HC Deb 28 February 1912 vol 34 cc1376-405

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, 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 Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."

4.0 P.M.

Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

This item comes under two heads. Two different classes of expenditure are involved, one for extra pay for the police during the Royal visit in July, 1911, and the other extra pay for the police during the labour strikes from July to October, 1911. No one appreciates more the services of the police than I do, and I am perfectly satisfied that, so far as they are concerned, they have earned their extra pay. So far as the visit of His Majesty to Dublin is concerned, the police deserved the greatest credit for the way they carried out all the arrangements, and I am quite sure some special grant to the police force was necessary on that account. I should like to know how much of this sum is devoted to the special grant for the police in respect of the extra duties at the time of His Majesty's visit, and how much of it has been incurred in respect of strikes? Those of us who know the vicinity of Dublin and what took place there cannot help feeling that this extra expense in regard to the strikes might have been avoided by a more timely interference. I want to know how much of the sum asked for is in respect of the special Grant to the police for extra duty performed during the strike. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that became necessary—not why it became necessary to give the police something extra, but why it became necessary to have the police doing this extra duty? We regard this, at any rate, as unnecessary expenditure.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

£852 is the amount of the special Grant to the police employed on extra duty during the Royal visit, while the payment for extra duty to the police during the strikes in Dublin from July to October is covered by the sum of £1,924.

Captain CRAIG

I should like to amplify the question put by my hon. and learned Friend on this subject of the employment of the police from July to October in connection with the recent strike. Will the Chief Secretary tell us who had authority during that disturbed time in Dublin during his absence, because those of us who closely followed what occurred at that time are of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman might have come back in view of the serious events that were occurring during his absence on holiday. Not only had we to complain of his absence, but it is common knowledge that, instead of allowing the police authorities to have complete charge and to take such dispositions as they considered necessary to safeguard life and property during that period, the command of the situation was handed over not to subordinates in the office, but to a man called Jim Larkin. Was this man responsible for any of the sum now asked for? The story of the whole period is a miserable one. Although I have no complaint to make in the slightest degree against the Metropolitan Police in Dublin, who have always done their duty when properly led and instructed by the Government, it does seem to me that the House is entitled to some explanation, because, in our opinion, if this matter had been firmly handled from the outset, this sum of nearly £2,000 might have been saved to the country.

The strikes, as everybody is aware, were started on a very miserable excuse and not in Dublin at all, and then, through the authorities taking no firm step at the time, the trouble spread, and at last the Under-Secretary, or some other official on the spot, took some action of the gravest moment. It was at a time when traders and others were deeply concerned, when there was a desire to bring horses over to the Horse Show, that people who were anxious to have their property properly protected were calmly told by a Dublin Castle official that in order to> get their horses or their goods from the docks they must get a chit or pass from this man, Jim Larkin. This question has been raised outside, and it is only fair that we should give the Chief Secretary an opportunity here of explaining fully how it was that this expenditure of £2,000 on extra police became necessary when there appears to have been no responsible person in command in Dublin at the time. I am very glad indeed that this Estimate affords the desired opportunity of raising what I consider to be one of the gravest scandals that has occurred in Ireland during past years. With regard to another item on the Vote, the one for medals awarded to the police for their services during the Royal visit, that I am sure will commend itself to the Committee. It is a well merited honour given to the men, and I only wish that there could have been a wider distribution of the medal, as a great number of men outside the metropolitan area had to do long hours of extra duty in connection with the Royal visit, although they were not personally present in Dublin itself, and were consequently unable to gain a distinction which no one would grudge to the police, who did an arduous and difficult duty in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.

The CHAIRMAN

I ought to say that obviously it will not be in order on this Vote to discuss the origin or conduct or method of the strike.

Mr. DILLON

I wish to say a few words in consequence of the language used by the hon. and gallant Member. He described the conduct of the police authorities in Dublin on the occasion referred to as one of the gravest scandals—

Captain CRAIG

Not the conduct of the police, but the misconduct of those at the head of affairs in Dublin Castle.

Mr. DILLON

I presume that the police took their orders from those at the head of affairs, and I feel bound to say that, so far from that being a proper or justifiable description of the conduct of the authorities, the very opposite would, in my opinion, be the time description. Let me direct the attention of the Committee for a moment to what really happened. I do not intend in the least degree to trespass on the ruling of the Chair. We had in Ireland a strike of a very serious character, which paralysed the trade of Dublin, and which spread over the railways—in fact, it was as widespread as the strike in England. What occurred in Dublin, owing, as I believe, to the extremely good sense and coolness of the authorities, was that whereas in this country you had most violent scenes of disorder, troops had to be called out, and some lives were lost, the strike went over in Dublin without a single serious incident of disorder, and the contrast between what took place in Ireland and what occurred in Great Britain under similar circumstances is entirely in favour of Ireland—in fact) the strike there was carried through without outrage, without violence and, comparatively speaking, without disorder. The amount of disorder in Dublin was trifling with what occurred in Liverpool and other centres in this country. Of course, at the beginning of the strike, as is the case in connection with every strike, owners of property and employers were naturally nervous and made extravagant demands on the authorities. They asked that the streets should be lined with troops; they asked that steps should be taken which would have been extremely provocative, and which, as events proved, were quite unnecessary and might have resulted in very grave disorder indeed. Because those steps were not taken charges of a most extravagant and, as afterwards turned out, of the falsest character, were made against the Executive Government. The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College ought to be here to-day to stand up for the charges he made in this matter. I have only praise for the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, because he has had the courage to come forward with these charges, and has thereby given the Chief Secretary an opportunity of replying to them. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) who first started the theory about Jim Larkin, and who said that employers were told to get a safe conduct from him. These statements were made in two letters published in the Dublin Press, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman declared that the statement had been made to him by a member of the Royal Dublin Society, who was present in Dublin Castle when the Lord Lieutenant told certain individuals who wanted to bring horses through the streets of the city to the Horse Show that they must go to James Larkin to get a safe conduct. That story was absolutely contradicted, and was blown to pieces entirely.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already said this question cannot be raised upon this Vote.

