BOARD OF TRADE.—(Class II.)

HC Deb 10 February 1913 vol 48 cc564-615

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, 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, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."

Mr. SANDYS

I do not complain that this Supplementary Vote is necessary, because it was obviously quite impossible for the Government to have anticipated the terrible disaster to the "Titanic," which aroused such deep sympathy and regret, not only in this country, but throughout the civilised world, with those who lost their lives in that calamity. Under the circumstances it was highly desirable that the Government should avail themselves of, I think, Section 466 of the Merchant Shipping Act, to hold a formal investigation. Sub-section 8 of that Section allows the Court to make such orders as the Court thinks fit respecting the costs of the investigation. It is, I suppose, in accordance with the provisions of that Section that the Board of Trade are now applying to this House for these payments. I think that we have cause, if not to object to this very considerable sum, at any rate, to demand that we shall have a very clear explanation of exactly how the money is going to be expended. Not only is there this sum of £16,000 for law charges, but there is also, later on, another sum of £1,720 for the salary of the Wreck Commissioner and clerical and other assistance and hire of court in connection with this special inquiry. Thus the law charges deal solely, I suppose, with the remuneration which it was thought desirable to give to those members of the legal profession who represented the Board of Trade on that occasion. I do not think it is altogether satisfactory, since, first of all, the findings of the Court were largely disregarded by the subsequent rules issued by the Board of Trade. I am not suggesting that the members of the legal profession should be paid by practical results obtained, because, if that was to be the case, no doubt a large number of very deserving gentlemen would find their incomes very substantially reduced.

We are anxious that those members of the legal profession who attended to represent the Board of Trade shall receive proper and adequate remuneration, but I cannot help thinking that the amount asked for is rather a large one. I hope the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear as to whether this sum of £16,000 does actually cover all the law charges in connection with the inquiry, because he will notice that there was an original Estimate Of £20,700. Although it was impossible to anticipate that an inquiry on such a scale would be necessary, I conclude they had anticipated that some inquiry of this kind would be required, and they allocated a sum of money for that purpose. I should therefore like to know if this £16,000 includes all the law charges, or is there to be a sum of money deducted from the £20,700 and added to the £16,000, so as to make up the sum total of the law charges. I notice that the inquiry lasted thirty-five days, and that the members of the legal profession on behalf of the Board of Trade were the right hon. the Attorney-General, the right hon. the Solicitor-General, Mr. Butler Aspinall, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Raymond Asquith. I am not suggesting that the sum of money was equally divided amongst them, but if it had been they would each have received £90 per day, which is very fair remuneration. I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether the £16,000 covers all the law charges, and to afford any other information as to the payment given which he may think desirable.

Mr. GEORGE TERRELL

I think we ought to have, in dealing with an Estimate of this kind, the fullest information, and that we ought to know how this money has been spent. I understand the Board of Trade printed and published a book containing a verbatim report of the whole of the evidence of the "Titanic" Inquiry. It was printed before we had the debate in the House, and how is it we did not get a copy of it?

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on this Vote, which only deals with the law charges in connection with that inquiry.

Mr. G. TERRELL

Possibly that might be part of the law charges, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us if it is. This is a very big sum when you have salaried Members of the Government to represent the Government at inquiries of the sort. Surely, if one class are to get extra fees, a claim might also be made by the officials of the Board of Trade for extra remuneration. One knows that it is the custom of the Law Officers to get extra remuneration in special cases. It seems to me the amount now charged is a very excessive sum indeed.

Mr. PETO

I would like to ask whether this additional £16,000 is in addition to the sum provided in Class III., Vote 2, for inquiries before the Wreck Commissioners, travelling expenses, shorthand writers, and so on. If so, we really have a totally different sum to deal with. If you are to take the whole of the additional legal expenses as part and parcel in the main of the inquiry in respect of the sinking of the "Titanic," then I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in this particular case it was agreed, owing to the pressure of public opinion, to defray the expenses of the different parties representing the seafarers' section at the inquiry, and that that should not form a precedent for the future. I suppose because of the magnitude of the disaster it was felt that the magnitude of the legal expenses paid to Members of the Government and other legal gentlemen should be in proportion. What is the case in the ordinary wreck inquiry? There we have an addition of—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid we cannot take these two Votes together. We must, first, dispose of the Vote before the Committee.

Mr. PETO

I wanted to contrast the extraordinary liberality of the Department in this particular case with the extraordinary parsimony which is their invariable practice in cases where smaller people are concerned, and in which the legal charges do not come to a large figure, but which are of a disastrous nature to the people into whose conduct inquiry is held. We certainly want considerably more information as to what was done with this money. What was the real reason why the invariable practice in the matter of legal charges was departed from in this particular case?

Mr. G. TERRELL

May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the footnote:— Expenses under the Merchant shipping Act. 1894, on account of the inquiry into the loss of the ss. 'Titanic.' Does that mean that this £16,000 is simply a Vote on Account, and that there are further charges to follow?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson)

This sum is for the whole of the expenses on account of the "Titanic" Inquiry. The items were circulated with the Votes in answer to a question in the month of December last. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has asked what connection there is between this total of £16,000 and the sum of £4,000 in connection with wreck inquiries in general. In the answer to which I have referred the items were given separately. The sum of £4,000 was paid direct by the Treasury in connection with general legal expenses, whereas this item of £16,000 represents the whole of the sums paid under the authority of the Board of Trade solely in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. I may remind the Committee that the inquiry lasted thirty-seven days; there were over 25,000 questions asked; the mass of documents with which counsel had to deal and the amount of printed matter were enormous; the inquiry was of the very greatest importance, and the fees to the Law Officers and other legal gentlemen concerned were according to what is held in the profession to be the usual scale for great and important inquiries. These fees were all fixed in consultation with the Treasury. As regards the further provision made for the legal expenses of various outside interests, it will be remembered that in response to pressure from several Members the Government promised that legal representation would be given to those interests at the inquiry. As regards the payments made on that score, the bill of costs was taxed by Lord Mersey himself, and the sums paid represent his decision as to what was proper payment. They do not rest on the decision of the Board of Trade. An hon. Member asked whether this £16,000 was made up solely of payments made to the Law Officers and the solicitors concerned. There were other incidental expenses, such as payments to the Consul at New York, for a transcript of the notes of the proceedings in America, and so on. The detention expenses of witnesses accounts for a fairly large item, £1,908, and £574 were paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff for supplying plans and models. These items are included in addition to the payments made to the legal gentlemen concerned.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move to reduce the vote by £100. I do not regard the explanation just given as at all satisfactory. I always think in connection with these Votes that if the Minister in charge would take the trouble to give details beforehand it would save a great deal of time.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The items were circulated with the Votes in answer to a question on the 17th December.

Captain CRAIG

That may be. I had no knowledge of it. It would have been only courteous if a foot-note to that effect had been added to the Estimate. My hon. Friend asked whether the £16,000 covered only the legal expenditure, and the Parliamentary Secretary read out certain figures with regard to the detention of witnesses, expenditure on models, and other items; but we have not yet discovered whether those are in addition to this amount.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I said that they were included. They are in addition to the payments made to barristers, but they, all come under the head of legal expenses.

Captain CRAIG

I am obliged to the hon. Member. But we do not know yet what were the actual legal charges as far as Members of this House are concerned. Seeing that we pay the Attorney-General £8,000 and the Solicitor-General £6,000 a year, these charges seem very excessive for thirty-five days' work. I have always held that the enormous salaries paid to officers of this House for doing the work of the Government ought to cover a great deal of the expenses incurred in cases of this sort. Moreover, the payments are altogether out of proportion to the amounts paid to the assessors and others who had to do a great deal of hard work in connection with the inquiry. For these reasons I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Mr. FARRELL

I wish to put a question with reference to the administration of the "Titanic" Relief Fund.

The CHAIRMAN

That must be raised on the main Board of Trade Vote. The Supplementary Estimate is only for law charges in connection with the inquiry.

Mr. JOWETT

I understand the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to be that because the Commission sat for thirty-five days, and 25,000 questions were asked, the country had got its money's worth. In my opinion, and in that of many others, the country has not got its money's worth. The Commission was entirely futile; it was never intended to do the work that it was supposed to do; from beginning to end it was a whitewashing Commission, and it effected its purpose. If the country thinks that that is worth all the money that has been paid for it, the country is easily satisfied.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Parliamentary Secretary has not yet answered the question put by my hon. Friend. He has told us that a White Paper was issued and circulated with the Votes on the 17th December. If the hon. Member says so, it is doubtless the case; but after we have been sitting here for thirteen months we do not every morning read all the papers that are circulated with the Votes. If the hon. Gentleman has the figures with him I should be extremely obliged if he would tell us what these particular items were. The hon. Member for Bradford says that the Commission was a whitewashing Commission, and that no good or practical result has been secured for this large expen- diture. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member on that point. I think the Commission was a good Commission, and that it did its work, but it did it at rather greater length than was absolutely necessary. There was a considerable amount of discussion raised by learned gentlemen which I think was rather unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet cannot discuss the nature or the action of the Commission on this Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY

I was not presuming to do so. We are asked to vote £16,000, part of which goes in fees to learned gentlemen. I was discussing whether or not it was wise to spend so much in fees to learned gentlemen, and I was going on to say that I think it would have been better if we had given smaller fees. The discussion would then very likely have been shorter, because the larger the fee the longer the discussion by the counsel in receipt of the fee. I presume that when he is paid a large sum of money he thinks he must do his best to show that the payment is justified. As the expenditure of the country is very large we might endeavour to save a little money in these matters by pointing out to the Law Officers—but I do not wish to particularise the Law Officers of the Crown—and other gentlemen of the long robe that if they discuss at such great length the various matters committed to their care—

Mr. FARRELL

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the last year in which the Conservative Government held office the Law Officers received, the one £30,000, and the other £20,000 in special fees?

