £2,000,000 by the removal of the pauper disqualification, and has incidentally made a saving upon the rates of £1,500,000 to the advantage of the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the country.
The next item which makes up the increased expenditure is an item of nearly £5,000,000 on the Post Office. Owing to our increasing trade as the Chancellor of
1310
the Exchequer has already pointed out that has been largely remunerative expenditure, of which nearly £4,000,000 has come back in increased revenue to the Post Office. Does the hon. Member opposite object to that?
Mr. E. CECIL: I said I approved of it.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am trying to find out what item it is the hon. Gentleman disapproves of. In the other services, as they are classed, there is an increase of something like £5,500,000. What are the items? The most important is £1,200,000 for the Development Fund and Road Board, and during the whole of yesterday hon. Gentlemen opposite got up one after the other thanking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture for the Grants that have been made by the Development Commission, and their only criticism was that the amount was not larger. The next item is Labour Exchanges, £350,000 approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a non-controversial measure and not opposed by them in the House of Commons. The next item is Congested Districts Board for Ireland and Land Purchase for Ireland, automatic increases both for similar amount. Then there is Coronation and similar expenses, and I do not believe that any of these are strongly objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The only item to which anyone can take exception is £840,000 increase in the Revenue Department, partly from the necessity of getting in the increased taxes and partly in connection with a subject so dear to the hearts of hon. Members opposite, the continuance of land valuation. Therefore, I think I have a right to say all this paraphernalia of lack of economy, except the last items I have mentioned, are all increases which hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves have only been too anxious to increase.
Now as to the new commitments under the Insurance Act. I will ask hon. Members to recall the debates on the Insurance Act and to refresh their memories with what has been said since by hon. Gentlemen opposite at by-elections concerning the Insurance Act. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), a distinguished predecessor of mine in office, who in those Debates again and again damped down the energy of his own party in their efforts to demand fresh expenditure on the Insurance Act, and told them such things

1311
were impossible. What was the general action of hon. Gentlemen opposite? They were always demanding that more money should be spent on the Insurance Act, and they were always trying to get credit for their party and discredit for the Government, because they were not able to spend more. What did they say at the by-elections? That there was not enough money for the Post Office contributors, the doctors, the reserve values for the married women, or to prevent this horrible tax being imposed on a contributory basis on the working people of this country. All the effect of their argument at by-elections has been to make the working people revolt against a contributory system as intolerable and in the direction of throwing the whole cost of the £11,000,000 which the working people are called upon to pay on to the National Exchequer. Under these circumstances we are asked to accept a criticism demanding greater economy in future commitments.
One word about the special subject of land valuation. Hon. Members know that the land valuation from the beginning was very much in the nature of a capital expenditure which both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself in repeated Debates demonstrated would thoroughly repay itself in the future. If hon. Members would only consider what the effect of the Increment Tax would have been if the datum line had been established 100 years ago they would realise how many millions would be now coming into the Exchequer without doing any injustice to anyone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made another claim. He said that not only would the land valuation ultimately repay itself in Increment and Undeveloped Land Duty, but that it would repay itself on the Death Duties. No less than 54,000 cases dealing with real property have been considered by the staff of the valuation department, and the result of that examination has been to raise the accepted capital value of those estates from £113,000,000 to £120,500,000, an increase of £7,500,000 on the declared value, or nearly 7 per cent. upon the original estates, showing an increase to the Exchequer of £580,000. Before the new valuation was established the average increase was something like 3 per cent., but since the valuation the increase has been something like 7 per cent. Thus there is an additional increase through the
1312
work of the special valuation department of something like £330,000, and it may be expected that the total increase will be more than the whole expense incurred on the original valuation. I think hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that that is a good business proposition. One other point was raised by the Seconder of the Resolution. He said we made many assertions of economy, and had attacked the Conservatives for not having economised, whereas the Conservatives had produced economy in their time, and our assertions had all been disproved in our time. Let me contrast their expenditure and ours. Between 1895–6 and 1905–6 the Unionists' expenditure, outside the expenditure of the war, increased by over £40,000,000. The Liberal expenditure in the six years we have been in power has been increased by £30,000,000. What are the items? The Unionist increase in the Army and Navy was £26,000,000. The Liberal increase has been £5,000,000. The Unionist increase on Education was £6,000,000. The Liberal increase has been £3,000,000. The increase in the Post Office in the ten years of Tory rule was £5,000,000, due, I suppose, to expanding trade; and the same increase of £5,000,000 was in the Liberal six years due to expansion of trade. The increase for other services in the Conservative case was £3,000,000, and in ours £5,000,000. The balance is represented by old age pensions, which the Unionists promised and we gave. The Unionist expenditure was nil, and our expenditure has been £12,000,000. The redemption by one political party of a promise out of which the old people had been denied, and which had practically become a scandal, makes not only for the popularity of a particular Government, but also for the redemption of the whole of Parliamentary Government in its position among the poorer clases of the community. One last word as to the charge of reckless expenditure brought by the hon. Member. No Government in the history of this world has taken more care to pay off debt than the present Ministry, and no Government that has ever existed in this country has ever paid off anything approaching what the present Government has done. Apart from the price of Consols, no Government has ever given so much capital money to redeem debt as this Government. An average of £11,000,000 a year has been put aside during six years in order to pay off the debt of this country. The debt of this country before the South African war