Mr. DILLON

I do not want to depart from your ruling, but the hon. and gallant Member was allowed to make a statement to the effect that the authorities in Dublin referred people who desired to bring horses to Dublin to the Horse Show to James Larkin for safe conduct.

The CHAIRMAN

It was the introduction of this name that led to my warning that it would not be in order to discuss these matters.

Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

The continuance of this line of argument by the hon. Member for East Mayo will, I am afraid, inevitably lead to a desire on the part of my colleagues and myself to continue the Debate on these lines.

The CHAIRMAN

That is why I suggest to the hon. Member for East Mayo that the incident should be closed.

Mr. DILLON

I would not have intervened in the Debate at all had not the hon. and gallant Member been allowed to make the statement. This story was circulated in Dublin for weeks, and now it is being brought up in the House of Commons, and I consider that, as a citizen and ratepayer of Dublin, I have a right to contradict when I hear so gross a libel on the city in which I live. It is a gross libel. It is said that horses could not be taken through the streets of Dublin without a safe conduct from James Larkin, the object, of course, being to represent Dublin as disorderly as Belfast, and that I certainly consider to be a very gross libel. I will not refer to this further except to say that, inasmuch as this story was deliberately circulated in Dublin in two letters by the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, and was exposed at the time as a gross fabrication, it is rather too much to have it reproduced in the House of Commons four or five months later. The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, when challenged for his authority, gave the name of a well-known citizen, a member of the Royal Dublin Society, whom he stated was present and told him this. This gentleman wrote a letter to the Press stating he never made any such statement at all.

Sir J. LONSDALE

Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College is prepared to substantiate every word he has said.

The CHAIRMAN

It is quite clear my anticipation was a correct one, and we must defer this matter until a more suitable occasion.

Mr. DILLON

If we are entitled to discuss the conduct of the authority in the handling of the police, I have a few more words on the matter, but if not I would like to have your guidance as to what we can discuss.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to discuss the conduct of the police, but not the origin of the strike.

Mr. DILLON

In my opinion the attack upon the conduct of the police involves the conduct of the authorities who guided the police. The two things are very closely associated, because, when they attack the authorities, I must assume that is the conduct of the police. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is exactly the reason why I asked the Chairman to define what we can discuss. If we are entitled to discuss the conduct of the authorities in dealing with the strike, that means the disposition of the police and the amount of protection given. I say, as a citizen who was a very close observer of this strike, that the amount of protection given in Dublin was quite sufficient. The authorities displayed very great skill and intelligence and succeeded in carrying through a most formidable strike without any serious disorder. The owners of property and the employers in Dublin had no real, serious ground of complaint against the authorities. Therefore, I shall be surprised if anyone speaking for the citizens of Dublin stands up in this House and makes any complaint. It is really rather absurd for Gentlemen from Belfast to get up and attack the Government on behalf of the employers of Dublin, for whom they have no authority whatever to speak.

Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

We are suffering in this Debate exactly as we have suffered in the Debates of the last two or three days—a very serious difficulty, and one which the House of Commons ought really to do something to get rid of. We never know on these Supplementary Estimates exactly what we are allowed to discuss. An Estimate is put down for some sum, we will call it X—[An HON. MEMBER: "Call it double X."]—and the difficulty is to know what items are included. I presume this sum dates back to the moment at which the strikes in Dublin broke out. If that is so, and if the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is correct, that the Chief Secretary is responsible for the action of the Metropolitan Police during that period, then I submit we are entitled to criticise the action of the Chief Secretary so far as it relates to that strike. Otherwise it seems to me all we can do is to say we object to these charges, and vote against them. If my view is correct, I say we are entitled to criticise the conduct of the Chief Secretary during the whole of those strikes, and I say without hesitation that it was the contention of everybody in Ireland that if the Chief Secretary had only been at his place at the Castle and at the head of affairs, and had dealt with matters firmly from the beginning, the strikes would have been prevented, or, at any rate, would have been stopped within a very short time. The hon. Member for East Mayo said he had never seen a strike carried out in so gentlemanly a fashion.

Mr. DILLON

I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. C. CRAIG

Well, the hon. Member said he had never seen less disorder.

Mr. DILLON

No. I said less disorder than in England.

Mr. C. CRAIG

Well, put it that way. At any rate, the hon. Member led the Committee to understand this strike did not bring about any serious disorder, That may be true, but he will not deny the strike brought about a great deal of loss, and caused a great deal of inconvenience not only in Dublin but all over Ireland.

Mr. DILLON

I said so.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I am glad the hon. Member agrees with me. It was therefore a serious strike. We complain that the Chief Secretary was not in Ireland at all part of the time.

Mr. WARDLE

Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss the question whether the Chief Secretary was in Ireland or not?

The CHAIRMAN

I presume the hon. Member connects that with the administration and control of the police. At present I fail to see the connection, but I presume it is coming.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I am assuming the Chief Secretary knows his business, and I am assuming also that if he was on the spot he could have better exercised his authority over the police and would have been in a better position to understand the situation. He would therefore have been able to deal with any contingency which arose from hour to hour, a thousand times better than he was on the banks of the Dee or somewhere else. I think that is a contention which will meet with the approval of any common-sense man either in this House or elsewhere. The Chief Secretary was very much to blame. It is quite true the strike happily passed off without any loss of life, and perhaps without as much inconvenience and loss as the strike in England caused, but it might have ended in another way, and it was with great anxiety traders and others read their papers every evening and morning to see what was happening. Seeing that the strike might have developed into a very serious industrial fight, it was the bounden duty of the Chief Secretary to be at Dublin Castle, even if that involved the great hardship of bringing him home from his holiday. That is the gravamen of the charge we have laid against the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to mention the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend and by the hon. Member for East Mayo, except to say I am perfectly certain the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College will at the earliest possible opportunity deal with that very fully, and be able to stand by every word he has said and written on the subject, either in Dublin or elsewhere. I trust the House will not let this matter go by without reflecting seriously on what the conduct of the Chief Secretary will lead to. According to the hon. Member for East Mayo, the correct and proper thing in future will be for the head of the Department who is responsible for the peace of the country to be as far away from his office as he can possibly get at the time of the strike. The hon. Member said everything was done by the officials in Dublin that could possibly be done. They exercised forbearance, and did everything that was right and proper. I assume he means it is right and proper for the Minister responsible for the peace of the country to be away from his post as much as possible when these crises arise. That is not the view which I and my hon. Friends take. We fully think the Metropolitan Police deserve all credit for the way they acted throughout the strike and also at the time of the King's visit to Dublin, but if my hon. Friend goes to a Division as a protest against the action of the Chief Secretary at the time of the strike I shall certainly support him.