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

I never stood up in this House and said that the Conservative Government had never made mistakes. I particularly observed, and hon. Members opposite heard me, that I did not wish to deal particularly with the Law Officers of the Crown, but with other Members of the long robe as well. If others received a portion of this money then my remarks apply equally to them. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, will be good enough to give us the actual amounts which were paid in fees. May I ask him when he gives the explanation if he will tell us why there has been an increase in the salaries of the Official Receivers of the High Court? The increase has been from £11,842 to £13,842, or £2,000. A note at the bottom of the White Paper says that this is an allowance due to additional work. I should like to know what that additional work was. It may be right or it may not be right, but I think we ought to have some information about it. Unless some of us exercise vigilance in respect to some of these Supplementary Estimates there is no control in this House over the expenditure of the Government. Personally when I was sitting on the opposite side of the House I always welcomed the criticism of the hon. Members on this side so long as it was devoted to the furtherance of economy and not to the furtherance of extravagance.

Mr. ROBERTSON

We all recognise the constant vigilance of the hon. Baronet, and I have pleasure in giving him the details that he asks for—that is to say, the payments made to counsel in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. The particulars, as I have said, were issued with the Votes on 17th December. There were paid to five counsel, in all the sum of£9,341. The leading counsel received together £7,228, divided as follows: The Attorney-General, £2,458; the Solicitor-General, £2,425; Mr. Aspinall, the eminent Admiralty barrister, £2,345; two junior counsel, Mr. Rowlatt, £1,249, and Mr. Raymond Asquith, £864—these payments being, of course, proportionate in the usual way to the fees paid to leading counsel. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet wants any of the items of payment made to the solicitors who instructed counsel on behalf of the seafaring interests concerned.

Sir CHARLES HENRY

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these barristers came in by order of Lord Mersey?

Mr. ROBERTSON

Mr. Alexander Smith, solicitor, who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, £750; Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company—

Mr. GILL

What were counsel's fees?

Mr. ROBERTSON

I have already explained that these were fixed by Lord Mersey.

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

What was the fee received by Mr. Scanlan?

Mr. ROBERTSON

I do not think I have the accounts separately. I have given first of all the items for the five counsel representing the Board of Trade—that is three leading and two junior counsel. I have just given the items of the bills paid for the solicitors who instructed the various counsel representing the special interests that the Government promised should be represented. Mr. Alexander Smith received £750; Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company, solicitors, who instructed Mr. A. Clement Edwards, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Union, £750; Mr. C. G. P. Farrell, solicitor, who instructed Mr. H. D. Harbinson as counsel on behalf of the third-class passengers, £630; Messrs. C. G. Bradshaw and Waterson, solicitors, who instructed Mr. Adair Roche as counsel on behalf of the Marine Engineers' Association, £212; Messrs. Miller, Taylor and Holmes, solicitors, who appeared by their Mr. L. S. Holmes, on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, £250; with two other smaller items—Mr. Lewis, charges and expenses in connection with his appearance on behalf of the British Seafarers' Union, £72; and Mr. Cotter, charges and expenses in connection with his appearance on behalf of the National Union of Stewards, £68.

These were all the items paid in connection with the legal inquiry. I find, as regards the bill of Mr. Alexander Smith, and the same applies to Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company, that the fee of counsel was £500 and that the solicitors' bill—as taxed by Lord Mersey—was £250. I think that I have now given all the items that the hon. Baronet wishes. With regard to the further Vote as to the salaries of the Official Receivers on which he asks—and quite rightly—for information, the extra payments were for clerical services rendered in connection with very heavy work during the year in connection with the Birkbeck Bank investigation and the Bank of Egypt. The amount of work done during the past year was considerably in excess of that done the year before.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The deplorable accident to the "Titanic" seems in one sense to have been a harvest to the legal profession. I think the amount of the Vote now presented should have been presented in a far different way to the House, because, may I point out, with the exception of the details given in the reply to a question on 17th December, the Board of Trade have not even taken the trouble to print as a Parliamentary Paper this Estimate and the details now asked for—the details they now ask the House to sanction. I want to know, lastly, in connection with this £20,000 legal expenses, why the Wreck Commissioner's salary is £1,050? Is it a special fee? If so, who settled it? I can only take the total Estimate as shown in the reply to the question on 17th December. The Wreck Commissioner's salary is there £1,050. The total cost of the legal inquiry, in reply to a question, was stated to be £20,231. We are asked for a Vote of £16,000, but we have no details other than those furnished in reply to the question which I have already quoted from. That is a very unsatisfactory way of presenting accounts, particularly when they come from the Board of Trade.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)

On a point of Order. I have not the slightest objection to my hon. Friend asking these questions, but they are not relevant to this Vote. The Vote on which that salary is borne is the Vote for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, Class 2, which we will come to later. I shall then be willing to give the fullest information.

Mr. PETO

Is it not, Mr. Whitley, extremely unfortunate to sandwich the two portions of what are practically a Vote on Account to some extent, with such a thing as the Stationery Vote in between, so as to give hon. Members no possible opportunity of discussing the thing as a whole? Cannot we take it that it would not be out of order to take these Votes one after another?

The CHAIRMAN

I have no control over that. I have to take the Votes in the order in which they are set down in the day's proceedings.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It is a slipshod method either of the Board of Trade or the Treasury to present these details so badly. Why should we not have the accounts presented in a proper and businesslike manner so that we can see the details? I want to know why this payment of £574 11s. was paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, according to the information we have, for numerous plans, models, work, and attendance at the inquiry. Was this account sent into Messrs. Harland and Wolff, or did the Board of Trade ask them to produce an account for payment? I cannot for a moment think that a large firm like Messrs. Harland and Wolff would, particularly under the circumstances of this appalling disaster, have sent in an account for this small sum in connection with what, after all, was an inquiry touching the stability of the ship. It is not an account that, if sent to the Board of Trade, ought in any case to have been paid. With regard to the legal charges, we are told that the amounts cannot be severed, or that it cannot be said how the amount of £750 paid to the solicitors who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, is made up.

Mr. ROBERTSON

£500 fee and £250 to the solicitor.

Sir A. MARKHAM

With regard to the fees of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, I think it is most undesirable that we should be asked to vote these special fees to these learned Gentlemen. It seems to me that the better way would be for the country to pay the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General a certain fixed sum for their services. These specially heavy fees ought not to he borne by the country when any disaster of this character takes place. In point of fact, I submit that we had best pay the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General a lump sum for the financial year. At all events, in my opinion, the total charges in connection with this Vote, £20,000 for legal expenses are so out of proportion to what they ought to be, that I will record my vote in favour of the Amendment that has been moved on the other side.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

In the case of such a terrible disaster as the "Titanic," it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the circumstances should be examined into, and that reasonable expenses should be paid, which the Department itself should bear. When I come to look at this item and try to find out how this £16,000 is made up, it becomes a serious matter. We are not told in the Supplementary Estimate how it is made up, and we have to try and quarry it out for ourselves. It appears in 1360 of the OFFICIAL DEBATES, Volume V., and there we get some indication as to how the amount is made up. I find that the assessors' remuneration and subsistence allowance and travelling expenses came to £950 17s. 2d. out of the £16,000.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member will look at the Vote we have passed, he will find it is better than reading the accounts from the OFFICIAL REPORT, which include all sorts of things. We are now dealing with page 3, and if he looks at page 11, he will find the amounts.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I am much obliged, Sir, for pointing that out, but I do not find anything on page 11 which explains how the £16,000 is made up. I think the Committee are entitled to know the items. It is quite true that ordinarily speaking in Supplementary Estimates, there is usually some part in which we find a detailed explanation. So far as I am personally concerned I have been unable to find the full details.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when all the heads were read out under which this £16,000 was divided.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I regret I was at work at that time in another part of the building trying to find out the details, and therefore I had not the advantage of hearing them, but what I was about to call attention to was that the Attorney-General seems to have received £2,458 2s., and the Solicitor-General £2,125 4s., in respect of this inquiry. Various other counsel received other sums. I do not so much object to these sums being paid because I presume under the existing arrangement where the Law Officers of the Crown do not get absolutely fixed salaries for all the services they render to the Government Department these sums would be properly paid, but what I cannot understand is how the Government came to pay solicitors to instruct counsel on behalf, for instance, of the National Seamen and Firemen's Union. I daresay it was quite right, but it is quite clear that they were not employed by the public department, and there is no authority, so far as I can gather, for the Board of Trade paying a whole pile of solicitors and counsel to appear on behalf of a variety of people. Probably they may have the right to appear before the inquiry, but they did not appear for the public generally, but for private purposes. There may be a complete answer, and there may have been authority given by the House to pay on behalf of the Government. I do not suggest that they have been overpaid. What I want to know is where the authority for the State to pay for solicitors of private people and to pay for counsel who appear for them? Other solicitors receive £750. Solicitors are a very deserving body. I know something about them myself, and they are fully entitled to be paid full remuneration for their work, but why the State should pay these particular gentlemen I do not know. Then there was a solicitor who instructed Mr. Roche, who appeared for the Marine Engineers' Association, and got £212, and the solicitor who appeared for Mr. Holmes got £250. Mr. Lewis, who appeared for the British Seafarers' Union, got £72. He comes off badly. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not a solicitor."] Mr. Cotter got £68 2s., His Majesty's Consul at New York got £550 17s. 1d., and other counsel got £11 1s. 2d. There, again, these counsels seems to have done very well. General witnesses got £980 12s. 2d., the Marconi Company got a slice, the Cunard Company got something, and Messrs. Harland and Wolff got £574 11s. for bringing their models and plans to the inquiry. One would have thought that firms like Messrs Harland and Wolff which built the ship which on its first voyage went to the bottom, would bring their plans and models without asking the country to pay them £574 11s. I join with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) in strongly objecting to this £574 11s., and I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Board of Trade as to what authority they had for paying these miscellaneous expenses and for paying solicitors' and counsels' charges. I do not say they ought not to have been paid. I do not say they are excessive. But I do think that before these sums of money are paid there ought to have been some authority from this House authorising the Department to pay them, particularly in this case, where the sums of money are so extremely large.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The case the hon. Member put is: What is the authority for making these payments to solicitors and counsel who represented outside interests? This matter comes before the House in this way. Appeals were made from various quarters of the House to the Government—the hon. Members will find the matter recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 22nd April and 2nd May—to give facilities for the representation of various interests, some of them seafaring interests or interests connected with shipping, and the Government, in response to the pressure put upon them, promised, in view of the extreme gravity of the matter and of the widespread desire that there should be the fullest representation of all interests, to give that permission, and such facilities were given.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Did they promise that the costs should be paid?

