Commons Sitting of 26 February 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),— Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Rhymney Railway Bill.
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill.
Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway Bill.
Ordered, that the Bills be committed.
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill, "to confer powers on the Corporation of the city of Glasgow with respect to the regulation and control of the storage of celluloid and cinematograph film." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

INDIAN FINANCE AND CURRENCY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to investigate and report upon certain administrative questions relating to the Finance and Currency of His Majesty's Indian Empire, Report, Minutes of Evidence (Volume II.), Appendices (Volume III.), and Index to Volumes I. and II. of Minutes of
1916
Evidence, and Volumes I. to III. of Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 20th February, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Navy and Marine) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 20th February, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Soldiers) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 128.]

ARMY.
Copy presented of Amendments to Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the county of Cambridge and Isle of Ely under The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the county of Pembroke under The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the county of Denbigh under The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the West Riding of the county of York under The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of (i.) List of Certified Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children in England and Wales on 31st July, 1914; (ii.) List of Schools and Classes for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Students recognised under the Regulations for Technical Schools, etc., for the year ending 31st July, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES
Return ordered, showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 516, of Session 1912-13).—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection, —That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Colonel Weston, and, in respect of the Children (Employment and School Attendance) Bill, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Runciman, and Mr. Martin; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Morrell.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, —That they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members in respect of the Children (Employment and School Attendance) Bill: Sir William Anson, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Beck, Mr. Denman, Mr. Thomas Harvey, Mr. Hills, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Gold-stone, Mr. Walter Rea, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Peto, Sir George Toulmin, and Mr. Whitehouse.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, —That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir John M'Callum and Mr. O'Grady; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Towyn Jones.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, —That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Towyn Jones.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, —That they had agreed to the following Resolution which they had directed him to report to the House: —
That after a Bill has been an consideration in Standing Committee no change of Members shall be made on that Committee except in the case where a Member is incapacitated from attendance by serious illness.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, —That they had added the following two Members to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order 109: Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Whyte.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Russian Railway (Bokhara to Afghan Frontier.)
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposed new Russian railway from Bokhara to the frontier of Afghanistan; whether this line is already under construction; whether the terminus has yet been decided on; and, if so, how far it is from Kabul?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): According to information published last October in the Russian "Bulletion of Laws," the line is to run from Kagan, on the Central Asiatic Railway, viâa Karshi to the town of Termez, on the Afghan frontier—a total length of 585 versts (about 400 miles) and according to the map about 200 miles from Kabul. I am unaware whether it has actually been begun.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any date was given for its completion?
  Sir E. GREY: No, I have no date. I am not even aware if it has been actually begun.

  Mexico (Protection of British Lives and Property).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether, in view of the new situation in Mexico created by the removal by the United States of the embargo on arms and ammunition, he is taking any steps to safeguard British lives and property, which are now entirely at the mercy of any bandits and robbers who find it convenient to profess political objects?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have requested the United States Government to impress upon the leaders of the "constitutionalists" the importance of respecting foreign lives and property in the districts which they occupy. The United States Government have complied with this request. As regards the rest of Mexico, the protection of British lives and property has formed the subject of frequent representations to the Mexican Government, and certain steps have been taken at Mexico City in case of possible disturbance, as I announced recently. I would also refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 23rd February with regard to the general policy of His Majesty's Government. It is not possible for us to take any steps for protection in the interior.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: With regard to safeguarding British lives and property, is there not danger of the same description nearer home?

  United States (Arbitration Treaty).
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what reply one proposes to make to the United States Government in regard to the conclusion of an Arbitration Treaty between the United States and this country?
  Sir E. GREY: The Arbitration Convention between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government of 1908 was renewed on 31st May last, and I hope that ratifications will shortly be exchanged. His Majesty's Government are at present considering proposals that have recently been made to them by the United States Government for concluding a Treaty establishing Peace Commissions. The draft Treaty submitted to us by the United States Government seems to be generally acceptable, but we must consider it with the self-governing Dominions as some special provision will be required to meet their interests.
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: Is there any objection to telling the House the terms of the suggested Treaty?
  Sir E. GREY: I must first inquire whether the Treaty has been actually published by the United States, because it is their draft, not ours. If they have no objection to its being published I will certainly give the House the information asked for.

  Persia (Railway Surveys).
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Regent of Persia has asked the Russian Minister at Teheran to consent to the removal of Shuja-ed-Dowlah from the Governor-generalship of Azerbaijan; if so, what reply has been made to the Regent by the Russian Minister; whether the province of Azerbaijan has accepted the invitation of the Government of Persia to elect representatives to the new Medjliss; whether a wild Luristan tribe attempted to capture Captain Wilson and Mr. Douglas on their way down from Khoremabad to Dizful in order to hold them to ransom; if the same tribe is now encamped in the country which necessarily must be traversed by the Mohammera-Khoremabad Railway survey party if they attempt to carry out their work; and, in these circumstances, will the Persian Government accept the single reconnaissance survey made by Captain Wilson and Mr. Douglas on their journey, and thereby enable the Mohammera-Khoremabad Railway survey party to return to Europe?
  Sir E. GREY: On points one and two I have no official information. In reply to point three, the Persian Government decided to await the result of the elections in Teheran before taking steps to hold elections in the provinces. I have no later information regarding Azerbaijan. As regards points four and five, I have no information that any actual attempt was made to capture the gentlemen in question, though there were rumours of such intention. On point six it is impossible to foretell until the results of the reconnaissance survey have been examined whether there will be sufficient data to arrive at any definite conclusion. I understand that the Persian Government desire to use the information as a basis of negotiation if it can be regarded as adequate.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: May I ask, concerning the second question, if it is the fact that the heads of religion at Tabriz are strongly averse to electing representatives to the Medjliss? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say without referring to the papers.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether Lady Chapman, of Killua Castle, has again changed her method of sale, and now proposes to sell her entire estate outside of the demense to the Estates Commissioners; if so, what was the date of her offer to do this; whether the Commissioners will, before dealing with the estate, ascertain the number of holdings on it now derelict in consequence of congestion; the number which do not comprise any land; the number consisting of less than half an acre each; the total number congested within the meaning of the Land Act of 1909; the number of tenants paying rent by means of outdoor relief received from the Poor Law guardians; and the number and gross acreage of non-residential grass farms on the estate; and, in view of the congested condition of this estate and the public importance of a proper settlement of it, he can say when this information will be available and will give it in this House before the adoption of any scheme of settlement; and (2) whether the police have reported the threats of the ranchers on the estate of Lady Chapman, Killua, that they will retain the ranches in spite of people and Commissioners, though it were to cost them their lives; if he will say why, and on whose instructions, the police report inflammatory language when used on behalf of congested people and not this language of the ranchers; and, having regard to the effect of such language in a congested area, whether he will give an assurance that no settlement of this estate will be attempted but one devoting all the non-residential grass land, so far as it will go, to the relief of the congestion of the estate, in accordance with the Statutes?
  The CHIEF SECRETRAY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of any proceedings for sale of this estate other than the proceedings for the sale of the property to them which were instituted on
  1922
  the 18th August, 1908. In dealing with the estate the Commissioners will act in accordance with the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The police inform me that no such threats were made use of, nor did the parties who expect portions of the grasslands use any intimidating language as suggested.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether non-residential grasslands shall only be devoted to the relief of congestion on this Killua estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question is put on the assumption that the delay is due to a change in the proposals for purchase. That is not so. The estate will be dealt with in the ordinary course.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Chief Secretary say under what Act and Section this estate is being sold, and whether it is to be dealt with as a congested district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary the date on which, and the holding and estate from which, Michael Murphy, who was lately provided by the Estates Commissioners with a holding on the Thompson estate, Kilcoke, Queen's County, alleged he was evicted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Michael Murphy was evicted in 1901 from a holding at Knocklade, on the Cosby estate, Queen's County.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked if the Estates Commissioners are aware that Michael Murphy, whom they provided with a holding on the Thompson estate, Kilcoke, Queen's County, was not an evicted tenant, and that he actually sold his interest in the holding from which he alleged he was evicted; and whether, in view of the fact that there are many of the Luggacurren evicted tenants still unprovided, the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the question of granting this holding to Mr. Murphy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked why the Return of estates in the. Land Judge's Court, ordered by the House last Session, has