1313
amounted to £628,000,000. The amount that was added by the war, and which possibly might have been saved with wiser statesmanship before, was £159,000,000. If that war had not been waged, and if the Government, instead of spending money on war had reduced the debt, as we have done ever since the war by £11,000,000 a year, the National Debt now would be well under £500,000,000. One last word. If you wish economy, consider what makes for war, and consider also the advisability of supporting the Government in social reform when they are trying to put a

Division No. 21.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Aitken, Sir William Max

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Forster, Henry William

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

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mount, William Arthur

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gardner, Ernest

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Astor, Waldorf

Gibbs, G. A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman, John R. P.

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

Goldman, C. S.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Greene, Walter Raymond

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

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

Gretton, John

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Barnston, H.

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Haddock, George Bahr

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Peto, Basil Edward

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pretyman, Ernest George

Eentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Beresford, Lord C.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Bigland, Alfred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bird, Alfred

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rolleston, Sir John

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Royds, Edmund

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

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

Boyton, J.

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Brassey, Leonard Campbell

Hills, J. W.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hohler, G. F.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, J. G. (York)

Horner, Andrew Long

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Spear, Sir John Ward

Campion, W. R.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Stanier, Beville

Cassel, Felix

Jackson, Sir John

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cator, John

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John Ralph

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stewart, Gershom

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Talbot, Lord E.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

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

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cooper Richard Ashmole

Lee, Arthur H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Courthope, George Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lloyd, G. A.

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Valentia, Viscount

Denniss, E. R. B.

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Dixon, C. H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droltwich)

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Duke, Henry Edward

MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Mackinder, Halford J.

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

Fiber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Macmaster, Donald

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

Fell, Arthur

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Magnus, Sir Philip

Winterton, Earl

barrier against claims made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Question put, "That this House is of opinion that National Expenditure has been increased by His Majesty's Government in contravention of their pledges, so that past and future commitments of the country are a matter for serious anxiety; and considers further that recent taxation and its methods have damaged our financial credit by shaking public confidence."
The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 231.

Wolmer, Viscount

Worthington-Evans, L.

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

Yate, Colonel C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pike Pease and Mr. Ashley.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Younger, Sir George

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

NOES.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

O'Dowd, John

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Ogden, Fred

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hackett, J.

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

Adamson, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Malley, William

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Agnew, Sir George William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Armitage, R.

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

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

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Phillips, John (Langford, S.)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Higham, John Sharp

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Hinds, John

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

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Hodge, John

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Barton, William

Hogge, James Myles

Pringle, William M. R.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Holmes, Daniel Thomas

Radford, G. H.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Holt, Richard Durning

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bentham, George Jackson

Hudson, Walter

Rendall, Athelstan

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Black, Arthur W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Boland, John Pius

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Booth, Frederick Handel

John, Edward Thomas

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Johnson, William

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Brace, William

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Brady, P. J.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Robinson, Sidney

Brocklehurst, William B.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brunner, John F. L.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bryce, John Annan

Jowett, Frederick William

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Joyce, Michael

Rowlands, James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Keating, Matthew

Rowntree, Arnold

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts Cricklade)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Lansbury, George

Scanlan, Thomas

Chancellor, H. G.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'ld, Cockerm'th)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Clough, William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sheehy, David

Clynes, J. R.

Lundon, Thomas

Short, Edward

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cotton, William Francis

McGhee, Richard

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Cowan, W. H.

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Taylor, John (Durham)

Crooks, William

Macpherson, James Ian

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Crumley, Patrick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

M'Callum, John M.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Delany, William

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Verney, Sir Harry

Devlin, Joseph

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Walton, Sir Joseph

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

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Dillon, John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Wardle, George J.

Doris, William

Martin, J.