Mr. ROBERTSON

Who else was to pay the costs? The costs were put upon the Government, and, as I already explained fully, they were actually taxed by Lord Mersey. The hon. Member declares there was no power to do that. I think the power is complete.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Although authority is given to those parties to appear, there does not appear to have been authority for paying the whole of their expenses; that is quite a different thing.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I am informed that there was no power in the Court to order the Government to pay the expenses.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The authority must have been adequate from our point of view. Not only were they ordered to be paid, but Lord Mersey taxed the costs.

Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD

Of course, there is power under the Merchant Shipping Act.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Of course, there is a complete answer. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to know what service was rendered by Harland and Wolff. The services they rendered were— submitting numerous plans, models, and work, and attendance at the inquiry of their Mr. Wilding and three others in their service. As regards the payment for the Consul at New York, that was for transcripts of the legal proceedings in America, for legal expenses and the expenses of taking depositions outside.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

I remember very well when this question of the legal representation of various interests was raised and the form of pressure that was put upon the Government, but that related entirely to the question of locus standi and in no way to the payment of expenses. The hon. Gentleman must see it is a very unprecedented and an entirely new principle to admit that counsel and solicitors who appear before the tribunal for outside interests should receive remuneration from the Government when these people were not selected by the Government. It is stated that there is power to order this under the Merchant Shipping Act, but I should like to see the Section in which that power exists. Let us remember that the power to grant costs does not exist at all, except in Statutes, and that it is a power only in cases of a litigous character, and is intended to penalise the parties in litigous proceedings found by the proper tribunal to be at fault. Is it that the Government were at fault in this instance, in such a way that they had to pay the costs in respect of an issue in which they had been defeated? It must be remarked that this is a practice which should be watched very narrowly by the House of Commons.

I am very glad the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade has abandoned his unwillingness to give details, because if he simply told me to read the White Paper in order to find out the details, I would have told him I was not going to do anything of the kind. When hon. Members ask for information, especially upon a Supplementary Estimate, they are entitled to get it, notwithstanding any Ministerial reluctance. I am not surprised that there was a certain reluctance shown in giving these details. It is an innovation bringing these proceedings and bearing these expenses. It may be all right from the public point of view to give all facilities for attending the inquiry and to make quite sure that the interests of the humbler classes of passengers and the men in the humbler ranks of the merchant service should have all their interests represented, and to make sure that in future they should be exposed to the minimum of risk and danger, but, after all, when you have a Government which is supposed to have democratic sympathies, and is supposed to be very deeply attached to the interests of labour, and which maintains expensive Departments advised by a hierarchy of lawyers. I want to know what we get for the fees we pay to our own Law Officers? They are supposed to put skilled questions which tend to the elucidation of the sources of danger connected with the lives of the humbler classes. I do not say there has been anything wrong in this case, but the hon. Gentleman opposite must see that this question raises an important principle, and I want to know whether it is going to be made a precedent or whether any precedent can be quoted for any action of this kind?

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

I wish to know if it is claimed that the power to legalise this practice is to be found under Section 491 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894? Section 491 of that Act provides:—

"There may be paid out of money 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 a 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."

I cannot find anything in that Section that would admit of this practice that has been complained of. I do not wish to go into a legal argument, because I have no conception of the law, but it seems to me that by Section 491 the practice complained of by my hon. Friend is quite illegal. There is one other small point I wish to raise in connection with the payment of these fees, and it is that I think we ought to know on what basis these fees are paid. I do not ask this is in any unpleasant mood, but the House of Commons cannot possibly keep control over expenditure of this sort unless we know on what basis it was calculated. The hon. Member who spoke for the Government laid great stress upon the fact that 25,000 questions had been asked upon it. I suppose the number of questions is no criterion of the importance of the subject, and I hope fees are not calculated on that basis, because it would work out that each question would cost about 14s. 6d. I think we are entitled to have an explanation in order that we may keep proper control over such expenditure.

Mr. MACPHERSON

In reply to what has been said by the hon. Member opposite, may I point out that the hon. Member for Sunderland has shown that under the Act the Court has power to order certain fees to be paid. I only wish to make my position perfectly clear. I understand that there are some further details with regard to the item of £574 paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and this item was not charged for models alone. I believe that is the firm who built the "Titanic," and no doubt they have models. I want to know why there should be a charge of £574 for sending models which no doubt they had at their disposal. Perhaps the hon. Member would give us the other details of that item.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The hon. Gentleman has quite misapprehended my statement; because I read over twice the items paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff. It has not been stated that that payment was for models, but it was for the attendance of three officials from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and the mere sending of the models was the first item named. The hon. Member opposite has just read Section 491 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. May I call his attention to Section 479 of the same Act, which provides:—

"(1) The Lord Chancellor may (with the consent of the Treasury so far as relates to fees) make general rules for carrying into effect the enactments relating to formal investigations, and to the rehearing of, or an appeal from, any investigation or inquiry held under this part of this Act, and in particular with respect to the appointment and summoning of Assessors."

What has been done has been done under rules made by the Lord Chancellor under that Section of the Act and under the Shipping Casualty Rules of 1907, under which a judge may order the costs or expenditure of any parties to be paid. This order was made on that authority, and I think the fact is fully made out. As regards the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), I am sure that we all hope there will never again be such a disaster as that which happened to the "Titanic." The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that this would not be made a precedent, and we hope that no other such disaster will ever have to be inquired into. It must be within the recollection of hon. Members that at the time of the disaster there was a desire expressed in every quarter of the House that there should be the fullest investigation. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I exhibited an unwillingness to give information, but surely that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, because when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London asked for details, I gave them, and if any one had put the same question before I should have read the details. The whole of the items were printed, not in a White Paper, but circulated with the Votes on the 13th December, and the hon. Member opposite read the items because he found them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Under these circumstances to suggest that in regard to a series of items printed in the OFFICLAL REPORT there is a reluctance to give them is an absurd kind of argument. I gave all the items, and if any other items had been asked for, I was ready to give them, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House by reciting items which are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The only answer which the hon. Gentleman gave was a reference which I say was quite an insufficient answer.

Sir F. BANBURY

I wish to refer to this payment of £475 to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and to the principle of paying the costs of solicitors and counsel employed by private people. With regard to the amount paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, the Under-Secretary says it was not only for models, but also for the attendance of certain officials connected with that firm. Really I do not think that that makes the case any better. Let us consider the position which arose, and which implicated Messrs. Harland and Wolff. They were the builders of this enormous vessel, and it was her first voyage across the Atlantic. She was a very fine vessel, and her voyage was announced in a great many newspaper paragraphs, and the extraordinary way in which the builders had made this great vessel an advance in shipbuilding science was eulogised in nearly every newspaper under the sun. I presume that Messrs. Harland and Wolff received a very large sum of money for this ship, and made a very large profit upon it, and it would have enhanced their reputation considerably if it had gone across the Atlantic safely. There comes this unfortunate catastrophe. Messrs. Harland and Wolff are very rich people, and anyone would have thought that the first thing they would have done would have been to have said to the Board of Trade, "Anything we can do is at your disposal, and any plan, models, or officials connected with the building of that ship, are at your disposal in order to show how accidents of this sort may be avoided in the future." Now we have it, on the authority of the hon. Member opposite, that this great and rich firm come to the Government and say, "We require the taxpayers to pay us £574 to recoup us for having brought up models already in existence, and for some of our officials having to spend time upon this inquiry." I could not have believed that people in that position would have taken up such an attitude, and if I had been President of the Board of Trade I would certainly have refused to pay that money, and I think I should have refused it in such terms that Messrs. Harland and Wolff would not have insisted upon payment.

The other question which arises is whether it is advisable for the State to pay the cost of legal proceedings instituted by private individuals? I am not quite certain who all these private individuals were whose legal costs were paid, but whether they were deserving people or not does not enter into the question. My hon. Friend beside me informs me that two Members of this House got £500 each. I think this is really a much more important question than a mere personal one, and it should be considered carefully and seriously by every hon. Member in this Committee, upon whichever side of the House he may happen to sit. Are we to take it that in future, when a serious disaster of this sort occurs, that the House of Commons and the taxpayers are to be asked to contribute towards the legal expenses of private individuals? My right hon. Friend below me pointed out that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General had large fees. I make no complaint about that, because they were employed by the Government to look into this matter; but why on earth they did not look after the interests of the other people who employed these legal gentlemen, I do not know. If all these interests were not properly served by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, then I think the other parties should have paid for their own legal assistance, and it will lead to a very dangerous precedent if it is to be assumed that whenever an accident of this sort occurs, and an inquiry is held, that anyone who chooses to come forward and appear for certain people who are unfortunate enough to have been connected with the disaster is to have their legal expenses paid. If we are going to admit this principle, I do not see where we are going to stop. We are always having inquiries, and there may be many other inquiries of an important character in which a very large number of people are interested and, if at all these inquiries any persons appearing are entitled to have their expenses paid by the Board of Trade or any other Government office, then, I say, we shall be setting up a very bad precedent, because we shall be spending the money of the taxpayer in a way in which it was never intended to be spent, and we shall be encouraging unnecessary litigation, which I think would be a regrettable thing to do. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he certainly gave me the information most courteously the moment I asked for it, and I have no complaint of any sort to make; but I do earnestly hope hon. Members opposite will regard this as a very serious procedure. I am not sure, but I think it is a novel precedent. I should rather like to know whether there is any precedent at all, and I think we might have had the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, because it is a legal question. 1 ant not quite sure whether the Statute from which the hon. Gentleman opposite quoted bears the interpretation he put upon it, but it is a very wide Statute, and no doubt the Lord Chancellor has made the rules which he says have been made. This is only further evidence of the great mistake we very often make now in passing Acts of Parliament giving other people power to make rules. We are led into all this sort of thing. Very large expenditure is entailed, and directly the House of Commons endeavours to go into the matter they are met with the statement that some great official has made rules. This is a very serious question which demands very careful investigation by the Members of the Committee on all sides of the House.