  1923
  not been issued; whether it has been prepared; and, if so, when it will be available?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that this Return was circulated yesterday.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the right hon. Gentleman (1) how many purchase agreements have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the tenants on the estate of Lady Chapman, situate on the borders of counties Meath and Westmeath; the number of such agreements referring to holdings under five and ten acres in extent, respectively; and whether careful investigation will take place as to the nature of the tenure of some of the large holdings, so as to preclude the possibility of including grazing tenants who have no claim to any benefit under any of the Land Acts, in order that their portion of the estate may be treated as untenanted land and acquired for the uneconomic holders on the estate; (2) the entire acreage of the estate of Lady Chapman, the amount offered to the tenants by direct sale, and the amount offered to the Commissioners; and whether he can classify the number of holdings which might be termed grazing lettings and state the conditions and date of the leases under which they are held, the number of holdings which might be treated as genuine agricultural tenancies, the number of uneconomic holdings, and the average size of the latter; and (3) whether any untenanted land on the estate of Lady Chapman, of Killua Castle, situate partly in county Meath and partly in Westmeath, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; if so, has an offer been made for it; and whether any inquiry has been made into the size and conditions of the uneconomic holdings on the estate, and any steps taken to improve their condition?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This property is not being sold by the owner direct to the tenants, and no purchase agreements signed by the parties have, therefore, been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of the property to the Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and in dealing with it they will act in accordance with the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts and the Rules and; Regulations made thereunder. The property offered for sale to
  1924
  the Commissioners comprises some 3,900 acres, of which over 600 acres are untenanted lands in the occupation of the owner. The Commissioners have made an offer to purchase the property, which is under the consideration of the owner. At this stage of the negotiations it is not desirable to furnish the other particulars asked for in the questions.
  Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether this estate ought to be treated as a congested estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will inquire of the Estates Commissioners on that point.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this estate has or has not been inspected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether the Congested Districts Board has yet made an offer of purchase for the Higgins-M'Carthy estate, Townaleen, Connemara; and whether the landlord has expressed his willingness to sell his estate to the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have issued an offer for the purchase of the estate referred to, which has not so far been accepted.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether the offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the St. Ledger Higgins-estate, Maam, Connemara, has been accepted; and, if not, why the offer has not been accepted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board in land stock for this very small estate was not accepted, but the owner expressed his willingness to accept the amount in cash.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether Messrs. O'Malley and Joyce, owners of the Raha estate, Connemara, have yet lodged their maps with the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection of this property with a view to a sale have not so far been lodged with the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the completion of land purchase in Ireland was promised in the Speech from the

  1925
  Throne in 1913, he will find time to allow a Second Reading to the measure introduced by the Chief Secretary in July of last year and satisfy himself by Debate in the House as to Irish opinion on the proposals contained in the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are anxious to proceed with this Bill, and are not without hope that some general measures of agreement may be attained in regard to it. I cannot say more at present.

  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary when it is proposed to make the Grant for the improvement of Dingle pier and harbour?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of recommending a Grant has been favourably entertained by the Development Commissioners for the improvement of Dingle pier and harbour, but the precise terms of the contingent recommendation of the Commissioners cannot be stated until plans, specifications, and estimates are prepared, and until the amount of the local contribution is agreed upon.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: How soon may we expect this matter to be arranged? It has now been going on for a long time.
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are getting to closer quarters, and I hope matters will now proceed more rapidly.

  Local Taxation Grants, Kerry.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary the total amount deducted from the Local Taxation Account for Kerry in each of the years 1906 to 1913, inclusive, under the following heads: medical and educational expenditure in unions, salaries to sanitary officers in rural and urban districts, estate duty Grant in respect of land purchase liability, railway, and harbour charges under Section 58 of The Local Government Act, 1898; what is the total loss to the country under all those heads in each of those years; and what steps are proposed to be taken to have this money refunded to the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: During the years 1906, 1907, and 1908 no deductions were made from payments to county Kerry out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in respect of expenditure on medical and educational purposes, salaries of sanitary officers in rural and urban districts, or railway and
  1926
  harbour charges; but in 1907 and 1908 the sum of £838 8s. 3d. and £620 5s. 1d., respectively, were deducted from the share of the county in the Estate or Death Duty Grant in respect of land purchase liability in the county. As regards the years 1909 to 1913, inclusive, I would refer the hon. Member to the detailed statement which I forwarded to him in reply to his similar question on the 25th April last. I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to the final paragraph of the question.

  Poor Law Relief (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have power, when the condition of families in a rural district is such as to justify the grant of outdoor relief to them, to prevent the landlord obtaining and appropriating that relief as rent, leaving the families destitute, as is being done on the estate of Lady 'Chapman of Killua; and, if so, whether the Board will exercise that power and protect against claims for rent what is necessary for the subsistence of those families?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The determination of the form in which poor relief is given in particular cases is a matter for the boards of guardians concerned. The guardians may give the relief in either money or food, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere with their decision, or to direct how the relief which is afforded in money shall be expended by the recipients.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to give notice I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow (Friday) night.

  Ulster Volunteers.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Chief Secretary whether he has any knowledge as to the efficiency of the force known as the Ulster Volunteers; whether it is organised with its ancillary services, such as signalling, hospital, ambulance, dispatch riding, transport, etc.; and what number of armed and trained men the Ulster Volunteers can put in the field?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have knowledge of the matters referred to by the hon. Member, but I am not prepared to share that knowledge with him.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does know, or does

  1927
  not know, whether or not the Ulster Volunteers are a formidable military body?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already answered that.
  Mr. HORNERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that when the Ulster Volunteer camp, at Knockbally-more, near Clones, county Monaghan, was breaking up on last Saturday, a force of constabulary, under District Inspector Egan, was posted outside the camp gate, and that by direction of the district inspector a car, the property of Mr. William Nixon, Tattymore, was stopped and searched and a bag taken from it, opened, and searched; that the district inspector was strongly remonstrated with and asked to produce a search warrant or other authority to justify his action, and was unable to do so; and whether, having regard to the fact that such zeal on the part of the constabulary in the present state of feeling in Ulster is directly calculated to provoke disturbance, he will give special instructions to the constabulary to act within the strict limits of their powers and duty in the matter of search?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the district inspector, who had two members of the police force with him, was told by the owner of the bag referred to that it contained wooden guns, and, on his asking if he might see them, the owner said certainly. This being so, I do not think the incident deserves further notice, or that there is any necessity to issue such instructions as those referred to in the last paragraph of he question.
  Mr. HORNER: Is it the policy of the Irish Executive to encourage such highhanded and illegal acts by the Royal Irish Constabulary in regard to search, as is mentioned in the question, in the hope that they may provoke resistance and retaliation by Unionists?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no such intention on anybody's part. Here the inspector would not have examined the bag unless the man to whom it belonged had expressed his perfect willingness that it should be opened.
  Mr. HORNER: Why was the inspector there at all?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman who wishes to restrain the zeal of the constabulary is himself an Ulster covenanter and a Crown Prosecutor for the constabulary?
  Mr. HORNER: I will answer that personal question here. I am.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I deprecate the introduction of this personal matter. The hon. Member who introduced it really ought to know better than to have put this question. These personal matters really do not affect the general question, and they are only raised for the purpose of irritation.