Waring, Walter

Duffy, William J.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Meagher, Michael

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Menzies, Sir Walter

Webb, H.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Molloy, Michael

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

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Morgan, George Hay

Whitehouse, John Howard

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Furness, Stephen

Munro, Robert

Wiles, Thomas

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wilkie, Alexander

Gill, Alfred Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Needham, Christopher T.

Williamson, Sir A.

Glanville, H. J.

Neilson, Francis

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

Goldstone, Frank

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nuttall, Harry

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

SUPPY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMETARY ESTIMATE, 1911–12.
  Postponed proceeding resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CASE OF MR. WILLIAM BALL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. LYNCH: The prison system of this country is an unhappy compound of modern benevolence and archaic brutality. The benevolence is tepid, insipid, tentative, but the brutality is full-blooded, and retains all its pristine vigour. That is the main reason why, at this time of day, we have this state of affairs, that a man in London breaks a window and in two months is driven insane. That is the whole text of what I have to say to-night. There is the question, which has been mooted, of predisposition. That is a very important question, and it has been answered variously by the Home Secretary. In his first reply he said that, so far as his memory served him, there was no predisposition at all, that there was nothing in the prisoner's conduct at the time of his admission which would lead a medical officer to think that he was not of sound mind. Two days afterwards the Home Secretary changed his mind, and then found that the prisoner had a predisposition to insanity, and he made the remark, no doubt intended to be humorous and which made the House laugh, that prisoners, like a great many other people, sometimes became insane at certain periods of their lives. That is a perfectly true proposition, which applies to all, to Members in this House as well as to prisoners, and which no doubt applies even to a Minister of the Crown. And since the Home Secretary altered this in aphoristic form I will reply with another aphorism: A brain, like an aeroplane, may fall from a moderate height as well as from the clouds. The question of predisposition is important for this reason, that if there was a taint in the man's mind prior to his imprisonment, it would require very little prison to upset the balance. But, after all, there are only three great causes of predisposition to insanity. One of these is heredity. In the
1318
case of this prisoner that would be entirely excluded. His family history is not only good, but, as is shown by the letter which has been read out, exceptionally good. Another cause is alcohol. That, according to the inquiries I have made, can be eliminated in this particular case. The third is a specific disease which is rarely alluded to in this country, though not on that account less prevalent. That, also, can be entirely eliminated in this case. Therefore here was a man, perfectly normal, who entered prison quite sane, and within two months he was driven mad. That is an extremely serious state of affairs, and one which requires to be investigated to the very bottom. It involves not merely this case, but the whole prison system, and this case should not be allowed to drop until the matter has been entirely sifted and until we find what is radically wrong with our prison system. As far as I know prison warders they are humane men. So far as I know, prison doctors are very humane men, and I believe that the general tendency of prison management is towards humanity. I blame, not the prison officials nor the Home Secretary, but the prison system under which it is possible for a man to enter one of the prisons of London and within two months be driven mad. I have eliminated the great cause of insanity—predisposition. If a man has no great predisposition to insanity, it requires very exceptional treatment to drive him off his balance. I have known men receive worse treatment and for longer periods than this man has been declared to have received and retain their sanity. In a case where a man is driven mad there must be something exceptional in his treatment. It requires very exceptional stress to drive him insane. I think we ought to see what was the treatment meted out to this unfortunate man. At the time of his committal, and for some time afterwards, he was supposed to be in his usual health, although during that time he was forcibly fed. There was afterwards a rapid decline in the state of his health, and during that brief period his wife was not communicated with. No change whatever was made in the prison system, and if there is anything in the plea of the Home Secretary that the man was predisposed to insanity that was a therapeutic reason why it was necessary to relax the prison rules, because you were not dealing with a sane man, but with a mental patient. I would like to call the attention of the House to