Mr. JOWETT

I intend to vote for the reduction if it is pressed to a Division, but. I shall not do so because I agree with some of the reasons that have been given in favour of it, particularly the reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier in the Debate. The hon. Baronet, so far as I could gather, supported the same view, namely, that it was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to represent the humbler persons affected by this disaster. If I read the situation aright, the Law Officers of the Crown represented the Board of Trade. I contend that the Board of Trade was on its trial, and it would have taken all the energy and skill of the Law Officers of the Crown to have protected the Board of Trade if serious inquiry had been made into its action and administration. That is my view. I want also to call attention to what I consider to be an important omission on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his explanation. He has certainly not explained to my satisfaction the position of Messrs. Harland and Wolff as receivers of a certain amount of public money, when, as a matter of fact, they ought to have been on their trial. They were really defending. They built the ship, and, if the ship was constructed in a faulty manner, it was certainly for them to be ready and willing, and even eager, to show to the Committee at any possible expense to themselves that they were not at fault.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Was the statement ever made that they were at fault?

Sir A. MARKHAM

Oh, yes, at the inquiry.

Mr. JOWETT

I simply speak as an ordinary Member of the public, and I imagine most people were of the view that they were affected by that inquiry. I do not know whether the evidence was paid for or not, but, if so, then a further sum must be added to the amount of £574 paid to that firm. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that question. The Parliamentary Secretary, in my opinion, has not explained why £574 of public money was given to Messrs. Harland and Wolff for their own protection at that Commission. It appears to me it would have been just as reasonable for the Government to have paid Sir Robert Finlay, who represented the White Star Line. The two cases, to my mind, are almost exactly identical. Previous speakers in this Debate have been exceedingly anxious to dissociate themselves from any criticism of the Law Officers of the Crown for the large amount they have received. I quite agree the hon. Baronet behind me is not included in that remark. I refer particularly to the hon. Baronet opposite who spoke earlier, and several others. They appear to be exceedingly anxious to dissociate themselves from any intention of criticising these amounts that have been paid to the Law Officers. I have no wish to dissociate myself from that criticism. I want to know—a reason has never yet been given—why Law Officers of the Crown, paid in one case £7,000 a year, and in the other case £6,000 a year, are entitled to receive for any efforts they put forward £2,400 extra? The whole business, to my mind, is discreditable from beginning to end. Following on this disaster, which struck with horror the whole civilised world, we were given an inquiry which has turned out to be a monster pie into which Members of the legal profession have dipped their hands up to the very elbows and taken everything they could.

Mr. MORTON

Last December I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give the total cost of the Wreck Commission Inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic," and he gave the particulars of a considerable amount of expenditure, totalling altogether £20,231 5s. 10d. He added a note saying that was not all the expenditure, because a few of the items were merely approximate figures, and the total cost was exclusive of the cost of printing and reprinting various Departmental memoranda, and was also exclusive of a comparatively small amount of remuneration for extra work incurred in connection with the inquiry. I should like to know the real figures. Some time previous to the inquiry, I asked who was going to represent the public, and especially the travelling public. I was told by the Prime Minister the travelling public would be represented by the Attorney-General. The Law Officers of the Crown, as far as I can understand, were not there representing the public but the Board of Trade. The whole of their duty at the inquiry appeared to be to try and clear the Board of Trade from the charge of not having done their duty in allowing the ship to sail without proper inquiry about boat accommodation, etc. I do not know whether it is so or not, but apparently the salary given to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General is only a sort of retainer, and they have to be paid again directly they begin to do work. I never really understood that was the proper meaning of paying a large salary. One would have thought it was their business at the inquiry to represent the public who paid them, and look after their interests. I find the only people who appeared for the public were Mr. Alexander Smith, solicitor who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union. Another firm of solicitors and a barrister, a Member of Parliament, represented the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union, and Mr. Adair Roche, instructed by a further firm of solicitors, who appeared on behalf of the Marine Engineers' Association. Unless the independent parties had taken the matter up there would have been no one to represent the public at all. The business of the Attorney-General apparently was to try and whitewash the Board of Trade.

8.0 P.M.

I should like to know how it is two Members of Parliament, besides the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, get very large sums of public money. Complaint has recently been made with regard to the transactions between the India Office and Messrs. Montagu and Company, and why it should be wrong for them to have public money in that way and right for Members of Parliament in the case of the loss of the "Titanic" I do not know, but I do say we are entitled to have some explanation from the Government why it is illegal in one case, when in the other the money can be taken without any complaint whatever. I should like to complain, too, as to the way in which this statement has been brought forward in driblets. Why is it the Government did not immediately after the inquiry, if they did not do so before, come and ask the House for power to pay the whole of these amounts and allow us an opportunity of discussing them? There was a proposal to discuss the question on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Holidays, but the President of the Board of Trade requested that it should be put off until the autumn. It was put off, and it was probably not so well discussed then as it might have been earlier. Things are forgotten after a lapse of time, and I was very sorry indeed that I was closured and was not allowed to make any statement or to make any inquiry on that occasion, although I had a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that we should have an ample opportunity of discussing it. We have gone to this enormous expense for apparently doing nothing at all, and it is, to my mind, a great waste of public money, because really the inquiry we wanted was into who was responsible for allowing that vessel to go out improperly equipped. The certificate—

The CHAIRMAN

We are not concerned now with the character of the inquiry. The Estimates we are dealing with are for the legal expenses.

Mr. MORTON

Then will you kindly tell me when we are going to have an opportunity of discussing it?

The CHAIRMAN

I should like to advise the hon. Member privately on that.

Mr. MORTON

I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing this matter, because no Government and nobody else should be screened by the procedure of this House. Why should we not have an opportunity of discussing the matter on an occasion like this, when they ask for money? I thought that the ancient custom of this House was that you were entitled to ventilate your grievances before any money was granted. The grievance I wish to complain of is that the vessel was improperly certified.

The CHAIRMAN

I also remember that the hon. Gentleman has a grievance about third-class sleeping-cars, but you cannot raise that on every opportunity. It is not relevant to the Vote.

Mr. MORTON

I was not saying a word about third-class sleepers. I am very much obliged to you for giving me an opportunity of saying something. If you would allow me to go into the question of the third-class sleepers I should like to do so. I am very glad that you have it in your thoughts as well as I have. Between us I hope we shall succeed in doing justice to the British people in that connection.

The CHAIRMAN

We shall get it much sooner if we do not waste time over irrelevancies.

Mr. MORTON

It was not I who called attention to that subject. I am sorry that this little point of Order should at all interfere with us in getting a proper account from the Government in regard to these matters. It ought not to be so, and there is no doubt at all that there has been a great waste of public money. I hope still that we may get some explanation and that we shall be told by the Government when the time will arrive when we shall have an opportunity of considering the whole of this which we regard as wasteful expenditure. The whole inquiry came to nothing so far as we are concerned; we are no better off than before. I hope we will bear in mind that we have other expenditure to meet besides getting pay for lawyers. I do not know why the President of the Board of Trade is not here, because he is the Gentleman who ought to give us the fullest information and see that the explanation is clear. So far as the hon. Member is in order or I am in order, we ought to have the fullest statement to-night on this matter. I can only conclude by adding that I am much obliged to you for mentioning the third-class sleepers.

Mr. ALDEN

I am independent entirely of the firm which has been mentioned; I know nobody connected with that firm; I do not hold a brief for them, but I think that firm has not been fairly treated; it has been attacked all round. One hon. Gentleman has gone so far as to say it was not the White Star Company but Messrs. Harland and Wolff who were on their trial, and he inferred that as they were on their trial this money should not have been paid at all. I think that is very unfair. The firm built the finest ship that has ever been built; it was passed by the Board of Trade and by every expert who was called in. That ships goes to sea under the White Star Line and under the conduct of the White Star Line it goes down. That is not the fault of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and I think they are perfectly justified in claiming for sending their officers and experts and models to the inquiry. They have just as much right as any other firm would have under the circumstances. I rise because I think the reflections which have been cast upon this firm are extremely unfair. I had not the remotest idea of speaking, but simply because the firm has been attacked in every direction I think somebody ought to stand up and defend them, and make it clearly understood that all the Members of the House do not approve of the attack made upon certainly one of the finest shipbuilding firms in the world.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I am not sure whether some hon. Members do not suppose that all the legal expenses of Messrs. Harland and Wolff in connection with this trial have been met in this way. Messrs. Harland and Wolff were simply paid for the full services rendered by their experts in the course of the trial—very full and valuable services. In so far as they were represented for themselves that was their own matter. So far as the suggestion was made by hon. Gentlemen that they were the people on trial I hope hon. Members do not suggest that the judge found that they were in any way at fault in the loss of the vessel.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It was one of the questions that had to be tried and reported upon, the question of stability.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The judge has not suggested that they were at fault in the matter. If the Committee suggested that payment should not be made in this case it would probably lead to considerable difficulty in getting similar services in other circumstances. There is really nothing abnormal in respect to this particular payment. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire (Mr. Morton), we gave the details on 17th December last.