  Leinster Regiment (Athlone).
  Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received any reports of a disturbance which is stated to have occurred between a battalion of the Leinster Regiment and the people of Athlone, on 4th November last year; whether he can say if on that occasion this regiment was hooted by the whole of the Nationalist populace, and had to hurry into barracks in order to prevent a popular outbreak; and what steps he has taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that the pipers of the Leinster Regiment, who arrived in Athlone a few days previously for the purpose of recruiting, paraded the streets on the evening of the 4th November last. A local band of Irish pipers turned out, and, followed by a crowd much smaller than the soldiers' crowd, also marched up and down the streets, but, beyond some groaning and cheering, there was no disturbance; and the suggestion that the regiment was hooted by the populace and had to hurry into barracks is untrue.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this story, which was considered good enough for an electioneering speech at a recent by-election, is a complete travesty of what happened?
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is or is not a fact that the crowd which was assembled was a demonstration against recruiting for the British Army?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I have made particular inquiries into this matter, and I find, which I very much rejoice

  1929
  to hear, that the Leinster Regiment was received with great favour by the people of Athlone. Its beautiful band played on four different occasions, and was listened to with much approval and approbation by a musically-minded population.
  Mr. MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains not to answer my question. I ask him, was the crowd that assembled in the street, as everyone knows, a demonstration against recruiting for the Leinster or any other regiment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all. It was a crowd which followed a small band of Irish pipers.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four different Irish papers of reputation published a report quite bearing out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: It really does not matter to us what the Irish papers say.

  Shannon Floods.
  Mr. T. F. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the damage done by the recent floods at Carrick-on-Shannon and the surrounding districts in the county Leitrim owing to the flooding of the Shannon and its tributaries; whether any official has been sent to the district to investigate the damage done by the flooding and to make a report on the same; and whether any action will be taken, and, if so, when, as regards the contemplated drainage of the River Shannon?
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary what steps he proposes to take in connection with Mr. O'Connor's Report dealing with the Shannon floods; and whether, in view of the fact that the flooding still continues and is growing worse every year, the relief measures contemplated will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Board of Works have no information as to the damage done by recent floods in Carrick-on-Shannon. Mr. O'Connor, inspector of the Local Government Board, made a special report as to the injury done by the floods in recent years. Further inquiries are being made, and, until these are completed, it will not be possible to make a definite statement on the subject. I may add, however, that I am informed that the
  1930
  cost of works which would prevent the effects of extraordinary floods would be very great indeed.

  Secondary Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether the average salary of assistant teachers in Irish secondary schools is about £82 a year for men and £48 a year for women; whether a large proportion of these teachers are university graduates; whether they have any and, if so, what security of tenure in their posts, or come under any pension scheme; and whether there is kept anywhere a reliable register of these teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that, according to the report of Messrs. Dale and Stephens on Intermediate Education, the average salaries of male and female assistant teachers in a large number of Irish intermediate schools in 1903 were practically as stated in the question, and I believe that many of these teachers are University graduates. I hope that the Bill which I am introducing this Session regulating the Grant for the improvement of the position of Irish secondary lay assistant teachers will give them increased security of tenure and provide for the establishment of a register of secondary teachers.
  Mr. HORNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Quite soon. It is in draft now.

  Strike Riots (Dublin).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether the hon. Member for Pontefract was present at a meeting of His Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland, and that, after an ineffectual protest was made against his interference, he took part in the discussion of certain matters arising out of the Dublin riots and in a discussion upon whether a prosecution should be instituted by the Crown against James Larkin; and by whose authority the hon. Member was present on that occasion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. and learned Member that he has been made the victim of a hoax. The hon. Member for Pontefract was never present at any meeting of the Privy Council in Ireland, nor did lie ever seek to attend the meetings of an august body of whose existence he tells me he was unaware.
  Mr. HORNER: On a point of Order. Arising out of the answer, having regard to the fact that I gave notice to the hon. Member for Pontefract before I put this question down and that I have never had a reply from him, am I not at liberty to ask the hon. Member whether he was present when the prosecution of James Larkin was discussed between Lord Aberdeen and the learned Attorney-General for Ireland; whether others were present at the same time; whether all those others present were members of the Privy Council; whether the discussion took place in Dublin Castle; and what part the hon. Member took in it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Life in this House is bad enough already, but if every hon. Member had to answer for every other Member as to where he was on a particular occasion, it would be even worse.
  Mr. HORNER: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow or on Monday.
  Mr. MOORE: Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Pontefract to make a personal explanation now, considering the way in which his name has been introduced?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly would be out of order to make any personal explanation now. [An HON. MEMBER: "He ought to know it."]

  Ballinasloe Union.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Local Government Board inspector visited the female bedrooms between eight and nine o'clock p.m. about the 1st of January last in the Ballinasloe Union; and whether he will direct that visits in the future will be made within proper hours?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the 19th January the inspector of the Local Government Board carried out his usual inspection of the Ballinasloe Workhouse. About eight p.m. he proceeded, as a part of his duty, to take a census of the inmates. He was accompanied by the master of the workhouse, and, on arriving at the female side of the institution, he requested that the matron should also accompany him, but she was not available. This census is a necessary part of the duty of inspection, and must be performed after the inmates have retired to their respective wards. On such occasions the inspector is accompanied by a responsible official of the union.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: How is it that the inspection was carried on on this occasion, the inspector not being accompanied by a responsible official?
  Mr. BIRRELL: He was accompanied by the master of the workhouse, but the lady was not on the premises.

  Baton Charge (Renvyle, Connemara).
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry into the action of the police on Sunday, 18th January, at Renvyle, Connemara, in making a baton charge an defenceless people who gave no provocation whatever for the attack made upon them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the 18th January a crowd of about 300 persons attempted to hold a meeting near the Curragh Farm, close to the residence of Mrs. Blake. As the meeting was intended to have an intimidatory effect, the police refused to allow it to be held there, and it was found necessary to order a baton charge to disperse the crowd which had attempted to force their way through the police. There is no foundation for the statement that defenceless people who gave no provocation were batoned or attacked.

  Upper Feale and Cashen Rivers.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that a memorial was forwarded to the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) (Fisheries Department) from the anglers of the Upper Feale and Cashen rivers requesting to have an inquiry held at Abbeyfeale and Listowel for the purposes of extending the open season of the said rivers to the months of September and October, and thus putting it in the position it was three years ago and upwards; and will he say what action the Department intends to take in the matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The memorial referred to was received. The Department are of opinion that, as the present close season came into operation only in the year 1911, it would not be desirable to reopen the question until further experience has been gained, or until some indication is forthcoming that there has been a definite change in the local conditions. The memorialists were so informed.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked whether five Liverpool butchers landed in Dundalk from Birkenhead on Saturday last; whether, on examination at Dundalk, their kits were found to contain knives and other implements used in slaughtering diseased animals at Birkenhead; whether the contents of the kits were in a dirty condition, covered over with the blood and hair of cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, whether these men were allowed to leave Birkenhead without being disinfected; and what steps will be taken in future to safeguard Ireland against the danger of this means of infection?
  Mr. T.W. RUSSELL: I find that the five butchers referred to, who had been employed at the Birkenhead lairage, landed at Greenore on their way to Dundalk on the 19th instant. The implements found in the men's kits were in a dirty condition, covered with congealed blood and hair; but it has not been ascertained whether these particular implements were used in slaughtering animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Of course, both men and implements were carefully disinfected at Greenore. I have no doubt that the Interdepartmental Conference which is being held to-day at Birkenhead will give attention to the points referred to in the concluding portion of the question.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that the five men were engaged in the slaughtering of animals at Birkenhead suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the extraordinary fact that they did bring these implements in this dirty condition, the surmises which are held in Ireland about planting the disease in Ireland are somewhat justified by this extraordinary occurrence?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not able to say they were actually engaged in slaughtering animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease, but they were slaughtering animals in Birkenhead lairage. Of course, there are a great many animals slaughtered which are quite free from the disease.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: They were slaughtering animals in contact with diseased cattle?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That is true.
  Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is now recognised that Ireland has not been the origin of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England; and, if so, when will he permit Irish store cattle to be landed at Scottish ports?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the apparently widespread infection of the lairages at the Birkenhead wharves and of other places in the city and district of Liverpool, and of the interruption caused to the traffic in Irish livestock by the process of closing all English and Scottish ports against their importation, he will remove the embargo upon Irish stock, under proper safeguards and after due inspection, at Glasgow, Fish-guard, and other ports where no outbreaks of the disease have occurred?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend wishes me to say that he regrets extremely the inconvenience and loss caused to agriculturists and many other persons both in Ireland and in Great Britain by the suspension of the live-stock trade between the two countries. But having regard to the fact that within a fortnight of an undoubted outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland a number.of animals recently arrived from Ireland were found in the Birkenhead lairages to be affected with the disease, he had no reasonable alternative but to prohibit temporarily the importation of Irish stock into Great Britain. The origin of the infection is still not known, but all the available evidence and all clues which have been suggested are being thoroughly examined to-day by veterinary officers of the Board and of the Irish Department in collaboration at Birkenhead, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a. full statement on Monday.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that there has been no foot-and-mouth disease for more than four weeks now, and whether, in view of that fact, the President of the Board of Agriculture does not think that the cattle may come here to be slaughtered at the port of entry?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait for the result of the inquiry now proceeding.
  Mr. FIELD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to know the result of the inquiry?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: There will be no avoidable delay.
  Mr. FIELD: I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Lord Mayor of Dublin and others interested in the live-stock trade have sent the right hon. Gentleman a telegram asking for all the ports to be reopened for Irish live stock; whether he has any information on the subject; and whether Ireland has now no trace of foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said.