Mr. NANNETTI

I regret, as one of the representatives for the city of Dublin, we cannot discuss this matter. I think I have a right to speak on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the city of Dublin. Every time we went to Dublin Castle with the intention of trying to settle this strike we met with the greatest sympathy, civility, and courtesy, and there was the greatest determination to try and bring an end to the unfortunate dispute.

Sir F. BANBURY

By the Chief Secretary?

Mr. NANNETTI

The gentleman I had to deal with there was the Under-Secretary, who has held the position for years, and who knew all the requirements and everything necessary for the purpose of meeting the employers and the employed. Every assistance was given to us. Where were the Members for Trinity College? Did they come forward and try to do anything?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going into the civil question of the strike, which I said could not be entered upon here. We must keep purely to the action of the police or the action of the Chief Secretary in controlling and guiding the police.

Mr. NANNETTI

All I can say is we should have done without the police, and the matter could have been settled if any reason had been shown by the employers in Dublin in meeting the representatives of the people, and if they had shown common sense in dealing with this unfortunate question.

Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

Notwithstanding the observations made by the hon. Member who has just sat down in reference to Members from Belfast, I must say I think I have as much right to speak about the matter as the hon. Member. I live in Dublin, and I have been a ratepayer there for over thirty years. I know something of what took place, and, as a citizen and as one in terested in the peace and prosperity of the city, I feel very strongly upon this matter, and hold a very strong view about it. If the police, or whatever force was necessary, had been produced at the proper time, none of this money would have been required. The person who most fomented the dispute came from England, and he was allowed to make speeches to the effect that they were just as much entitled to shoot the man who deserted them as the British Army was—

Mr. NANNETTI

On a point of Order. You have decided I could not refer to these matters.

The CHAIRMAN

I quite agree, and I must appeal to hon. Members not even to put in a sentence on the point I have already ruled out of order.

Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

I at once bow to your ruling, and I am sorry I have transgressed in any way. We had in Dublin three or four strikes. We had the railway strike and a strike of carters, and a strike of bakers, and absolutely owing to the laxity of the authorities and their want of courage in respect to these big strikes, we had a strike of newsboys. I do not think that anyone who is a citizen of Dublin can look upon that with composure. We feel, without going into the merits of those disputes, that those "who instructed the police and who were in control of the police ought to have acted earlier, and that if they had done so they would not only have saved this expenditure, but they would have saved the city a great deal of loss and turmoil. I do not grudge the right hon. Gentleman his well-earned holiday. When this matter began he was in the House of Commons discharging his duties, but he could have come over to Dublin and have helped the authorities who were in charge of the police with his knowledge, ability, and power. He did not come over, but if he had done so this matter might have been nipped in the bud, and this expense would not have been incurred, and the peace of the city would have been preserved. I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that there was no loss of life, and that the disorder was not as great as it was in some cases in England, but there was great dislocation of business and trade upon the railways and great disturbance upon the streets. I do not want to enlarge upon it, but I do feel as a citizen of Dublin that the Dublin people ought to have been preserved, and the ratepayers of this country ought also to have been preserved, from the expense sought to be put upon them in this case.

Mr. DEVLIN

I do not think that for a long time there has been such a wonderful spectacle as the incident which has just taken place. We heard from the benches above the Gangway, and from Members of the Unionist party in Ulster, wonderful eulogies of the Chief Secretary. Why, one might imagine that these were speeches delivered by Nationalist Members on the eve of the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. I am rarely in agreement with hon. Members above the Gangway, but I do agree with them in their tribute to the wonderfully charming qualities of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I am sure we all hope that he will continue for a long time as Chief Secretary; at least until Ireland gets a Chief Secretary for herself. We are delighted to find hon. Members in agreement with us, and to hear this testimony from them that if he had remained in Ireland, if he had been at the centre of government, if he had been operating on the spot, when all this strike agitation took place, everything would have gone on as if it were one of the most delightful things in life. That is a splendid tribute, and I so rarely agree with hon. Gentlemen that I rise at once to say that I am delighted to associate myself with them.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I have not the good fortune to be resident in the fair city of Dublin, but I am a law-abiding citizen, who is concerned about the maintenance of law, order, and peace, and I had an opportunity of reading about the conduct of the police in Dublin as controlled by the Chief Secretary during the events which have led up to the request by the Chief Secretary for this additional sum, and I must say that I think the conduct of the authorities on that occasion was not judicious. If I had any doubt upon that question, it would have been removed when I found the hon. Member for East Mayo getting up and defending the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is evident there was considerable doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as to how far the right hon. Gentleman would be able to stand the attack that has been made upon him by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and therefore, in their anxiety to defend their best friend, the hon. Member for East Mayo rose to intervene in the Debate. His interventions are always pleasant, but he has deprived us during the last three or four days of the words of wisdom that always fall from him, and he has thought it necessary to get up and defend in passionate language the conduct of the Chief Secretary.

Mr. DILLON

I defended the city of Dublin.

Sir F. BANBURY

Does he not defend the Chief Secretary?

Mr. DILLON

I defended the city of Dublin.