Mr. MORTON

You say in a note it is not full.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I quite agree a few of the items were approximations, but I think the hon. Member would admit that we gave the fullest information we could at that particular date. As for the argument that the Law Officers should not be paid special fees, it is obviously a point that I cannot discuss in a discussion upon one Supplementary Estimate. It is a matter of old-established practice.

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

I rose about a quarter of an hour ago to ask the hon. Gentleman a question as regards these fees. Who settles them? How are they settled, and who are they settled by? I do not ask the question idly. I think it is of some interest to the House in order that we should keep some control in these matters, and now I repeat the question.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I think I said in one of my previous answers that the fees paid to counsel representing the Board of Trade were settled, in accordance with legal precedent, between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The Treasury looks into these matters with the fullest knowledge of such precedents. With regard to the fees paid to solicitors who briefed counsel for parties who had outside interests, at the request of this House these fees were settled by Lord Mersey; he taxed the bills.

Sir A. MARKHAM

How is it that a barrister who was only called to the Bar a few months could be paid £500 for services in a case of that kind?

Mr. ROBERTSON

I said Lord Mersey taxed the bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who taxes Lord Mersey?"]

Sir A. MARKHAM

I think some of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench must never do any business until they get into that position where they have to do the business of the country, and we get landed into the position in which we find ourselves. Would any responsible business people carry on business in the way in which the Board of Trade have acted in this matter? To my mind it is perfectly outrageous. They pay Messrs. Harland and Wolff a sum of £585 for producing before a Commission witnesses and models, a Commission which, without casting any reflection upon the firm, was in some respects due to the failure on the part of the company to build a stable ship. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is no use saying "No, no," when they are rebuilding the other ship and putting a new bottom into it. The hon. Member below is acting as advocate for Messrs. Harland and Wolff.

Mr. ALDEN

No, I am defending them against attack.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I am not making an attack upon them. I am merely saying as a business man that when the Board of Trade hold an inquiry in which the building of a ship and the stability of a ship was one of the questions referred to the Commission, and dealt with by Lord Mersey in his report in detail, and when the other ship is sent back to Belfast for a new copper bottom to be put into her, the Government have no right to pay public money to the amount of £585 for the purpose of this firm producing experts and models. No business firm, nobody but officials, would have proceeded in that way. The hon. Member below the Gangway said that Messrs. Harland and Wolff had been attacked. I say no attack has been made upon them. I cannot think that if Lord Pirrie had been aware that he would have permitted an account of this kind to go forward, but in that easy way in which our officials, our servants, pay out public money they simply say, "Here is an account from Harland and Wolff; we ought to pay it." This is acting as no business firm would ever act; they would exercise more common sense in such matters. One other question with regard to this payment, this monstrous payment, which should never have been made to people who had been more or less on their trial. 'The ship was found to be an unstable ship.

Mr. ALDEN

She was not found to be unstable.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The White Star people have satisfied themselves, and they are rebuilding their ship at the present moment. When the ship was first designed, the designs were sent to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade made certain recommendations to Messrs Harland and Wolff, but they were not carried out. Will the hon. Member explain why that was so? Messrs. Harland and Wolff persuaded the Board of Trade, and following that persuasion the vessel was lost. Is there no liability, therefore, on the Board of Trade about this matter? Of course there is. The payment was a most improper one. One other question as to the precise form in which this account is presented. We have here to look through the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to obtain the particulars we require. The officials of the Board of Trade seem to think it is quite easy for Members of the House to go into the Library and get the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to make up the total cost. When a Supplementary Estimate is put down it ought to bear on the face of it all the details of the money which the House is asked to vote. We waste plenty of money on stationery without this information being withheld, which would cost only a few pence. I wish to ask whether with regard to this item of £980, were any payments made out of that to the White Star people?

Mr. ROBERTSON

I have no list of witnesses.

Sir A. MARKHAM

We are here asked to vote £20,000, and when I ask whether any payment was made to the White Star Line the hon. Gentleman says he has no list of witnesses. I should like to know what the briefs were marked in the case of the Attorney-General, Sir J. A. Simon, Mr. Aspinall, Mr. Rowlatt, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Scanlan. All these details ought to have been placed on the Paper for the information of hon. Members. If this House were a free and independent Assembly it would never pass this Vote, when the men on the Treasury Bench come and throw large sums in this slipshod way at our heads. I shall give my vote against this Estimate, and I believe that many Members, if they had been present instead of being at dinner, would likewise record their votes against the way in which the Board of Trade have presented these Estimates to the House.

Captain CRAIG

I should like the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate to clear up one or two points. I moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the careless way in which the Estimate was presented to the Committee, and the extraordinary way in which the funds necessary to defray the legal expenses in connection with this inquiry seem to have been spread over such a large number of Members of this House. Out of this sum of £16,000 the Attorney-General received £2,458, the Solicitor-General £2,425, Mr. Asquith (the son of the Prime Minister) £864, the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), whom I do not see in his place, £500, the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Clement Edwards) £500, Mr. Farrell £630, Mr. Roche £212, and Lord Pirrie (for Harland and Wolff) £574. In choosing counsel to appear before a Wreck Commissioner or a Special Commissioner, would it not give some assurance to the outside public to choose outside counsel altogether, except where it is necessary for the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to represent the Department which is involved? This sordid tale will strike everybody as being an extraordinary coincidence, to call it nothing more. It is extraordinary that a large amount of public money should, at a time of a national disaster, be distributed among hon. Members of this House and their friends. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether the fact that hon. Members outside the Law Officers of the Crown were briefed to take up a case such as this, which involved a Public Department, does not gravely imperil the seats of those hon. Members? In view of what has occurred in the case of other Members of this House it seems to me that there is not a whit to choose between them and those private Members who have accepted briefs and been paid by the House in a case of this kind.

One hon. Member said that it had to be borne in mind that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General could not represent the other interests involved, such as the third-class passengers and the Firemen's Union and others, and that it was necessary for this House to spend another 15,000 guineas in order to obtain counsel to act for those parties? On what grounds? The ground given by the hon. Member was that the Board of Trade to a certain extent was on its trial. If the Board of Trade is on its trial, surely the worst possible people you could ask to come forward and drive home a charge against the Board of Trade are hon. Members who sit opposite. We have a glimpse behind the scenes as to how these things are managed. Why was it necessary, in order that there should be no mistake in driving home a possible condemnation of the hon. Member in charge of the Board, that he should employ two tame ducks who sit behind him to drive the charge home and give them one thousand guineas for doing so? If any body of men were really genuine in finding fault with the Board of Trade and in driving home a case against any Department of the Government it would be much better to employ members of the Bar who are outside this House, and not to employ hon. Members who sit behind them. I do not accuse the Board of Trade for having employed these men. This £20,000 is all gone. There is nothing to be recovered in regard to it. Has any value at all been obtained for the country for this large sum of money?

Mr. J. WARD

None whatever.

Captain CRAIG

I am only referring now to the £16,000. It would be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the Board of Trade are acting on this Report, and are taking any precautions against anything of the kind recurring, so far as that can be done. The hon. Member fell out with another hon. Member as to the responsibility of Messrs. Harland and Wolff. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) was perfectly right, because the sister ship of the "Titanic," the "Olympic," has been docked for some time past, for three months at any rate, undergoing repairs which, I presume, the managers considered necessary in order to prevent her meeting a similar fate in case she gets a scrape along one of her sides. The hon. Baronet is perfectly right.

Mr. C. DUNCAN

He is absolutely wrong. He talks about the stability of a ship. He knows more about coal mines than ships.

Captain CRAIG

I should not be in order in going into the merits of that particular point, but the hon. Baronet is perfectly right in saying this at all events, that the outcome of this inquiry has been that the managers have seen fit to dry dock the "Olympic" for the purpose of putting into her something which they believe will prevent her meeting the same fate if she has a similar accident, and which would, we believe, have saved the "Titanic." I wish to know, in that regard, whether the Board of Trade are going to play their part. If private owners or public shipping companies like the White Star Line, are playing their part by taking all precautions, will the Board of Trade insist on something being done to prevent similar accidents?

Dr. CHAPPLE

I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what appears to me an amazing anomaly, that whereas the Balkan war has thrust upon the Foreign Secretary an enormous amount of increased work and responsibility, involving perhaps the whole peace of Europe, and he receives no addition to his salary, two of his colleagues for sitting for thirty-five days—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)

This is going into a question of policy affecting the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown, which does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understand that part of this £16,000 is for the Law Officers. Is it not in order to discuss whether or not it is advisable to give these fees to the Law Officers, and may we not ask and give reasons why these fees should not be given to the Law Officers?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is, as I understand, part of the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown that they should receive a certain salary for their services as Law Officers, and, in addition to that, be paid fees for their services, and the hon. Member as I understand, is dealing with the policy which underlies that appointment. He can only deal with this particular item as it affects the "Titanic" Inquiry alone. I hone he will confine his remarks solely to that point.

Sir F. BANBURY

This is rather a serious point, and I think we must get a clear understanding upon it. I have always understood—in fact, I have been looking up Erskine May—that if there was a Supplementary Estimate which put an additional charge upon a certain sum it was quite in order to discuss whether or not that additional charge should be made, and incidentally whether or not, as an additional charge was necessary, the original policy was right. I remember a ruling being given that it might not be in order on a Grant to a railway in Uganda to discuss the policy of giving Grants to different railways, but it would be in order to discuss whether or not it was right to give a Grant to Uganda.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for the argument he has put to me, but it does not in the least degree affect the opinion I have already expressed, that it is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate, no matter what the amount, to discuss the policy which underlies their appointment as, Officers of the Crown.