  British East Africa.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State, for the Colonies, in reference to British East Africa, whether on the Southern frontier of 360 miles there is only one post, manned by twenty-five native police under a Goanese clerk; and whether any other provision is being made for the defence of the settlers in the event of a native rising or a raid from Abyssinia or Somaliland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware of the present distribution of the police on the Southern border of the East Africa Protectorate, but I know of nothing which should give rise to uneasiness with regard to that border.

  Gilbert Islands.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of remitting native taxation in the islands comprising the Gilbert group in the Pacific and substituting for it additional taxation upon the phosphates monopoly on the islands?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that the native taxation in the Gilbert Islands is excessive.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen any account as to the distribution of the Gilbert Islanders, and does he know that the profits of the phosphate company were over half a million?
  Mr. HARCOURT: What is specially foremast to my mind is that the recent increase which I have made in the amount of Royalties payable to the Government is from 6d. to 1s., making 100 per cent.

  Tristan da Cunha.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked what is the date of the last information received from Tristan da Cunha; and whether that information was satisfactory?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The last information which I have received reached me on 24th January, via St. Helena. It was dated in August, and the life of the islanders appears to have been uneventful.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company have acquired the rights outside France and Germany to use Dr. Goldschmidt's high frequency alternator and other wireless apparatus; and, if so, whether these Patents will be used for the stations of the imperial wireless chain?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): It is understood that Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company have acquired the rights to which the hon. Member refers. It is not at present the intention to use any of the patents at the stations of the Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: In view of the unfavourable opinions of the Goldschmidt system which were expressed by the Postmaster-General at the end of last Session, when he refused to allow the owners to tender for the Imperial Wireless Chain, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why the Marconi Company have found the Goldschmidt patent worth buying?
  Captain NORTON: I should like notice.

  Stoke-on-Trent Postal Staff.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the increased -work performed by the Stoke-on-Trent postal staff, and the fact that the outdoor staff has increased by forty-five persons since the last classification; that the recent Board of Trade investigation shows that rents and retail prices have increased above the average since the last classification; and

  1937
  whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of a reclassification of the Stoke-on-Trent office?
  Captain NORTON: The increase of work at Stoke-on-Trent has not been such as to warrant an alteration of the classification according to the standard at present in force. The whole question of the classification of offices will, however, shortly come under review in accordance with the recommendation of the recent Select Committee on Post Office Servants, and due regard will be paid in that connection to any exceptional increase in cost of living.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the sub-post office at Tunstall, which is within Stoke-on-Trent, be raised to same standard as the rest of Stoke-on-Trent?
  Captain NORTON: The answer I have given covers the whole area of Stoke-on-Trent.

  Grounding of Steamship "Lusitania."
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the alleged grounding of the "Lusitania" in Queenstown Harbour on the 29th of December, 1907, was found on inquiry to have been caused by the default of a pilot named Martin; whether Martin was a special pilot specially assigned to the company at their request; and whether the company, in a letter dated 22nd February, 1908, informed the Cork Harbour authority that, in consideration of Martin's long service, they did not wish to do more than censure him for an error of judgment?
  Captain NORTON: I am informed that the facts generally are as stated by the hon. Member, but I have no actual knowledge of the letter referred to.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Why is it that the Postmaster-General does not reply to a question of this importance?
  Captain NORTON: Because the Post-master-General happens to be temporarily absent, and I am taking his place.
  Mr. MULDOON: Was not this incident put down by the chairman of the Cunard Company, in his letter to the Postmaster-General of 19th June, to the difficulties of the harbour, and is it clear now that it was owing to the fault of the pilot, and what does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think of the chairman of the Cunard Company after that?
  Captain NORTON: I should be sorry to give my opinion of the chairman of that or any other company.
  Captain DONELAN: Why have the Cunard Company only recently discovered that their larger steamers cannot anchor safely at Queenstown?
  Captain NORTON: The hon. and gallant-Gentleman had better give notice.

  Civil Servants (Half-Holiday).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Prime Minister if he can now name the approximate date when a decision on the subject of a weekly half-holiday for Civil servants will be announced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, I cannot make any statement.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PUBLICATIONS.
    Mr. NIELDasked (1) the Chief Secretary what is the number of publications issued by the National Insurance Commissioners for Ireland since the passing of the National Insurance Act; how many consist of regulations or of explanatory memoranda, and how many of such publications are now in force; and what has been the cost of preparing, printing, and circulating these publications, including also the cost of the paper; (2) the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the number of publications issued by the National Insurance Commissioners for England and Wales since the passing of the National Insurance Act; how many consist of regulations or of explanatory memoranda; how many of such publications are now in force; and what has been the cost of preparing, printing, and circulating these publications, including also the cost of the paper; and (3) the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what is the number of publications issued by the National Insurance Commissioners for Scotland since the passing of the National Insurance Act; how many consist of regulations or of explanatory memoranda, and how many of such publications are now in force; and what has been the cost of preparing, printing, and circulating these publications, including also the cost of the paper?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): As my right hon. Friend has previously stated in reply to similar in-

    1939
    quiries, the information asked for in the first three parts of these questions would involve laborious calculations not necessary for any administrative purpose. A revised list of the publications of the Insurance Commissioners is in the printer's hands, and I will send a copy to the hon. Member. The total cost of the printing in connection with health insurance up to the present time is approximately £190,000.

    DRUG FUND.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the anxiety felt by panel chemists in Manchester owing to the deficiency in the drug fund in that district under the National Insurance Act and the non-payment of a large portion of their accounts for 1913, he will give a pledge on behalf of the Government that they will all be paid in full?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have pointed out that I have no knowledge myself of these matters. I think the question ought to be addressed to my hon. Friend beside me. No occasion arises for such an undertaking as that asked for in the question. The amount of the remuneration payable to the Manchester panel chemists is governed by the contracts into which they have entered with the Manchester Insurance Committee; and they will receive the whole of the sums due to them under those contracts.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I apologise for asking the Prime Minister that question. Is it not a fact that these chemists are not in the least responsible for the nature of the prescriptions ordered by the doctors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put that question down on the Paper.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chemists in the Manchester and Salford district, numbering 150, are really £1,600–
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: £16,000.
    Sir W. BYLES: Deficient of money which they themselves earned during last year? What I want to know is whether they have to lose that money?
    Mr. BENN: My hon. Friend is aware that a joint committee of doctors and chemists are going through the accounts.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREYLOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has now been drawn to the statement in paragraph 11, page 171, of the Report of a sub-committee of the West Ham Insurance Committee that out of ninety-five tuberculous persons receiving domiciliary treatment in their area at the end of 1913, no less than thirty-seven were sleeping in the same rooms as other persons; and what the Government propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: It is the duty of the committee to arrange for the provision of treatment for tuberculous insured persons recommended for sanatorium benefit, and for their receiving all necessary instructions and advice as to the conduct and habits conducive to recovery, but they have no means of enforcing those instructions in such cases as those referred to in the question except by making their observance a condition of the receipt of treatment, which would in many cases deprive the insured person, for causes beyond his control, of all the benefits of treatment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in those cases where insured persons cannot be properly treated in their own rooms it would not be better to treat them in a sanatorium?
    Mr. BENN: That may be so, but it is a matter for the insurance committee to say what the treatment shall be in each case.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Could not the Commissioners advise the committees on the subject?
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Have not the Commissioners the right to dictate to the committees if they do not carry out their duties under the Act to their satisfaction?
    Mr. BENN: The insurance committees are authorised to deal with cases of tuberculosis, and they may recommend the treatment which they consider necessary in each case.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Have the Commissioners not control over the committee?
    Mr. BENN: They have got the control which is authorised by the Act.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked whether it is in accordance with the rules of societies approved by the Insurance Com-