Sir F. BANBURY

I got up to attack the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. If that includes an attack upon the city of Dublin I am very sorry, but I cannot prevent the city being included. The hon. Member for East Mayo says there was not so much disorder in Dublin as there was in some parts of England. Of course there was not so much disorder, because if the police were not instructed to put down disorder there would not be any riots.

Mr. DILLON

There was no disorder.

Sir F. BANBURY

There was no riot because the riotous people were allowed to do what they chose. If a burglar comes into my house and he is not interfered with, there is no struggle and no loss of life, but if one were to take him by the throat it is possible he might draw a revolver or use a bludgeon or something of that sort. That is exactly what occurred in Dublin. Every newspaper I saw stated that no steps were taken by the police at the commencement.

Mr. DILLON

What newspapers?

Sir F. BANBURY

No steps were taken to put down these strikes.

Mr. WARDLE

What right have the police to put down strikes?

Sir F. BANBURY

There is no doubt about it, that if you interfere with law-abiding citizens who are endeavouring to earn their livelihood, the police have a right to remove you.

Mr. WARDLE

Certainly. But they did not do that.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is the idea of the people who engage in strikes, that they can interfere with law-abiding people who are desirous of earning an honest livelihood. That idea should be put down.

Mr. WARDLE

They did not interfere with them. That is the whole point. They did not interfere.

Sir F. BANBURY

For that reason I have got up to enter my protest against the absence of the Chief Secretary.

Mr. DEVLIN

Is 13s. a week an honest livelihood?

Sir F. BANBURY

That has nothing whatever to do with the question. In view of your ruling, Sir, that the origin of these strikes would be out of Order, I cannot discuss that point. I have no desire to break the Rules, and I will not be led aside by the irrelevant intervention of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Let me point out how the right hon. Gentleman differs from the late Home Secretary. When there was a riot at Stepney he went down there to see it, and it was nothing to be compared with the disorder in Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman might have followed the example of the Home Secretary by going over to Dublin and instructing the police to stop all riot and disorder.

Mr. BIRRELL

And then be ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition as he was.

Mr. DILLON

There was no riot.

Sir F. BANBURY

He would not be ridiculed if he did his duty on a serious occasion. The late Leader of the Opposition ridiculed the Home Secretary because he went there, although there was really no serious trouble. That might have laid him open to ridicule.

Mr. DILLON

There was no riot to put down. The hon. Baronet asks the Chief Secretary to go over to> Dublin to put down a riot. There was no riot to put down.

Sir F. BANBURY

I say that if there was no riot it was because the strikers were allowed to interfere as they liked with the people who wanted to remove their goods.

Mr. WARDLE

Nothing of the kind.

Sir F. BANBURY

They wanted to remove their goods to various places in the city, and they were allowed to do so. There would be no riot in South Wales if the miners were allowed to do what they pleased.

The CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the hon. Baronet is now transgressing my ruling.

Sir F. BANBURY

I was led away for the moment and I am sorry. I think I have made the position perfectly clear, and with that simple exception I have not wandered beyond your ruling. I wish to add that no attack whatever was made upon the conduct of the police themselves, and if my right hon. Friend went to a Division I should support him.

Mr. BIRRELL

Though I do not complain of your ruling I feel a little bit shackled by it in my treatment of this question. The Supplementary Estimates we ask for include £1,924 as the cost of the police for the extra duty imposed upon them, but in listening to the hon. Baronet one would think he does not see why they should get a penny. In his opinion they had nothing whatever to do. According to him the streets of Dublin during these events were given over to the law breakers, and no cart or vehicle could be conducted along these streets for the delivery of goods. That only shows the ignorance of the hon. Baronet. Living as he does in the City of London, he is not concerned to make himself acquainted with the facts of the situation in Dublin during these occurrences. That being so he might have held his tongue. What he says does not really represent the state of things at all. As a matter of fact I am very sorry that the rules applicable to Supplementary Estimates prevent this question from being discussed from beginning to end. It so happens that although I am not a vain man, there are very few things upon which on the whole I take so much pride as in my own conduct and the police management of the strike in Dublin. Whatever anybody else thinks, whether in the Government or out of the Government, or those who would form a new Government, I honestly say I believe I discharged the part devolving upon me. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has paid me such a remarkable tribute is not aware how much I am entitled to it, because although as a matter of fact I was away during part of the time, I was there during a great part of the strike, and was there when the strike was concluded. I was as much responsible all the time and I knew everything that happened, and the only thing I did not do was to take it upon myself to interfere between employers and employed when I was not asked to do so. I should have thought the hon. Baronet was just the person who would not have complained of that, and perhaps he would not have done so if he was not so completely occupied with his pastime of taking part in these Supplementary Estimate Debates.

I think, on the merits of the case, that I was rather entitled to a great deal of credit and support. So far as the police are concerned, they behaved admirably. Every person who sought protection obtained it, and obtained it in a sufficient amount; and my complaint against a certain number of persons is that they complain that they did not get protection when they had not asked for it. In a matter like a strike we require to know, especially in the case of a carters' strike, what goods are to be transported from one place to another, and in the case of these traders who gave us notice that goods would be transported along a particular route they got the protection, and it was because they got protection that these extra duties were imposed upon the police, by the discharge of which—by the common consent of the House of Commons—they are entitled to this additional sum. I am quite prepared to defend my own conduct and the conduct of the Dublin Castle authorities and the conduct of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in very trying and difficult circumstances. On the whole, all things considered—I agree the strike was not interfered with, but came to a conclusion of its own—we did all we were bound to do. We did not put down the strike. It is no business of ours to put down strikes. We protected life, limb and property in every possible way, and we had the most remarkable success in so doing, and I am perfectly confident that is the opinion of the rational-minded body of the citizens of Dublin. I received assurances of that kind from scores of people unconnected with our party disputes in this House, and, looking back on the transaction, I am very satisfied indeed with the part that Dublin Castle and the authorities for whom I am responsible took in the affair. I am sorry I cannot go into the matter which was referred to in the earlier part of the Debate on behalf of my friend and colleague Sir James Dougherty. When the accusation is made across the floor of the House I will give it, speaking on his behalf, the flattest contradiction. However, we cannot raise that now. One hon. Member praised me in a manner which made me uncomfortable, but I was not nearly so uncomfortable as when the hon. Baronet extolled the late Home Secretary. I think, between the two of us, we may take all the credit and leave the blame alone. I am glad to think we are satisfied with the police in Dublin, who exercised great good temper and kept their heads very well under trying circumstances, and the extra duties imposed upon them entitle them to this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. WALTER LONG