1319
the human side of this distressing case, because it is an exceedingly unfortunate tragedy that a sane man should be driven insane in this way. Victor Hugo has a story of which the title is Une tempête sous un crâne—a tempest under a skull. Picture that poor man in prison! Just imagine the tempest that is under the skull of that unfortunate man who feels his reason tottering. Every time the door opens he sees the enemy enter, or one who comes in the guise of an enemy to torture him, and during that month the poor man is struggling to retain his reason, yet the enemy enters day by day and no relief comes. I should like to say one word also about his wife who sees her husband hale and strong enter the prison. The next she hears is that that man has been driven out of his mind. That man she sees enter the prison is the breadwinner, the mainstay of the family, and she finds in less than two months that he has gone out of his mind. I hope that the Home Secretary will remember the human side of the case, that he will utter some words of sympathy, that he will hold out some hope of compensation, and that he will give us to believe that the whole matter will be investigated.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken asked for some word of sympathy with regard to Mr. Ball. I need hardly assure him that nobody can be familiar with the facts of Mr. Ball's case without having full sympathy. But the question now before us is not the natural sympathy which we have with Mr. Ball, but whether or not the prison treatment which he has endured has been inhuman. That is the gravamen of the charge made, and I will endeavour to reply to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), last night, as well as the hon. Member who has just spoken. I might remind the House that, with the exception of perhaps the first two days, Mr. Ball was in hospital the whole time he was in prison, and the language used about the door closing upon him and the relaxation of the prison rules does not, in fact, apply. The question is whether he was medically treated with humanity while in hospital. Before entering into that I have something to say on the quasi-legal argument addressed yesterday by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. My hon. Friend alleged that a prisoner sentenced to hard labour
1320
must be sentenced either in the first, second, or third divisions, and that therefore the regulations made by my predecessor last year apply equally to prisoners sentenced to hard labour as well as to other prisoners. In answer to that argument I must refer my hon. Friend to Section (6), Sub-section (1) of the Prison Act of 1898, which provides:—
"Prisoners convicted of offences, either on indictment or otherwise, and not sentenced to penal servitude or hard labour, shall be divided into three divisions."
It is perfectly clear from that language that a prisoner sentenced to hard labour is not included among the categories of prisoners sentenced in the first, second or third divisions. The consequence obviously is that the regulations made last year apply only to prisoners sentenced in one of these divisions and not to prisoners sentenced to hard labour.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Home Secretary prepared to make these regulations apply to prisoners sentenced to hard labour?
Mr. McKENNA: If I were to do so I should be overriding by my Ministerial action the intention of Parliament as expressed in an Act of Parliament, and I have no right to act in that way. It is quite clear from the Act that there is no power in any Minister to avert under a general rule the conditions of hard labour. What the Home Secretary can do is in every case after conviction with sentence of hard labour is to consider it on its merits, and he can remit the sentence of hard labour, but he cannot deal under general regulations with sentences of hard labour before they are given.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are prisoners convicted with sentence of hard labour for these offences which involve no moral turpitude to have the benefit of the regulations?
Mr. McKENNA: I must not for one moment be understood to admit for a moment that in a case of sabotage, whatever the political motives may be—
Mr. LYNCH: That is not sabotage!
Mr. McKENNA: Breaking windows and violent destruction of property, whether it be a coal mine or whether it be breaking a window, differs only in degree, and I am

1321
not prepared to admit, where a responsible person commits violent acts of destruction of property, that that prisoner is not morally guilty. I am not prepared to admit that as a general statement. I recognise that there may be individual cases in which there is no personal moral guilt, but it must not be assumed that because a prisoner pleads that he was actuated by political motives that therefore he is not to be found morally guilty whatever acts of violence he may commit.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to apply the same rule to men as to women?
Mr. McKENNA: In the first instance it is not for me to apply the rule. It is for the magistrates; and I have to consider in every case what the evidence was before the magistrate which made him come to the conclusion that he should give a sentence of hard labour instead of a sentence in the second or third division, and no general rule ought to be laid down by any Home Secretary in advance of the decisions to be given by the magistrates in each individual case. In the case of Ball no representation whatever was made to me to reconsider his case. Had application been made to me I should have considered it on its merits as to whether it was a case in which sentence of hard labour ought to have been given. No such application was made to me; in fact it never came before me from that point of view. Now comes the question of the treatment in prison while he was in hospital. Here again I cannot agree with those who think that where a prisoner refuses to be fed, refuses to take food, that that prisoner should be discharged. That is the view of the Noble Lord opposite. I cannot assent to that. It would mean a general gaol delivery on the expiration of four or five days. I cannot see any reason why any prisoner should be allowed to have control over his or her sentence because the prisoner chooses to break the prison rules. Therefore I think we must get our minds clear on all those points. Mr. Ball's case is a very sad one. There have been charges made that his treatment in prison has not been governed by the ordinary rules. I have, myself, upon all the evidence I have been able to examine, perfect confidence in the action of the Prison Commissioners and the officers concerned in this case. I am so confident that I am more than willing to grant my
1322
hon. Friend's request to institute an inquiry. I am perfectly satisfied that the result of an independant inquiry by an independant medical man, who may be appointed not by the Home Office, but, I suggest, by the Royal College of Physicians, will show that there is no ground for the fears and suspicions and alarms suggested with regard to Mr. Ball's case. I am quite convinced that the result of such inquiry will prove that there is not the slightest foundation upon which a charge of inhuman conduct can be brought against the prison officials.
And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.