    1941
    missioners that an insured person suddenly taken so ill that he was helpless should be deprived of sick benefit during the time he was physically unable to give notice of his illness to his society, and until he regained consciousness some ten days later?
    Mr. BENN: The ordinary rule of approved societies on the point referred to is that notice should be sent "as soon as possible." If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case within his knowledge in which benefit has been refused in the circumstances described in his question, the Commissioners will at once communicate with the society.
    Mr. GODFREYLOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to complaints of friendly societies that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is insisting that, in the schemes sanctioned under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act, the societies shall pay full sickness benefit as before to members in cases of accident, although those members are actually paying to the non-State section of the societies 4d. per week less than formerly?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir; the question is one of the interpretations of Section 72 of the Insurance Act, about which I understand the friendly societies to which the hon. Member refers are taking legal advice.

    STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. GODFREYLOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether a Government Committee is at present considering the subject of a State medical service, and is actually preparing plans for such a scheme?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (BOARDS OF GUARDIANS).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many boards of guardians have petitioned him to secure representation on insurance committees; and whether he proposes to take any steps to advance their petition?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Two boards of guardians have
    1942
    made representations to the Local Government Board to the effect referred to. With respect to the last part of the question, this is a matter for the consideration of the National Health Insurance Commissioners.

    Importation of Arms (Ireland).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, as detentions of arms and ammunition at Irish ports are confined chiefly to goods designed for sporting and other non-military purposes, and having regard to the fact that legitimate trade is being injured, the present restrictions on importation and carriage coastwise of such goods will, in the public interest, be removed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There are no restrictions on the importation or carriage coastwise of sporting arms and ammunition which are excepted from the prohibitions contained in the Royal Proclamations of the 4th December last. Nor, so far as I am aware, need there be any injury to the legitimate trade in such goods between Great Britain and Ireland if the agents entrusted with their carriage are careful to observe the customs requirements as to entry and clearance before shipment as explained in the public notice issued by the Board of Customs and Excise on the same date. These requirements are necessary in order to ensure enforcement of the Proclamation relating to carriage coastwise, and the Government are not prepared to relax them.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask whether a sporting rifle is exempt?
    Mr. BIRRELL: A sporting rifle?
    Mr. NEWMAN: A rifle used for killing deer.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It would depend upon the customs and what their view of the matter was.

    Westminster Hall.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public interest in the condition of the roof of Westminster Hall which, as disclosed by the official Report recently made to the Board of Works, has proved to be far more serious than was imagined six months ago, he will cause the above Report not merely to be presented to this House, but also to be printed and circulated for public information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The publication of the full Report with illustrations would involve a serious expenditure of public money. The First Commissioner proposes, therefore, to issue the body of the Report as a Parliamentary Paper with such illustrations as are necessary to make it clear, and to place the remainder of the illustrations in the Library of the House.

    Rural Conditions (Great Britain).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from the executive committee of the Central Land Association, a non-partisan body having on its committee, apart from its president, eight Liberal and eight Unionist Members of Parliament, a recommendation that there should be constituted forthwith a Royal Commission which will be instructed to appoint Sub-Commissioners to make an immediate and independent inquiry into rural conditions in Great Britain, and especially to make a survey as to the facts with regard to the wages, housing, and industrial outlook of farm labourers, and as to existing grievances in respect of land tenure, game, and kindred questions, and that the reports from such Sub-Commissioners when received should be published in their entirety and without delay; whether in his reply to the association he has admitted the possible advantages of such an inquiry, survey, and report; and. if so, whether, in view of the unstable condition of agriculture, due to uncertainty as to future land reform measures, he will institute such an inquiry forthwith?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the recommendation from the executive committee of the association referred to. In reply, I stated that their suggestion would be considered, should a detailed inquiry into local conditions, such as was proposed, be found necessary, and I am afraid I cannot for the present say more.

    Ministers in Aeroplanes.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether he will use his influence to discourage Members of the House whose lives are of value to the public from exposing themselves to need less risks and perils by aeroplane, submarine, or in any other way?
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE:
    Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, could he specify in his
    1944
    reply what Members of this House have a life valuable to the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that valuable lives should be exposed to needless risks, but I have no reason to think that I have any such dissuasive influence as my hon. Friend suggests.

    San Francisco Exhibition.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether, although it has been decided that Great Britain will take no official part in the San Francisco Exhibition, the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office will give all possible and necessary advice and assistance to those public bodies and committees seeking to promote private enterprise for the purpose?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE {Mr. Burns): As my right hon. Friend stated in the House in August last. His Majesty's Government will do nothing to discourage the participation of private individuals in the San Francisco Exhibition, and the Board of Trade will be prepared to give such information as they may possess regarding the exhibition to any public bodies or invidual firms that may apply to them.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the whether the Foreign Office will co-operate?
    Mr. BURNS: The Foreign Office, the Board of Trade, and other Departments will co-operate in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

    Customs and Excise (Staff).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to paragraphs 161-163 of the Report on the Amalgamation of Customs and Excise, stating that vacancies in the supervising grade of the Customs and Excise service would be allotted to supernumerary supervisors and assistant supervisors, first-class examining officers and upper section port clerks, subject to stringent reports from collectors or to the efficiency and character of the officers being satisfactory, if he will say what percentage of the different grades enumerated have been appointed to vacancies in the surveying grade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: All the second-class supervisors, all the assistant supervisors, and 104 first-class examining officers, being those who out of the total number of 274 first-class examining officers have

    1945
    been found to possess the necessary qualifications, have been absorbed into the surveying grade. Out of the forty-two upper section clerks for whom places were reserved by paragraph 156 of the Report seven have up to the present been so absorbed.

    Development Loans.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked how many applications for loans have been received by the Development Commissioners from the fishermen in Devon and Cornwall; how many loans have been granted; and what are the terms of such loans as regards security required, conditions of repayment, and the position of the fishermen in the case of arrears?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Applications for Grants of £10,000 each from the Development Fund were made by the Devon and Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committees. No advances from the Development Fund have been made or are contemplated at present to fishermen in Devon and Cornwall generally, but an advance of £4,000 to the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee has been sanctioned to assist fishermen at the Mount's Bay ports and St. Ives to install mechanical power in their fishing vessels. The terms of this advance provide that the money lent to fishermen should bear interest at not less than 3 per cent, per annum. Applications by the fishermen for loans from this advance are not made to the Development Commission, but to a local committee who administer the scheme on behalf of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee. The details of the terms on which loans are made are settled by that committee. I understand that the committee have not as yet made any loans.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I ask whether that means in general terms that the Development Commissioners are prepared to entertain such applications from other parts of the country?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The practice of the Development Commissioners is to consider recommendations when they come forward from the Treasury.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is not the principle settled by that particular Grant?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The desirability of making this particular Grant is a question for the Development Commissioners.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Can the bon. Gentleman state the terms on which the
    1946
    £4,000 will be loaned, the security given, and the position of the fishermen in case they fail to repay the money?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think if the hon. Gentleman reads the answer he will see that I have given that information.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will this be extended to Scotland?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would recommend the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apply to the Development Commissioners in the first instance.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    AHMED CRUISERS (WILSON LINE).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say whether several Wilson liners have been equipped with quick-firing guns by co-operation of the owners and the Admiralty; if so, under what authority has the Admiralty proceeded in the matter; do the vessels carry passengers; and, if so, what would be their legal rights if the liners should ever be engaged in a naval action to their injury; do these vessels carry ammunition on every voyage; and, if so, are British and foreign port rules against merchant vessels carrying explosives or war stores suspended in their favour?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I would also refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in introducing the Navy Estimates on the 26th March last. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. I am advised that the legal rights of passengers would be the same in the case of vessels armed for self-defence as in that of the vessels not so armed. No final decision has been taken in regard to the fifth part of the question, and it is therefore not necessary or desirable to discuss the case contemplated in the last part of the question.