Sir A. MARKHAM

rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Baronet going to address me on the same point of Order that I have already disposed of?

Sir A. MARKHAM

On a different point.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I want to speak to you on the same point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, but I have already decided the point. I shall be very glad to hear any fresh point.

Sir A. MARKHAM

My point is that the Attorney-General at that particular period was engaged in prosecuting other people and having fees, and, therefore, the point I raise is that he ought not to have received any payment at all beyond his salary, and, if any additional payment is proposed, we are entitled to ask why the Treasury put the additional charges on the Estimates.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I wish now to put a point of Order which is somewhat different. Surely the hon. Member is entitled to argue that instead of these large sums being paid to the Law Officers the services of other competent barristers at a lesser figure could have been obtained and the Law Officers left to discharge their ordinary sufficiently onerous functions?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That point has not arisen.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I am not going to refer to the policy of the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown, but to the enormous fees which they have been able to divide up amongst themselves for the services which they rendered in sitting for thirty-five days listening to an interesting explanation of why a ship sinks if you knock her bottom out, and to contrast these services with the services rendered by the Foreign Secretary, who has enormously increased duties placed upon him through a sudden emergency, namely, the Balkan war. Here is a sudden emergency, the wreck of the "Titanic," and the Law Officers of the Crown, receiving their ordinary salaries, are called upon in this emergency to act for the Board of Trade, and for those services, which are infinitely less than the services which any other Member of the Government performs in analogous circumstances, they are paid—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is the same point again. I am afraid I cannot allow the Parliamentatry Secretary to reply.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

It seems to me that the House is entitled to have much fuller information than the hon. Member has given us. I was very much impressed with the fact that the hon. Member so lightly dismissed criticisms which came from all sides of the House and particularly from his hon. Friends behind him. One cannot imagine how he can be satisfied, after hearing the criticism of Messrs. Harland and Wolff's action, with dismissing it in the few almost contemptuous words which he used. Whatever indictment has been brought against Messrs. Harland and Wolff by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) or the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham), I submit it pales into insignificance compared with the indictment which the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade himself brought against them, because when asked why these heavy expenses were sanctioned, he said they had to be sanctioned, because if they did not get these sums paid them there would be very great difficulty in getting them to appear again.

Mr. ROBERTSON

dissented.

Mr. H. SMITH

I am in the recollection of the House. While I cannot pretend to use the hon. Member's words that was in substance what he said. The only explanation which he gave of this expenditure was that if the Board of Trade did not pay the money to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, the Board would have great difficulty in future in getting similar assistance. Does that represent his view? That is a most important point, and I think I have not misrepresented what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he accept the challenge to contradict me? If he will do so, I will give way to him.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I think it would be more convenient that I should answer at the finish, but, if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer now, it is that I stated that the payment to Messrs. Harland and Wolff is perfectly reasonable in respect of the great services which they rendered during the whole course of the inquiry.

Mr. JOWETT

In defending themselves.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I added to that that if the House is going to veto such payments on such grounds, which I imagine have behind them political reasons—

Sir A. MARKHAM

Political?

Mr. ROBERTSON

On the part of some speakers. If the House is going to veto such payments for such services on these grounds, it seems to me that we shall find it exceedingly difficult to get similar services from this firm or any other firm in future.

Mr. H. SMITH

I think the hon. Gentleman's explanation has carried us no further. I think what he admits he said is exactly what I charged him with having Said.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I did not give as a reason for paying the money what the hon. Gentleman stated.

Mr. H. SMITH

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if they did not pay this money to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, they would have very great difficulty in getting similar assistance.

Mr. ROBERTSON

made a remark which was inaudible.

Mr. H. SMITH

That is a mere quibble. The hon. Gentleman contradicted me and stated that what I had said was inaccurate. I think I can claim on the hon. Gentleman's own showing that I did not do him any injustice. Let the Committee consider what that really means. If the words have any meaning at all, they mean that the Board of Trade could not look to Messrs. Harland and Wolff to give similar help unless they got this £500 in respect of the last catastrophe. I repeat that no such indictment has been brought by any other hon. Gentleman against Messrs. Harland and Wolff as that which is brought against them by the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade. Is it conceivable that a great firm like that would want to shirk any responsibility attaching to them? They cannot avoid sharing the responsibility for the boat in connection with which, through this accident, 1,000 lives were lost. Having, at any rate, a share in the responsibility, the Board of Trade come to the Committee and say they are bound to pay this firm, the builders of the boat, £500, because, forsooth, they might not come forward in future and give similar assistance, which they only were able to give.

Sir F. BANBURY

They lost nothing.

Mr. H. SMITH

As my hon. Friend says, they themselves lost nothing through the catastrophe that took place, except a certain amount of prestige. I was impressed with the fact that in regard to the item of £1,908 for "general witnesses" the hon. Gentleman knows absolutely nothing about it. He was asked about it, not by my hon. Friends on this side, but by hon. Gentlemen on his own side, who have enormous business experience, and he was able to give no information at all. He simply dismissed it by saying that he has no information. The sum of £1,908 is a large sum for witnesses expenses. I would point out that it is larger than it looks, for it obviously refers to witnesses who were called other than those enumerated in the Return given by the Board of Trade. It does not cover the witnesses for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union, the third-class passengers, the Marine Engineers' Association, or any of the parties who were represented at the inquiry by solicitors and counsel. I think it is treating the House of Commons with contempt for a Minister representing a great Department like this to dismiss questions put from both sides of the House without giving any information, and, in fact, by admitting that he has no information, and suggesting by his manner that he takes not the slightest interest in the questions put to him. It would not be in order, I conceive, at this moment to discuss the imaginary benefits which, I have not the slightest doubt, the hon. Member will claim in due course. He will claim every credit to the Board of Trade as the result of this enormously expensive inquiry. I think the hon. Member will hear something about the results of the inquiry when opportunity offers itself. The hon. Member has not attempted, and I do not think he ever will attempt, to satisfy the House that the money has been well spent. I have not gathered from his manner or words that he has any idea that the Board of Trade has benefited at all. It doe's look to me as if this vast expenditure of £20,000 has been incurred largely to satisfy public opinion for the time—public opinion which was so much aroused. It seems to me that it has been spent solely with the idea of closing the mouths of the public and whitewashing the Board of Trade, which was largely responsible for allowing the ship to go out under the circumstances which have been described. Having briefly and inadequately called attention to this matter, and having regard to the serious nature of the questions which we are discussing, and the fact that little information has been vouchsafed to us, I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I suppose if one searched the records of the House it would not be difficult to find similar Debates where hon. Members on both sides of the House waxed indignant at the corruption of those on the Treasury Bench. Personally, I am going to vote against this Estimate just as I did when on the other side of the House as to Votes proposed by the Conservative Government. What I rose for was to ascertain, with respect to the item of £1,900, who is really paid? The position appears to me, as outlined by the Under-Secretary, to be that the whole of this £20,000 has been expended, because it was alleged that the Board of Trade was on its trial. It is equally true to say that the White Star Company were on their trial. It is difficult in going through these items to come to any other conclusion than that this £1,900 for witnesses was paid to the witnesses of the White Star Company themselves. Therefore, I desire to ask someone on the Treasury Bench to tell us exactly who has received this £1,900, and whether the White Star Company's witnesses themselves received any payment whatever and what payment they have received.

Mr. J. WARD

The Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade in an interjection just now stated he thought that some of the Members were debating this subject on political grounds.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Monstrous!

Mr. J. WARD

In view of the record relating to a similar matter, it is impossible for either side to discuss this question quite on political grounds, because both sides have done just the same thing. For instance, the last Attorney-General secured for similar work in the last Administration £65,000 during five years, and the Solicitor-General secured £30,000 in five years in similar cases.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member must confine himself to this particular item.

Mr. J. WARD

I was only pointing out that it was impossible to regard this as a party question. Coming to the subject under discussion, I suppose we are entitled to ask whether this £16,000 has been spent judiciously, whether it was spent on the sort of inquiry that was likely to throw light on the matter. The majority of this House privately, I do not say publicly or politically, and the majority of the people, I believe, have come to the conclusion that this money is absolutely wasted on a Commission whose decision was a foregone conclusion, and that it is largely £16,000 for whitewash, and it is a question whether it was good whitewash. That is what we are discussing to-night. If one faces the problem on that understanding I think that the Government, the Board of Trade and the White Star Company have got value for their money in staving off any real inquiry and giving a decision that whitewashed everybody, and did not blame anybody, but said that it was an act of the Almighty, although I suppose the Under-Secretary would not agree to take Him into account in relation to this subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The House had an opportunity of discussing the report of the "Titanic" Inquiry and I cannot allow that to be gone into. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Estimate.

Mr. MORTON

On a point of Order. I would ask is it forgotten that in discussing that matter we were closured?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. J. WARD

The Under-Secretary has explained that the Government were justified in making this payment in the case of Harland and Wolff, because Harland and Wolff themselves were involved to some extent as the builders of the ship, and questions of its construction whether right or wrong might be before the Court, and therefore they were entitled to be heard in reference to matters of that description. That was a fairly reasonable explanation of their position. When you come to the question which has just been raised as to a considerable portion of this money being paid to the White Star Company for their own witnesses one would think they would have been too delighted to explain every item relating to the business, and that the country should be saddled with their expenses as well as the others seems an outrageous proposition. In inquiries of this kind, as the hon. Member for Mansfield knows, relating to colliery disasters and things of that sort where colliery owners, railway companies, contractors or other big corporations are concerned, they are only too delighted to produce their own witnesses and brief counsel and put before the Court to the best of their ability all the circumstances of the accident that has resulted in loss of life, and they would never dream of asking the State to pay expenses of this description. Here is a great wealthy company. One of its vessels meets with a tremendous disaster. Hundreds of people are killed. The Government holds an inquiry, and, to use a navvy phrase, so "measly" is this company that it does not produce its witnesses and does not brief counsel to explain all the circumstances of the case, and perhaps even assist other people in bringing forward witnesses, but actually saddles all the burden of this upon the British taxpayer.