In view of what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) just now about the absence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell), it is quite obvious from your ruling and the line taken by the Chief Secretary that the charges which, I believe, he made in correspondence could not possibly be raised in this Debate. I have not the smallest doubt that upon the proper occasion, the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, the right hon. Gentleman will repeat in the House anything he has said outside. So far as the action of my hon. Friends behind me goes, there has not been anything said by them in the House or out of it to justify the suggestion that they in any way complain of extra payment being made to the police, nor do they complain of the way in which the police performed the duties which fell upon them during the strike. One hon. Member asked the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) how the police could put down strikes. Of course it is quite obvious that the police cannot stop strikes. They have no right to interfere with people who are exercising their own rights, but undoubtedly what the police can do is to give the fullest possible protection to those people who desire not to be involved in a strike or to take part in it, but to assist the general business of the community by doing any work which the strikers have refused to do. This is the duty of the police, and they contribute very largely to the public peace by doing this to the fullest possible extent. The charge is not against the police. The charge is that the sum necessary to be paid to the police as extra pay would have been smaller if things in Dublin had been under the personal direction of the Chief Secretary. He tells us there is nothing in his career of which he is prouder than the part he played in the strike. I am very glad to hear it. I think the Chief Secretary must be easily pleased. It seems to have hurt the feelings of Gentlemen below the Gangway so much that I will not say I should have thought there were other incidents in his career with which he might at all events have been equally pleased. He is the best judge of his own past career.

He has also told us that he was in Ireland during much longer periods of the strike than we know. If he was he managed to keep his presence the most amazing secret. As a rule, the comings and goings of Chief Secretaries are made very public in Ireland. We hear of the time they arrive and the time they depart, and you can hardly cross the street without this being notified in some newspaper or other. The Chief Secretary seems to have found a way of arriving unknown, and, not only that, but, curiously enough, reports appeared during this time that the Chief Secretary was not in Ireland. As I have no access to his diary—and I am not going to suggest for a moment that he said anything which was not absolutely accurate—it is impossible for me to do more than say that I was in Ireland myself during part of the time, both in Dublin and in the country. I can answer for it that there was a very profound feeling of dissatisfaction at what people regarded as a scandal that the Chief Secretary, who is responsible for the Government of Ireland more than anyone else can be, was absent during the greater part of that time, and they believe, and I think with justice, that the whole of the negotiations being left to the Under-Secretary resulted in a prolongation of the strike, which might have been avoided, and the presence at the seat of Government of the head of the Government would have brought things to a termination much quicker than they were brought, and consequently we allege that this Vote is larger than it need have been. That is the charge made here. We do not attempt to go into these wider charges, which, I have no doubt, will be raised at the proper time by those who made them. Nothing that the Chief Secretary has said has altered my own personal conviction, that as soon as things assumed a serious attitude in Dublin it was his business to be there, and to see that under his own personal direction everything which could be done was done to put an end to a state of things which, although hon. Gentlemen say to-day it was peaceful and did not result in rioting or turbulence, did have this effect, that it interfered with trade, stopped business going on, and deprived many people of their legitimate earnings and profits. Everything ought to have been done at once to put an end to the strike. It was because, in our judgment, the Chief Secretary did not show a full appreciation of the responsibilities of his position that we have raised this question here, and we hold that our action is justified.

Mr. REMNANT

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the payment of £850 for the Royal visit was made? Over here the custom has been to give the men sometimes extra pay and sometimes extra leave in return for extra duty. I believe every Member of the House in dealing with the police will be anxious to give these men, if possible, more than it appears they have been paid in the Estimate. On what basis was the Grant calculated for the extra duty involved by the Royal visit and by the strike? Was it paid in pounds, shillings, and pence, or did they also have additional leave granted? From what has been said on all sides, the duty was performed most efficiently and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. If that was the case we may be quite sure that, rather than under-doing their duties, they went out of their way to perform them more efficiently than they would otherwise have done. I want to ask also whether any additional allowance is made for the Dublin Metropolitan Police to meet the increased cost of living?

Mr. BIRRELL

Not on this Vote.

Mr. REMNANT

Does this represent anything for that?

Mr. BIRRELL

No.

Mr. REMNANT

I would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has himself made any inquiries, or thinks the time has arrived for granting the inquiry for which he was asked, into the conditions under which the police in Ireland are working?

The CHAIRMAN

That should be put at Question Time. It does not arise now.

Mr. BIRRELL

The claim of the Metropolitan Police has been presented by the Chief Commissioners in a document which is now under my consideration. It raises very large questions. Of course, fifteen or twenty years makes a considerable difference, and questions do arise. This extra sum was entirely a money Grant, calculated upon the position of those who were on actual duty during the King's visit and who took an actual part in the extra work.

Mr. REMNANT

They got no other payment in the shape of leave?

Mr. BIRRELL

No.

Mr. REMNANT

Was this scale of extra pay submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and is he satisfied that it is sufficient for the work they did? Eather than take anything away from it I would add to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied it is all right, and I shall be satisfied.

Mr. BIRRELL

I am a very generous man with other people's money. It might have been a little more, but this is as much as we felt justified in asking the House of Commons for.

Viscount HELMSLEY

There is a small point that I should like cleared up. I think the right hon. Gentleman stated that this Vote of £2,800 was divided into two items of £852 for the Grant to the police for extra duty through the Royal visit and £1,924 for payment during the labour strike. You would have thought that the two sums added together would make the total Vote asked for, but the odd thing is that they do not. That seems to me one of the mysteries of the Treasury which might well be explained. I know that the Treasury statements are full of the most mysterious matters, which are quite unintelligible to the layman. If the right hon. Gentleman will explain it I should be very grateful.