    CHATHAM DOCKYARD (SURGEON'S CERTIFICATE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has recently received a protest from four work men employed at Chatham dockyard, who were a short time ago rejected by the dockyard surgeon as unfit to be placed on the establishment; whether he is aware that these four men have, after a strict

    1947
    examination by doctors of high reputation, been certified to be in good health and in every respect sound; and whether, under these circumstances, he will accept these men as fit to be placed on the establishment or, failing this, whether he will have them again examined by the dockyard surgeon in conjunction with a private practitioner?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The men referred to appealed against their rejection, supporting their appeal with certificates from private medical practitioners. As a result they have been re-examined and pronounced medically fit for establishment.

    SUBMARINE A7.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further information to give the House with regard to the sinking of the A7 submarine, particularly with regard to the statements made that she had remained on the bottom for an hour a short time before the accident occurred?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir, these statements have been closely investigated. The statement contained in the published letter of Colonel Morrison, father of Sub-Lieutenant Morrison, who lost his life in A7, to the effect that A7 sunk to the bottom when exercising off Plymouth, and that it took over an hour of hard work to get her to the surface again, is, according to all the information I have received, quite untrue. I am informed that Sub-Lieutenant Morrison was only present in A7 during one exercise prior to Christmas, namely, on the 16th December. Three men who were then on duty in A7 depose that she did not go below a depth of twenty feet on that day. Sub-Lieutenant Morrison joined His Majesty's ship "Onyx" on the 1st December, 1913, and the only other exercises in "A" boats in which he took part prior to Christmas, were three dives in A8. On one occasion, owing to a personal error, A8 was over-trimmed, and dived to a depth of seventy-eight feet. The interval of time from the moment she dipped her periscope until she regained the surface did not exceed one minute. She did not touch the bottom; and diving at such a depth is not considered dangerous, in fact, it is frequently deliberately undertaken.
    1948
    The lieutenant commanding A8, and the whole crew of the vessel who have been examined, declare that on no other occasion did A8 go below a depth of twenty feet. It is not for me to explain this apparent discrepancy; but it is possible that Colonel Morrison confused his son's account of his recent experiences in A8 with some reference to an accident which occurred in that vessel four years ago, in 1910, when, owing to a personal error, A8 sunk to a depth of about 200 feet, and remained there twenty minutes before she could be brought to the surface. Had she been fitted with the efficient pumps with which all the "A" class are now fitted, she could have been brought up immediately. Submarines have been on the bottom scores of times; but this incident in A8 four years ago is the only occasion during diving exercises on which a British submarine, prior to the loss of A7, has remained there more than a few seconds longer than she wished. Statements similar to that in Colonel Morrison's letter were attributed in the Press to Mrs. Wag-staff and Mrs. Northam, widows of men who lost their lives in A7. In addition to the three men already mentioned, three other seamen witnesses can also testify that A7 had never dived below normal depth or remained on the bottom. The services of these six men cover the whole of the period during which Wagstaff and Northam served in A7.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the opportunity to tell the House the position of A7 at the present moment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That does not arise out of the question at all.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I thought you might like to answer it.

    Housing of Working Classes (Bedwellty, etc).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what was the price paid for the four acres of land acquired by the Bedwellty Urban District Council for the erection of houses under the provisions of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and in respect of which the Local Government Board sanctioned a loan of £850; and what, prior to acquisition, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment of this land to local rates, or, if this land formed

    1949
    a portion of a large property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The price paid for the 4 acres of land was £800. The land formed part of a farm of 50 acres, which, together with the farm buildings, was assessed at £28, and I am informed that the assessment of the 4 acres was approximately £2.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked(1) with respect to the land acquired by lease in Great Harwood, Aberdare, Abertillery, Ebbw Vale, Merthyr Tydvil, and Risca, for the erection of houses under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, what, prior to acquisition, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment to local rates to the land so acquired, or, if the land in any case formed a portion of a larger property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion; (2) what, prior to the acquisition for a housing scheme under the provisions of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment to local rates of the 5 acres 2 roods 13 perches of land acquired by the Risca Urban District Council, at a lease of ninety-nine years at a peppercorn rent for one and a-half years, thereafter at £124 17s. per annum, or, if this land formed a portion of a larger property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to the local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As regards Great Harwood, Aberdare, Abertillery, and Merthyr Tydvil, I am informed that in each case the land acquired by the local authority on lease formed part of a larger area, and that no reduction in the assessment of that area has been made in consequence of the severance of the part referred to, except in the case of Great Harwood, where the reduction was £1 15s. As regards Ebbw Vale, I am informed that the clerk to the local authority cannot trace that the land acquired was rated. As regards Risca, I understand that the rental of the area of 5 acres 2 roods 13 perches was £10, and that the assessment to local rate was based on the valuation of £9 10s., but the information furnished to me in regard to other leases by this local
    1950
    authority is not sufficiently definite to enable me to reply to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the I President of the Local Government Board what was the price paid for the 8 acres 1 rood and 17 perches of land acquired by the Abersychan Urban District Council for the erection of houses under the provisions of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and in respect of which the Local Government Board, sanctioned a loan of £2,911; and what,, prior to acquisition, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment of this land to local rates, or, if this land formed a portion of a larger property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The land is made up of three sites. The price paid for the first was £1,109. It was part of a larger property, and the amount by which, the assessment was reduced by reason of the severance was £4. The price of the second site was £797, the gross rental £10, the rateable value £9 10s., and the rates-per annum £1 9s. 7d. In the third case, the price paid was £800, the gross rental £7, the rateable value £6 10s., and the-rates per annum £1 0s. 2d.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state how many resolutions he has received from Poor Law unions stating that the present system is rendering inoperative the Vaccination Laws, and asking for an inquiry into the working of the conscience Clause; and if he proposes to take any steps to meet their wishes?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is 118. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question on the 17th instant.

    Northern Junction Railway.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the amount which has been spent by local authorities on their repeated opposition to the various Bills for the construction of a Northern Junction Railway.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Local Government Board have no information on the subject.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman get the information for me; it is very important?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member desires it, I will do my best to obtain the information.
    Mr. NEWMANasked, in view of the proposed district conferences of local authorities and Government Departments on the town planning and traffic problems of Greater London, if he will consider the possibility of such proposals as the Northern Junction Railway Bill being considered by such conferences?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The terms of reference to these conferences would not cover the consideration of proposals of this kind, and I do not think it desirable that the conferences, which are specially constituted for specific purposes, should deal with such proposals.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the reintroduction of the Northern Junction Railway Bill, whether any further progress has been made with the suggestion that a central body should be created or the necessary powers given to some existing authority to consider and provide for the whole of the traffic needs of Greater London?
    Mr. BURNS: This question is still under consideration.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether boards of guardians can supplement the amount received by an old age pensioner under the Act without disfranchising the recipient of such relief; and, if so, would he state the circumstances under which such relief is or could be granted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any relief at the expense of the poor rate, other than medical or surgical assistance, has the effect of disfranchising.