Mr. ROBERTSON

dissented.

Mr. J. WARD

The hon. Members for Derby and Mansfield stated that the sum of £1,900 included a large sum of money paid to the White Star Company's witnesses themselves. I was only pointing out that that was at variance with every other similar inquiry in other walks of life, and this practice acts as a great deterrent because firms know that an enormous liability is immediately placed upon them if such an inquiry has to be held. Yet apparently from the discussion—of course, I understand we can get no information relating to it—the Government have gone in an entirely different direction in this one case. I do not blame the White Star Company, but they should pay for their own witnesses. We should not make it as easy as possible for them for a similar occurrence to happen at any other time by limiting their liability to any great extent. The mere fact that companies and corporations know that it will be a very expensive matter to present their case properly to any tribunal that might inquire into the disaster is in itself a great deterrent against similar occurrences. If the Government are going out of their way for the purpose of providing at the expense of the British taxpayer, the costs of these corporations that have caused these disasters so that they shall not have any expense thrown upon them as a result of their negligence indirectly or directly, that is a bad policy to initiate by the expenditure before us at the present moment. But I am, of course, arguing on the supposition that is so. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says it is a matter of fact that not a farthing of this money has been spent in procuring evidence for the White Star Line or their witnesses, and that the Department was not in any way essentially connected with the setting forth of their case, then I should at once be prepared to withdraw every word I have said.

The question is: Is it so? Has a large part of this money really been spent in presenting the White Star case so as to whitewash them? We know that all the other people connected with the affair were whitewashed—nobody was to blame, everything was done that could be done, unless genii from some other world had come to suggest something better. And now we are called upon to foot the Bill, as is usual with Britishers, who only grumble when they are called upon to pay. A sum of £16,000 for the purpose of this inquiry requires some consideration, and apart from what was referred to by the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Mansfield Division, there ought to be at least some explanation before we arrive at a decision. I have not said that I am not going to vote in favour of this sum; I am not prepared to do that yet. I can understand that unions and all the interests concerned in this dispute, and all those who had friends involved in it, had a right to look to the Government, whose duty it was to see that their case was properly presented. I do not even complain of the Attorney—General's fees or anything of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No; really I think the State, if it was to act fairly, was bound to present all the facts placed at its disposal from any quarter whatever to a tribunal of that description, and I make no complaint about spending money on presenting the case from the public point of view—whether those concerned were work-people or passengers. But I most certainly protest if it be proved that the ratepayer and taxpayer, in addition to being called upon to bear these charges, should also have to bear the cost of whitewashing the White Star Line, for that would be about the last straw to break the camel's back.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I will answer the various relevant questions which have been put in the course of the discussion. One or two of the Members who put questions have left the House, among them the hon. Member for county Down (Captain Craig), who wished to know to what extent the Board of Trade had responded to the lessons conveyed by the findings of the Court. He was good enough to say that the Board of Trade was on its trial in the matter, and he wished to know how far—

Sit A. MARKHAM

On a point of Order, Sir. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade entitled to go into the question of how far the inquiry would assist the Department in preventing future wrecks?

The CHAIRMAN

A discussion on that point would be quite out of order.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I was simply trying to answer one or two questions from a desire that it should not be suggested that information was being withheld. Among the questions addressed to me was one by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, who asked the amount of the fees paid to counsel. The fees to the Law Officers were 350 guineas each, and a refresher of 50 guineas.

Sir A. MARKHAM

A day?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Yes, I understand so. The hon. Member for Stoke and an hon. Member opposite, in connection with the special question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Mansfield Division, raised a point as to the payment of witnesses. I admit that I read out that for the detention and expenses of witnesses the amount was £1,908. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division put to me what I could not but feel was an ambiguous question—he asked whether that sum included the White Star witnesses. I was unable to find the information at the moment in order to reply to the hon. Baronet when he used that phrase. It will be in the recollection of the House that a very strong demand was made from these benches to the Board of Trade to take ample means to procure as witnesses members of the crew, and that they should be detained if necessary. I confessed I had not studied the list of witnesses, but I am informed that this sum of £1,908 largely includes that particular class of witnesses. The phrase used by the hon. Baronet, "White Star witnesses" has apparently been used by the hon. Member for Stoke in the sense of witnesses called by the White Star Line in their defence. Of course, we have nothing to do with the payment of those witnesses. It was because for the moment I was unable to distinguish to which witnesses the hon. Baronet referred that I told him the simple truth. I have no list of witnesses, and, without such a list, I obviously could not make a detailed reply. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that if he puts down a question I should be very glad to give all the details in an itemised account in regard to these witnesses to whom £1,908 was paid. That could be given just as in reply to the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire an itemised statement was made. Hon. Members will understand that with regard to an Estimate it is totally impossible for the Minister to give every item to the extent of £1,900. You might as well ask the Secretary for War to give the name of every individual private of the Army who receives payment. We cannot give Estimates to that detailed extent, but the hon. Baronet can have all information which it is in our power to afford him. Only those White Star witnesses who were detained by us to give evidence were paid for by us, and the hon. Member for Stoke would have complained if we had not paid the expenses of those witnesses.

Mr. J. WARD

I quite agree.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member has made a sweeping attack, and has thought fit to make charges in regard to the inquiry of whitewashing and so forth. I am bound to protest against that description of an extremely exhaustive inquiry, as to the result of which there can be no question that it will prove of great service to the public in future as regards navigation. I regret the accusation which the hon. Gentleman made, besides which it was a reflection on the judge who presided.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has somewhat improved his tone in his last speech. Yet I would like to have an explanation of what he means by getting up and saying that we have attacked Messrs. Harland and Wolff for party purposes. That is not the kind of way to make a charge, a perfectly unfounded charge, so far as any question of party is concerned. The members of Harland and Wolff are great personal friends of mine, but I thought that this payment on the Estimates ought never to have been made, and I believe that Lord Pirrie has not the remotest idea that this account was sent in by his company, and that it is only the wooden-headedness of officials that would pass this kind of account.

Mr. MORTON

Having got practically no answer to my remarks, I shall put a definite question, which I hope will be answered. I am not making any complaint of Harland and Wolff and the White Star Line. Those are eminently respectable firms, but I do say, seeing that they lost no money by the transaction, it would have been much better if they kept their fingers off the public purse altogether. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he had given particulars in reply to a question put by me. It was only by my asking a question that we got any particulars at all. My question was as follows:— Mr. Morton asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could now give the total cost of the Wreck Commission Inquiry on the loss of the steamship 'Titanic,' with the details of such expenditure and the names of those who received payment? It is admitted in a note that the full list of names has not been given, although I asked definitely for the names of those who had received payment. I now ask when will the Government give us a proper return of the whole expenditure in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We can only deal with the question of the law charges in connection with the inquiry at this stage.

Mr. MORTON

You did not stop the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he had given an answer to a question by me. We have been discussing the general inquiry on this Supplementary Estimate. If we are to be confined to considering only the law expenses, it stops us debating the question altogether. If in order, I would like to ask whether the Government will give us a full return. Surely that ought to be done at some time—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that the item before the Committee is that of law charges.

Mr. MORTON

I should like to complain of the word "politics" being brought in. The complaint has been from this side, and we ought not to be stopped from discussing a question of the expenditure of public money on the ground that it is politics; but if it is to object to extravagant, reckless expenditure, then the more politics we have the better. When, I ask, will the Government give us a full and proper return of all the expenses in connection with this inquiry, and when shall we have the opportunity of properly considering the question before it is sanctioned?

Viscount DALRYMPLE

May I ask whether it would be competent for the Law Officers of the Crown to refuse their services at an inquiry of this kind, and whether it is not for those very services they are paid enormous salaries?

Mr. ROBERTSON

That is a question of general policy as to the mode of payment of those officers. I may tell the hon. Gentleman it has always been the rule, so far as I am aware, that the Law Officers under all Administrations have been paid salaries, and are paid fees for services in special cases. This was one of the special cases.

Viscount DALRYMPLE

Could they refuse?

Mr. COTTON

I am not going to object to this, but I do join my hon. Friends opposite in saying that we ought to have an account in detail. That is done in other cases, and I do not see why it should not be done in this.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Why is it necessary to have the Law Officers at all in a case like this? It was during the middle of the Session when they were extremely hard worked, and we might have had other counsel for less fees than this large sum. I quite admit it is a matter of policy if they are engaged at all that they should be paid extra fees, but I suggest it would be perfectly possible to have engaged other counsel at lesser fees. Surely you could have perfectly competent counsel not occupied with the many harassing duties of the Law Officers in giving fiats for prosecutions and the like, and at far less fees, who would have done the work equally well and with advantage to the public service, and with the saving of hundreds and probably thousands of pounds.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The fee paid to Mr. Aspinall, the eminent Admiralty lawyer, was £2,345, which is within £100 of the fees paid to the Law Officers, showing that fees to other counsel of equal competence and standing would have been as high.

Mr. WATT

Is it the case that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General during the currency of this inquiry were engaged in other important cases? Was the Attorney-General prosecuting suffragettes and getting them severe punishment and forcible feeding, and was the Solicitor-General engaged in the telephone case? I understand from remarks that have been made, that those two gentlemen were engaged in the three cases concurrently. Had they not only these fees but three sets of fees at the same time, and their salaries?

Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,900, be granted to His Majesty for the said service."