Mr. WARDLE

I wish to state that I was in Dublin at this time, and there was no disorder. I take note of the fact that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) considers it the duty of the police to put down strikes.

Sir F. BANBURY

No, what I said, and what I mean, was that if the riots had been suppressed, in all probability the strike would have finished.

Mr. DILLON

But there were no riots at all.

Sir F. BANBURY

There were no riots because the strikers were allowed to do what they pleased.

Mr. DILLON

It is not true.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. Baronet is allowing himself to be led away again.

Mr. WARDLE

The circumstances at the time in Dublin were such that the police were quite competent to deal with this matter without having to put down strikes.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

There are two items of this Vote which have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. I should like to ask for information as to Item G, Incidental Expenses. There is an item of £200 for the cost of medals awarded to the police on duty during the Royal visit. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Craig) in thinking that it was perfectly right to award these medals, and possibly even more medals might have been given to them. I wish to ask whether the sum was so much underestimated at the time the original Estimates were prepared. At the time the Estimates were made it was perfectly clear that the Coronation was coming on, and it was well known, roughly, how many police were likely to be on duty, and therefore a very fair estimate might at that time have been formed. Yesterday we were told that since the Estimates were prepared the price of paper had increased. The right hon. Gentleman may now tell us that the price of copper has gone up, but as a matter of fact the price of copper has not gone up, and he cannot claim an increase in price as accounting for this estimate. If the officials were not up to time in getting the medals struck, that would be a different matter. I ask how much was the original estimate for medals, so that we may see how much the amount was underestimated. Secondly, I wish to know where the medals were made, how many were silver and how many copper, and how many policemen received them.

Mr. BIRRELL

These were not Coronation medals at all. These were medals awarded to those members of the force who took an actual part in lining the streets on the memorable occasion of the King's visit. I have seen the medals, but I am not prepared to say what precisely the component parts may be, but I am able to state that they have given great satisfaction to the members of the force who received them.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my hon. Friend's question as to where these medals were made.

Mr. DEVLIN

Explain to him where the Mint is.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman one would gather that during the strike the state of affairs in Dublin was such that there was no trouble worthy of comment in this House, and that no citizen of Dublin had any trouble at all in obtaining any goods he desired to get, or in obtaining ordinary transport facilities.

Mr. BIRRELL

I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

I say that was the suggestion conveyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In any case, he in effect said that anybody who wanted police protection could get it, and having got it, I understood him to suggest that there was no further trouble. Well, I was in Dublin, and I say that if that is the underlying suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, then he must have been grossly misinformed of the facts. I had occasion to attempt to render service to a friend of mine living within thirty-five miles from Dublin, who had got a considerable quantity of goods brought by a steamship which was lying at the quay-side. I endeavoured, on behalf of my friend, to get these goods delivered. I went down and interviewed no less than three different firms of carters and tried to get any bargain I could. I tried to persuade these carters to carry out their legitimate business and transport the goods to the railway station. There was not one of them who dared take his horse and cart to that quay-side, or unload the goods, and the result was that, as the only remedy available, I had to order a motor lorry, and I had to get the goods motored, at considerable expense, for a distance of thirty-five miles, and so a charity was deprived of some money which otherwise it would have received. What nonsense it is for a Minister of the Crown to come down to this House, and knowing these circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman must know them, or ought to know them, tell us there was no trouble in Ireland.

Mr. BIRRELL

Did these people apply for protection?

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

The answer is that they did not apply on this occasion, for they had applied formerly, and having received this imaginary protection, the lives of their carters were in danger, and their carts and other property were also in danger. These men told me that whether they had police protection or no protection it was impossible to undertake the legitimate work of carting the goods from the steamship to the train because of the insufficient protection given to the citizens of Dublin who wished to carry on their business. The right hon. Gentleman says he was present during a great part of the strike.

Mr. BIRRELL

No.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

Well, part of the time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wisely refrained from telling us what part of the time he was present. I was there two weeks, and every morning the Irish papers blazoned the fact that the Chief Secretary was not in his place. If the right hon. Gentleman was there and saw anything of the grave disorder that took place in Dublin, and the state of affairs which deprived people of the elementary rights of citizenship, it was not generally known in the city. I say that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have been absent from Ireland in such a crisis. I think the state of affairs is very disgraceful and very discreditable to the high office which the right hon. Gentleman holds.

Mr. DEVLIN

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) and the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) went over to Ireland at a time of industrial strife for the purpose of creating trouble there.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

I went for a holiday.

Mr. DEVLIN

He was there when the strike was going on. He was there while the strike was entailing a good deal of excitement, and while the Chief Secretary was there. The Chief Secretary was able to calm the people, and ultimately to settle the strike, and yet these hon. Members come here and complain of the Chief Secretary's conduct. I do not see why the time of the Imperial Parliament should be occupied in discussing the business of the hon. Member for Warrington. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] He went over to Ireland with fifty-five boxes of Unionist pamphlets, but he did not tell us that he had a placard on his breast stating, "Ulster will fight, and Liverpool will be there to lead."

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Estimate now before the Committee.

Mr. DEVLIN

I did not desire to enter further into the potential excursions of the hon. Gentleman in the sphere of political activity in Ireland. At that time we shall be all there to see it. There was no disorder in Ireland. The strike was conducted in perhaps an infinitely more orderly way than any strikes in England, and when a number of ignorant English gentlemen of high education and great prestige stand up in this House and make these attacks on Ireland that is a matter which I, as an Irish representative, resent. In my judgment, the whole cause of the strike was the conduct of the railway directors and the scandalous wages they paid to their workers.

The CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into that matter on this Estimate.