    Deer Forests (Highland and Islands).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the 2,367 acres mentioned in the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission (1892), pages 12 to 53, as being all the
    1952
    ground representing old arable in deer forests in the scheduled areas, was correct at the time; and, if not, how much more arable was there in the scheduled deer forests at the time and where was it?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Royal Commission gave careful consideration to the questions referred to them, and I am unable to go behind the statements of fact contained in their Report.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the Scottish Office have any information that would justify the assertion that now, or at any time, there are or were millions of acres in deer forests in.Scotland that were once arable or capable of being cultivated?
    Mr. McKlNNON WOOD: I am not prepared to say that there are not.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the figures 1,782,785 acres, given on page 22 of the Highlands and Islands Commission Report, 1892, refer to sheep-grazing or deer-forest land, or, if to both, how much of the land quoted is deer forest and how much of that arable or fit for cultivation?
    Mr. McKlNNON WOOD: I fear I can only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Report, including the figures given in the Appendix.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask how it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give information as to how much land is available or fit for cultivation?
    Mr. McKlNNON WOOD: I think that is a matter for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. F. HALL: I have asked and cannot get a reply.

    Fishermen (Grants for Oil Engines).
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is now prepared to say whether steps will be taken to provide assistance for fishermen; and whether he will favourably consider the scheme of advances for installing oil engines suggested in the Minority Report of the recent Departmental Committee?
    Mr. McKlNNON WOOD: The Report of the Departmental Committee has just been

    1953
    Issued. It deals with many important subjects, and it will take some time to give it proper consideration.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman express any opinion upon the latter part of the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would rather not at present.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (Engine Drivers and Firemen).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if representations have been made to him suggesting that engine drivers and firemen should be put under the Workmen's Compensation Act for failure of eyesight and other bodily injuries arising out of their employment; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Representations were recently made to me by a deputation from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen in regard to the position of those of their members who lose their work through failure to pass the periodic eye tests required by the railway companies, but they expressly stated that their request was not that the failure of eyesight should be treated as an industrial disease under the Compensation Act, but that any diminution of wages caused by the loss of their present work should be made good by the State. That is not a matter in which I have any power to take action. As regards the application of the Compensation Act, there is no evidence before me of any -disease specific to this class of employment which could be scheduled under the Act; injuries by accident are, of course, already under the Act.

    Coal Mines Act (Rescue Work).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to rescue brigades under the Coal Mines Act, whether the men in these brigades are entitled to any pay apart from the allowance made for loss of work time for actual drills; whether they receive any retaining fee for holding themselves at call; whether they receive, like firemen or lifeboatmen, any annual allowance for the risky nature of the work they are undertaking; and, if not, will he say why no such allowance is given?
    Mr. McKENNA: The remuneration of the men who volunteer to become members of these brigades is a matter of arrangement in each case between the mineowners whose duty it is to maintain the brigades and the men themselves, and I have no information on the subject.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: If the men did not volunteer, would it not be the duty of the mineowners under the Act to provide the men for the purpose?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think any difficulty has arisen of the kind my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: If it did arise, would it not be incumbent on the mine-owners to provide men under the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would rather not answer that question until it does arise.

    Fines in Lieu of Imprisonment.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to introduce and pass into law this Session a Bill to make obligatory wherever possible the allowing to offenders of time for the payment of fines in lieu of imprisonment?
    Mr. McKENNA: I propose to introduce a Bill for this purpose at an early date, and earnestly hope it may pass into law.

    Deportations from South Africa.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Bain, one of the men ejected from the Union of South Africa, was at the time of the South African war a British subject; whether he fought in that war against this country; and, if so, whether that action has been condoned by any act of indemnity?
    Mr. HARCOURT (for Mr. McKenna): I
    have no recent information on the subject, but it would appear from the War Office records at the time of the South African war that Mr. Bain was naturalised in the Transvaal in 1896, and fought against Great Britain in the South African war, being sent as a prisoner of war to Ceylon.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: As this man has not been naturalised for five years under the Transvaal, ought we to recognise that he was a British citizen or a Transvaal citizen at the time?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that his information is correct? Has he not information to show that the accurate date was 1894–that Mr. Bain was naturalised in 1894, and received complete burgher rights, which are a totally different thing, in 1896?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have only given the information which was supplied to me by the War Office from the records at the time of the South African war, and which states that Mr. Bain was naturalised in the Transvaal in 1896. I know nothing myself in regard to it. It is purely a question of naturalisation, and if there are other questions as to that, notice should be given.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those British subjects who had received burgher rights in the Transvaal were compelled to serve in the South African war under the commando laws, and that they generally served in the hospital departments?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no personal recollection or knowledge of the circumstances.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, and find out whether this man was a British citizen or not at the time, and, if he was a British citizen, will he take steps to have him prosecuted for high treason?
    Mr. HARCOURT'Sreply was inaudible.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: May I ask whether the Secretary to the Colonies is to hang him first and try him afterwards?

    New Explosives Company, Stowmarket (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry has been held as to the rates of wages paid by the New Explosives Company at Stowmarket; and if he can state whether the Fair-Wages Clause is being observed by the said company?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An investigation into the rates of wages and conditions of labour at Stowmarket has been made. During the course of the investigation a schedule of wages has been issued, which has taken effect from 1st January, and this schedule, it is considered, satisfies the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause?

    Teachers (Superannuation).
    Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education if the question of superannuation of teachers coming under the Act of 1898, who retired before the operation of the Act of 1912, is still under consideration; and, if so, when a decision with regard to their case may be expected?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I hope soon to receive the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into questions relating to the superannuation of elementary school teachers.

    Lobster Hatchery (Hants).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any success has attended the experimental establishment of a lobster hatchery in the Beaulieu River, Hants; and whether he is willing to extend the experiment to other suitable estuaries?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS (for Mr. Runciman): The initiation of the experiment was attended by unexpected difficulties, arising mainly from high tides; but considerable experience has been gained, and lobsters have been hatched and reared through certain stages of development by different methods. Provision has been made for continuing the experiment at least over the next hatching season, and it will then be easier to express an opinion on the question whether lobster hatching can be expected to be attended with success as a commercial enterprise on our coasts. A short interim report of the work carried out last year will be included in the Board's annual report on Sea Fisheries, which is now in preparation.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: I wish to call attention to a matter entirely personal to myself, and to ask you, Mr. Speaker, one or two questions on the point, and, finally, to ask you whether a breach of privilege of the House has or has not been committed. What I refer to is a statement in a newspaper of considerable repute, I believe—and, perhaps, of wide circulation, a matter with which I am not personally acquainted—in which it imputes to me by name insolent behaviour to the Throne. I will first of all read what

1957
the newspaper says, and then give my explanation. The heading is: "Hats off for the King," and then it proceeds:—
"There are certain common courtesies to the Throne which are still observed in the House of Commons, even under a Radical majority, but those courtesies were, I can only imagine, deliberately ignored by a Radical and by a Labour Member, when Captain Guest brought up the King's acknowledgment of the Address in reply to the King's Speech. In his official uniform, as Treasurer of the Household, he appeared at the Bar to announce, in military tones, a message from the King. Such an announcement is usually followed by the uncovering of Members, but this afternoon neither Mr. John Ward thought it necessary to remove his huge grey sombrero, nor did Sir G. Scott Robinson,"—
That is incorrect, but evidently it is intended for me—
"the Radical representative for Central Bradford, take the trouble to doff his tall hat. A momentary forget fulness might well have been pleaded, but whether the discourtesy was intentional or not, it was instantly met by cries front the Opposition of 'hats off,' but neither of the offending Members paid any heed to the condemnation, and persisted in their insulting action."
What actually occurred was this. I was a little late when the hon. Member for Dorsetshire brought up a message in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I was also in a hurry. Without knowing quite how much respect was necessary on this occasion to an official so beautifully attired—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—well, I think he was beautifully attired—I edged along sideways and proceeded to my place. I noted at the time that hon. Members opposite were calling "Hats off," and I asked an hon. Friend who sat next to me why they were making that remark. He said, "Because the Member for Stoke has not taken off his hat." I asked why he had not taken off his hat, and he replied, "Because of the commanding tone in which he was ordered to take it off by Members opposite." I thought that was a mistake. Now, I do not know myself how the matter stands. I have asked my Friends, and they are inclined to think I had my hat off, and that. I was properly uncovered. I ask you, Sir, whether you are able to say whether I had my hat off or not. On the whole, I think I had it off, but these accidents do sometimes, occur, and I have noticed that Members on all sides have kept their hats on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!")—when, as a matter of good manners, if they remembered, they would have taken them off. I only wish to say this: that I am second to nobody in this House in the deep loyalty I feel for His Gracious Majesty the King, and the perfect reverence and respect I have for his person, and if by any chance I did keep my hat on for a moment or two longer than it should have been, or if I forgot
1958
circumstances and kept it on, I should most profoundly apologise to the House, and I shall apologise simply on the question of good manners, because I believe it is not absolutely necessary to take off your hat when a Message is brought in the way in which this was. I want to ask for your ruling or opinion on this point, and whether it is necessary to go further and move a Resolution that a breach of privilege has been committed?
Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member appeals to my recollection as to whether he had his hat off or not, I am afraid I cannot help him, as I am sorry I did not notice him on that particular occasion. One hon. Member I did notice retained his hat. The hon. Member asked me what the rule is on this matter. I think I can not do better than read the ruling of my predecessor, which was given in the year 1882 by Mr. Speaker Brand, who said on 21st March of that year:—
"Any Message direct from the Crown and read to the House from the Chair, will always be received by this House uncovered, and an entry to that effect is made in the Votes. That observation does not apply to the answer from the Sovereign to an Address from this House."
I might also add for the information of Members that it does not apply in the case in which the Gracious Speech from the Throne is read by me from the Chair. It only applies in the cases in which a Message from the Sovereign under the Sign Manual is read by the Speaker from the Chair.