The Committee divided:

Sir A. MARKHAM (seated and covered)

Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I beg to call your

Division No. 589.]	AYES.	[9.15 p.m.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gilmour, Captain John	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Barnes, G. N.	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Sanderson, Lancelot
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hills, John Waller	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bigland, Alfred	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyton, James	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)	Stanley, Hon, G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Jewett, Frederick William	Sutherland, J. E.
Carlile, Sir Hildred	Lee, Arthur Hamilton	Talbot, Lord E.
Cassel, Felix	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Mackinder, Halford J.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Touche, George Alexander
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Watt, Henry Anderson
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Newman, John R. P.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Nield, Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Dalrymple and Lord N. Crichton-Stuart.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Furness, Stephen	Levy, Sir Maurice
Acland, Francis Dyke	Gill, A. H.	Lewis, John Herbert
Addison, Dr. C.	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Lundon, Thomas
Alden, Percy	Glanville, H. J.	Lynch, A. A.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Goldstone, Frank	McGhee, Richard
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Greig, Colonel J, W.	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Griffith, Ellis J.	Macpherson, James Ian
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Gulland, John William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bentham, G. J.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Boland, John Pius	Hackett, John	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Booth, Frederick Handel	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Bryce, J. Annan	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Burke, E. Haviland-	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Millar, James Duncan
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hayden, John Patrick	Molloy, Michael
Chancellor, Henry George	Hayward, Evan	Molteno, Percy Alport
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Hazleton, Richard	Mond Sir Alfred M.
Clancy, John Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mooney, John J.
Clough, William	Henry, Sir Charles	Morgan, George Hay
Clynes, John R.	Higham, John Sharp	Muldoon, John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hinds, John	Munro, R.
Cotton, William Francis	Hodge, John	Needham, Christopher T.
Crooks, William	Hogg, David C.	Nolan, Joseph
Crumley, Patrick	Hogge, James Myles	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cullinan, John	Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Doherty, Philip
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hughes, S. L,	O'Dowd, John
Dawes, J. A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Grady, James
De Forest, Baron	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Malley, William
Donelan, Captain A.	Joyce, Michael	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Doris, William	Keating, Matthew	O'Shaughnessy, P.J.
Duffy, William J.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Shee, James John
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kilbride, Denis	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	King, J. (Somerset, North)	Outhwaite, R. L.
Ffrench, Peter	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Parry, Thomas H.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
France, Gerald Ashburner	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th),	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

attention to the fact that the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) has voted in respect of a payment in which he is personally interested. I would ask you, therefore, what is the hon. Member's position in the matter?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet will have an opportunity of raising the point when the figures of the Division are announce at the Table.

Ayes, 47; Noes, 172.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Robinson, Sidney	Wadsworth, J.
Pointer, Joseph	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Ponsonby, Arthur A, W. H.	Roe, Sir Thomas	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Scanlan, Thomas	Webb, H.
Pringle, William M. R.	Seely, Col Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Radford, G. H.	Sheeby, David	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Sherwell, Arthur James	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Reddy, M.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Wiles, Thomas
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Smith, H. B. L. (Normantan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Rendall, Athel[...]stan	Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Sutton, John E.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Thomas, James Henry	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Captain Guest.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Toulmin, Sir George
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Verney, Sir Harry

Sir A. MARKHAM

May I ask for your ruling now with regard to the hon. Member for North Sligo? I saw him going through the Lobby, and I told him he was not entitled to vote. I would ask for your ruling, first, whether the hon. Member's vote should be struck out from the numbers handed in at the Table, and, secondly, as to the position of the hon. Member?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I hardly think the point arises now. The position of the Committee at present is that no sum has been granted. The Question I put was, "That the reduced sum of £15,900 be granted," and that has been refused. I must now put the main Question, that the sum be granted.

Sir A. MARKHAM

On a point of Order. May I submit, as it seemed to me, that the way in which you put the matter from the Chair was rather unusual? Be that as it may, I submit that on a matter in which an hon. Member is personally interested, it is not permissible for him to give a vote on the question, seeing that he receives a direct payment out of the Vote. He has, therefore, no right to take part in the Division, either for or against.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I put the point of Order in this way? The Question, as I understand, that you put was: That a reduced sum should be voted. The hon. Member concerned did not vote for that reduced sum. On the contrary, he voted that the sum should not be reduced—that is to say, he voted that his fee should not be reduced. That, I venture to say, is contrary to all precedent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Question I put was a perfectly clear one. There was an Amendment to the original Resolution, which the hon. Member no doubt heard, which was: That a sum not exceeding £16,000 should be granted to His Majesty. The Amendment I put was this: That a reduced sum of £15,900 be granted to His Majesty. That sum the Committee has just refused to grant. The next step is to put the original Motion again to the Committee: That a sum not exceeding £16,000 should be granted to His Majesty for the purposes enumerated for the year ending 31st March, 1913.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Mr. Maclean, I want your ruling on the second item of this Vote—the £2,000 extra for the Official Receivers' salaries. The explanation which is given is that it is an increased clerical allowance due to additional work. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if there has been a greatly additional number of bankruptcies in the current financial year? If that is so, from what classes have the bankrupts mostly come? Have they been found amongst speculative builders, for example, or licensed victuallers, or amongst the other classes who have been unjustly penalised in recent years? If there have not been more bankruptcies, why this additional sum asked for?

Mr. ROBERTSON

I have already said in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that that particular item was in respect of extra work done over the case of the Birkbeck Bank and the Bank of Egypt. That has meant a much larger amount of work in the year 1912 than in 1911.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Question I have to put is that the sum of £16,000—

Mr. MORTON

I notice that we are asked to vote £16,000, whereas the real amount that we are going to vote is £18,000. The £2,000 has been taken out, I know. But in ordinary bookkeeping one puts down the total money expended on the other side to balance the receipts. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I ask the hon. Member if he will explain why he does not ask for £18,000, which is what he has spent?

Mr. ROBERTSON

If the hon. Member will look at the Estimates he will see that the sum of £2,000 is balanced by an Appropriation-in-Aid of £2,000 in the manner which is usual in such cases.

Mr. MORTON

I know; but that is not an answer to my question. We are asked to vote £18,000 really to be expended on certain matters, and the £2,000 comes in differently altogether, because the hon. Gentleman might as well bring in the Income Tax or any other item. I dare say he has not yet learnt properly how they keep these accounts, but I am sure that every good accountant will agree with me that the proper way is to ask for the amount you want to expend, leaving the Income Tax and every other income included to go on the other side of the account. If the hon. Member cannot answer it, let us know it and understand it.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Before we take a vote on the main Question, I would just like to say a word or two about the question of Members of this House. Part of this Vote, to the extent of £2,500, goes to the Attorney-General; another part, about the same amount, with £25 difference, goes to the Solicitor-General—though how that £25 comes about in a sum of £2,500 I do not know. It is £25 in favour of the Attorney-General, and against the Solicitor-General. Then we have got two other Members of Parliament, the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), who apparently receives £500—and if there was an arrangement between the Treasury and the parties who appeared and instructed that learned Gentleman, and if he appeared for them under an arrangement by which he was to receive fees, that clearly is a contract; it would be a breach of the privileges of this House and would involve that hon. Member's resignation of his seat. There is another Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glamorgan, who also receives about £500, and the same points applies to him. There is an hon. Member who is not quite a Member of Parliament, but who happens to be the son of the Prime Minister, and he has bad £800 of this money. I do not say that he is any the worse barrister for being the son of the Prime Minister—probably he is a better one. I would not, in making these observations, cast the slightest reflection either upon the Prime Minister or upon his son, who probably is—in fact I am sure he is—a most able and conscientious young man. The fact remains that he has had £800 of this Vote—

Mr. J. WARD

Sour grapes.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I dare say it would have been a very good thing for us if we had had the chance of getting some of it. But I contend that a Vote that is covered with slime like this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—is one into which a Committee of this House is entitled to have full investigation. I would like to have some complete answer to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. There is £1,900 for miscellaneous witnesses. I would like to know whether among those witnesses there were a few Members of Parliament on the opposite side of the House or on any side of the House. We do not know. I think, seeing that the Government Whips are put on, that this Vote of £16,000 for a whitewashing inquiry of the Board of Trade, which has yielded a report which has not done a particle of good to anybody—because the Board of Trade are not going to carry out a good part of it—they have succeeded in getting this whitewashing report—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of the law costs.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

If I understand the ruling you gave just now, Mr. Maclean, that we cannot discuss the question as to whether the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should receive these fees—a ruling which I feel bound to say came as a shock to me—although I have no doubt you were perfectly right, or you would not have given it—if I understand the matter aright, you are going to rule me now out of Order because I was referring to the items of these fees. If it is not going to be possible to discuss the merits of the expenditure of £16,000 of public money in this Committee because some of the parties who are under the sheltering wing of the Government are getting some of the money, I think it is time that we protested. We have a right to protest! Having regard to your ruling, Sir, and to the howls coming from some of our Friends opposite, who are so anxious to support the Government, I will say nothing further about it.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I do not mean to use precisely the same kind of language as the hon. Member who has just sat down, but on the general question I think the House must see that these payments to Members

of Parliament are indefensible. I think the whole principle is wrong, and I shall certainly vote against it.

Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 54.

Grant, J. A.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Sutton, John E.
Hewins, William Herbert Samuel	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Talbot, Lord E.
Hills, John Waller	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Hogge, James Myles	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)	Sanders, Robert Arthur	Touche, George Alexander
Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)	Sanderson, Lancelot	Watt, Henry A.
Hunt, Rowland	Smith, Harold (Warrington)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Jowett, F. W.	Spear, Sir John Ward	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lee, Arthur Hamilton	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Lockwood. Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. R. P. Newman.
Mackinder, Halford J.	Sutherland, J. E.