Mr. DEVLIN

In conclusion, I wish to say that I am sorry the strike did not go on, for the railway directors would have been beaten.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

My Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley) asked for some explanation as to the mystery in connection with the figures in this Estimate. No reply has so far been vouchsafed by the right hon. Gentleman. There is one mystery I should like to have cleared up at the same time he replies to my Noble Friend. The original amount of the Vote is given as £95,801, and yet we have given under two heads, B and G, a total of £100,656. What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is how it is possible under these two heads alone that the amount should be given as £100,656, while the entire Vote is only £95,801? If the figures given us are correct, the amount of the Vote apparently ought to be more than £3,500. The figures given in connection with Supplementary Estimates are generally very accurate, but evidently something has gone wrong here. As a rule we understand that the greater includes the less, but in this case, apparently, the less includes the greater. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation. The amount of the original Estimate must have been 5 per cent. understated, or the figures which I have quoted are wholly incorrect.

Mr. BIRRELL

The figures I gave were as they were represented to me, but I have a note to the effect that they are not detailed exactly. At the time the Estimate was prepared we had hoped to have something which does not appear to be available now. The original Estimate for (b) extra pay, etc., of the force was £100,026, the revised Estimate £102,826. The additional sum required was £2,800. Then the original Estimate of incidental expenses was £630, to which £200 was added for the cost of the medals, which makes £830 for incidentals, so that the additional sum required was £3,000. We reduced that by the Appropriations-in-Aid, consisting of fees, fines, and payments under various Acts of Parliament. They were estimated to amount to £56,553, and only amounted to £56,053, which was a falling off of £500, and that makes out the sum now required £3,500.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

Will the right hon. Gentleman go on to look at the next figure giving us the total amount of the Vote as £95,801. How does he reconcile these figures?

Mr. BIRRELL

The hon. Member has not taken into consideration the Appropriations-in-Aid.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

They have nothing to do with the amount of the original Vote. The right hon. Gentleman gives no explanation whatever of that figure. He does not say how it has been arrived at or how it is possible for a Vote for £95,801 to comprise, in the items (b) and (g) alone, the amount of £100,656. There must be some explanation, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us none. If it were not for the fact that the Vote is for the police, I should be very strongly tempted to divide the Committee.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I raised this question for the purpose of drawing attention to an important question of principle. I am glad to see the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. McKinnon Wood) on the Treasury Bench now, and to welcome his return to the House. As he was at the Treasury when these Estimates were prepared, perhaps he would explain them to the House. It seems to me that the Estimates are got up, not with a view to showing the exact sum that is required, but to revise the original Estimate so as to get a round sum. I do not know if that is a good plan. In each case the additional sum required is a round sum: in (b) it is £2,800, in (g) it is £200, and in (m) it is £500. These round sums cannot in each case correspond to the actual detailed figures which the Treasury must have for their Estimates. I have no doubt it will be said that the practice is being followed, but it does not follow that it is a good practice, and as the House is rapidly losing control of the national finance it is important that these points should be cleared up, and that the House should have some cognisance of what are the Treasury methods in presenting these Estimates. On an important occasion like this, when these Estimates are presented, some representative of the Treasury should be present, so that we should not be left dependent on the accidental appearance of a Minister who has now gone to another Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland is here to defend his policy, and he has defended it, whenever it is called in question, with very great courtesy to the House. Nobody would expect him to know all the Treasury details which should be answered by the Treasury, and as we have no representatives of the Treasury present, unless the late representative of the Treasury gives some explanation, I shall move to report Progress.

Sir F. BANBURY

If I am permitted to give an explanation, I shall be very pleased to do it. The official estimate for the Dublin Metropolitan Police amounted to £152,354; of that £100,026 was for pay, extra pay, etc. The Appropriations-in-Aid were £56,553, which, taken from the total Estimate, left a net total of £95,801, which is the item which appears in the lower part of the paragraph. I do not know whether it is in order for a very humble Member of the Opposition to be obliged to explain the Estimates of the Government in the absence of any representative of the Treasury. The very same thing happened yesterday, and I was obliged to move the Adjournment on account of the very great contempt which the Treasury showed to the House of Commons. I am willing to assist the Government in times of trouble, but I earnestly trust that the neglect of the House of Commons by the Treasury will not continue, as I might not be always here.

Mr. T. W. RUSSELL

I was about to give the figures which the hon. Baronet has just stated. The total estimate was for £152,354, and the Appropriations-in-Aid were £56,552. Deducting these, there was left £95,801, to which £3,500 has now to be added, bringing the total up to £99,301.

Viscount HELMSLEY

If that is the explanation which the Government are willing to offer I could have found that out for myself, as, indeed, I did find it out. Although we are grateful for the explanation of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, he also failed to apprehend the exact question which I was addressing to a non-existent representative of the Treasury. The point is not the figure £95,801, but the figures in the two columns "Original Estimate" and "Revised Estimate." I maintain that the figure in the column "Revised Estimate" must be an artificial figure which has no relation to facts, and is put down in order to bring out a round sum in each case in the third column.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move—"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Supplementary Estimates in our hands are for the sum of a quarter of a million. Yesterday and to-day no one representing the Treasury has been present. I think it a great scandal that we should find ourselves in a difficulty when matters require to be explained owing to the absence of a representative of the Treasury during these Debates. Therefore, without further words and as a protest against the action of a Department of the Government which is going from bad to worse, I move to report Progress.

Question put, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 237.

Division No. 22.] AYES. [5.30 p.m.
Aitken, Sir William Max Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Perkins, Walter F.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Goulding, Edward Alfred Peto, Basil Edward
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Archer-Shee, Major M. Hamersley, Alfred St. George Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Ashley, W. W. Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Astor, Waldorf Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Ratcliff, R. F.
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Harris, Henry Percy Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Helmsley, Viscount Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) Rolleston, Sir John
Barnston, Harry Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.) Hickman, Col. T. E. Sanders, Robert A.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hill, Sir Clement L. Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hills, John Waller Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Spear, Sir John Ward
Bird, A. Hope, Harry (Bute) Stanier, Beville
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Ingleby, Holcombe Stewart, Gershom
Bridgeman, W. Clive Joynson-Hicks, William Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Kerry, Earl of Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Butcher, J. G. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Talbot, Lord E.
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Campion, W. R. Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Thynne, Lord A.
Cautley, H. S. Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Mackinder, H. J. Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Magnus, Sir Philip White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craik, Sir Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Moore, William Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Croft, H. P. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dalziel, D. (Brixton) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Wolmer, Viscount
Denniss, E. R. B. Mount, William Arthur Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Newman, John R. P. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Newton, Harry Kottingham Worthington-Evans, L.
Fell, Arthur Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Forster, Henry William Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Younger, Sir George
Foster, Philip Staveley Parkes, Ebenezer
Gastrell, Major W. H. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Craig and Sir F. Banbury.
Gibbs, G. A. Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Gilmour, Captain John
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Brunner, John F. L. Duffy, William J.
Acland, Francis Dyke Burke, E. Haviland- Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Adamson, William Burns, Rt. Hon. John Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of
Agnew, Sir George William Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Elverston, Sir Harold
Ainsworth, John Stirling Byles, Sir William pollard Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Armitage, Robert Carr-Gomm, H. W. Esslemont, George Birnie
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Ffrench, Peter
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Flavin, Michael Joseph
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Chancellor, H. G. France, Gerald Ashburner
Barnes, G. N. Chapple, Dr. W. A. Furness, Stephen
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) Clough, William Gill, A. H.
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Glodstone, W. G. C.
Barton, W. Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Glanville, H. J.
Beale, William Phipson Cotton, William Francis Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Cowan, W. H. Goldstone, Frank
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Crumley, Patrick Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Bentham, G. J. Davies, E. William (Eifion) Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)
Bethell, Sir J. H. Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Delany, William Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Black, Arthur W. Denman, Hon. R. D. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Boland, John Pius Devlin, Joseph Hackett, J.
Booth, Frederick Handel Dewar, Sir J. A. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Bowerman, C. W. Dickinson, W. H. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brace, William Dillon, John Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)
Brady, P. J. Donelan, Captain A. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Doris, W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Masterman, C. F. G. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Robinson, Sidney
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Menzies, Sir Walter Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Hayward, Evan Millar, James Duncan Roe, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Molloy, M. Rowlands, James
Henry, Sir Charles E. H. Mooney, J. J. Rowntree, Arnold
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Morrell, Philip Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Hinds, John Muldoon, John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hodge, John Munro, R. Scanlan, Thomas
Hogge, James Myles Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Holmes, Daniel Thomas Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Holt, Richard Durning Nannetti, Joseph P. Sheehy, David
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Needham, Christopher T. Shortt, Edward
Hudson, Walter Neilson, Francis Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Hughes, S. L. Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Snowden, Philip
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Nolan, Joseph Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) Norman, Sir Henry Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
Johnson, W. Norton, Captain Cecil W. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Nuttall, Harry Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Tennant, Harold John
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) O'Donnell, Thomas Thorne, William (West Ham)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Dowd, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joyce, Michael Ogden, Fred Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Keating, Matthew O'Grady, James Verney, Sir Harry
Kilbride, Denis O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
King, J. (Somerset, North) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Walton, Sir Joseph
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) O'Sullivan, Timothy Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wardle, George J.
Lansbury, George Parker, James (Halifax) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Leach, Charles Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Levy, Sir Maurice Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Watt, Henry A.
Lewis, John Herbert Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Webb, H.
Lloyd, G. A. Pirie, Duncan V. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Pointer, Joseph White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Pollard, Sir George H. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lundon, Thomas Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Whitehouse, John Howard
Lyell, Charles Henry Power, Patrick Joseph Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Lynch, A. A. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Wiles, Thomas
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Primrose, Hon. Neil James Wilkie, Alexander
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Pringle, William M. R. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Radford, G. H. Williamson, Sir A.
Macphersen, James Ian Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Reddy, M. Winfrey, Richard
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Marks, Sir George Croydon Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Marshall, Arthur Harold Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. FELL

I should like to call attention to the amount of the Appropriation-in-Aid. In every Supplementary Estimate we have voted the sum for Appropriation-in-Aid has been an increasing amount brought into account. This is the first case in which we have, in the Supplementary Estimates, a decrease. It is clear to me that the expenses of the different Departments have been over-estimated, with the result that surpluses have accrued which have been carried to the credit, and a reduced amount given to us to vote on Supplementary Estimates. In the present case the opposite has taken place. Where there has been a deficiency I do not think we ought to pass it by without some explanation. An error is made in over calculating; a similar error is made if the amount to be received does not answer to the expectation of the Treasury. I should like some explanation of the fact that the police fines and fees are deficient. The Government have given many answers in past years to the effect that offenders had not been discovered, and that there was no one to be prosecuted or to be brought to trial. A large number of crimes have been, perhaps, correctly estimated for, but they have not succeeded in finding the people, and, therefore, there have not been prosecutions, with the result that the fines have not come up to the expectation of the Government. Of course, that reflects to some extent on the conduct of the Government in Ireland, and it really calls for some explanation from the Chief Secretary, if he can give one, as to the reason for this deficiency.

Mr. REMNANT

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now present, and I would ask him for some explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me. The original Estimate is for £100,656, and, repeated below, it is put at £95,801. Apparently the Chief Secretary and the hon. Gentleman beside him are unable to give an answer, and I am quite sure that the Committee would be much better pleased if they had an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN

The question has already been answered.

Mr. REMNANT

The Committee would be much better pleased if the Minister responsible gave an answer. If he cannot do so, let him say so, and then we can form our own conclusions.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I do not think I have anything to add to the answer given by the hon. Baronet. I understand it was a perfectly correct answer.

Mr. REMNANT

Are we to understand that the answer given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is a correct answer? The accounts show a difference of something like £4,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] The sum is a small one, but I would point out that it is the only opportunity we shall have of raising this point. May I ask whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer the question which I put to him, whether the reply given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is correct, and whether on behalf of the Treasury he is satisfied with it?