MEXICO (DEATH OF MR. BENTON).
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has anything further to communicate with regard to the case of Mr. Benton?
Sir EDWARD GREY: The latest telegram I have received this morning from the British Ambassador at Washington is:—
"The United States Secretary of State has told me that he proposes that the senior army surgeon at EI Paso with a responsible American, and His Majesty's Consul with a British subject representing Benton's family, will cross the frontier and make a careful examination of the body. The surgeon will make his report through the American General. He will urge that the body be surrendered to Mrs. Benton."
Of course, if that is carried out, as Mr. Bryan proposes, our Consul will report to us what he has been able to ascertain. I would only say further, that we are satisfied that the Government of the United States is showing as much interest in this case and is doing as much to discover the facts as it would do if Mr. Benton had been an American citizen. We cannot our-

1959
selves do more at the moment than send our Consul to be present at whatever investigations are made. I hope to be able to give more information to the House when it meets next week as to the facts, and in any case to make a considered statement of the view taken by His Majesty's Government of what can be done further, either to get at the truth, if it is then in doubt, or to secure what justice may demand. It is hardly necessary for me to emphasise what everybody knows, the deep feeling that exists in the House and in the country in this matter and which His Majesty's Government fully share, and which, I hope it is recognised, is none the less deep because the expression of it has been very restrained.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister what business will be taken next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Upon Monday and Tuesday we propose to take the Navy Supplementary Estimates.
  Upon Wednesday, the Report of the Civil Service and Army Supplementary Estimates.
  With regard to Thursday's business, I should be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to defer any announcement until Monday.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see with regard to the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, that that concerning the Board of Agriculture is taken when the President is present to answer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, is indisposed, and his return is a little uncertain. However, we will not take it certainly, until the end of the Civil Service Supplementary Votes.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    EIGHT HOURS WORKING DAY BILL.
    "To limit the hours of employment to eight per day." Presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Thomas Richardson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
    DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL BILL.
    "To amend Section 8 of the Medical Act, 1886." Presented by Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

    AGRICULTURAL LOANS BILL.
    "To provide for the establishment of agricultural loan committees and for the making of loans to farmers." Presented by Mr. JAKDINE; supported by Mr. Col-lings, Mr. Stanier, Mr. William Boyle, Mr. Hamersley, Captain Morrison-Bell, Sir John Spear, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Harry
    1978
    Hope, Colonel Boles, Mr. Campion, and Mr. Sandys; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 17th March, and to be printed, [Bill 78.]

    EDUCATION BILL.
    "To make further provision with regard to Education in England and Wales." Presented by Sir RICHARD WINFREY; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1913–14).
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    Class III.—ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This Supplementary Vote of £8,400 for the Royal Irish Constabulary has been rendered necessary by the employment of a number of that force in the county and city of Dublin during the recent occurrences. It arises in this way. The original Estimate for subsistence allowances was £26,000. The amount required to meet that extra expenditure under that head would be £22,800, but there is £8,970 savings under other sub-heads. The additional sum required over and above the original Estimate is £13,830, and taking from that the Appropriations-in-Aid brings out the figure at £8,400, and that is the additional sum required. A large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary were on duty in Dublin, in the city and county, during the labour troubles. In the city of Dublin the total numbers employed were five district inspectors, thirteen head constables, and 488 constables, making in all 506. In the county of Dublin the figures were two district inspectors, three head constables, and 137 constables, making a total of 142. Taking the city and county together, the total was 648, or, roughly speaking, 650 officers and men. The question will naturally be asked why the Corporation of Dublin are

    1979
    not required to pay for this extra police force in the manner in which counties in Ireland have to pay for extra police over and above what is called the free list. The reason is a statutory one. The Constabulary Acts do not operate in Dublin, and therefore we were not in a position to make a charge upon the Dublin Corporation; consequently that question does not and cannot arise. The subsistence allowances in the city of Dublin are: District inspectors 15s. per night, head constables 5s. 6d., and men 4s. 6d. In the county of Dublin they are the same, except that the men get 3s. 6d., instead of 4s. 6d. per night. The whole of these 650 officers and men were not employed throughout the period, but on an average they were employed for something like three months; some were employed from August to January, some from September to January, some from October, and so on. That is quite sufficient to account for the extra Vote. Certain savings, as set out on the Paper, amounting to £8,970, have been taken in reduction of what otherwise would have been a larger Vote. These savings arise almost entirely upon pay, allowance, travelling expenses, forage, and transport. The bulk of the amount is due to the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary is not at the present moment at its full strength. On the 1st January, 1913, there were 10,177 sergeants and constables in the force, and on 1st January, 1914, there were 10,023, a reduction of 154. That is one of the main causes of the savings on pay, which amount to £5,116. There is also a saving of £2,000 on travelling expenses, and in all there have been savings as stated in the White Paper. On a Supplementary Estimate it would not be in order to say any more than that these men were required in the interests of peace, that they discharged their duty, and the cost has to be provided for.
    Mr. HAZELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Appropriations-in-Aid from extra police charges have been greater than were anticipated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to that point. When a force is employed in a county over and above the free allowance, it is paid for by the county in which the police are unwelcome visitors. It was supposed that a large number of these men would have been removed from the three
    1980
    counties chiefly affected—Galway, Roscommon, and Clare—and that, therefore, the force would cease to earn the money which they do earn while discharging these extra county duties. I am sorry to say that it has not been possible or desirable to remove, at all events, the whole of the extra force in these counties, and consequently we have had a larger amount of money from that source than was expected a year ago.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move that Item D (Subsistence Allowances) be reduced by £830. The Supplementary Estimate is a large one, but I do not propose to discuss the question of amount, because, no doubt, it was necessary that law and order should be maintained. I propose to ask, however, why it was necessary to bring into Dublin these extra men. I want to safeguard myself from any imputation that I am in any way casting a reflection on the Royal Irish Constabulary, or that I am in any way desirous at any time of not having sufficient police present to quell any disorder that may arise. The question in my mind is, Did the Government do their duty at that time, and, if the Government had done their duty, would it have been necessary to come to this House for an expenditure of £26,000? I read with great interest reports of what was taking place during these disturbed periods, and it seemed to me, speaking as one who was not present, and whose only source of information was the daily Press, that a great deal of the disturbance was due to the action of the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet cannot raise questions of policy on a Supplementary Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The question we have to consider is whether we shall vote this £26,000. If I can show that the Government either took steps which added to that increase, or did not take steps which might have quelled the riot without spending this money, it would be a reason for our not voting this Supplementary Estimate. My contention is that the Government deliberately did a certain act, and that that certain act encouraged and made the riots. I submit, therefore, that I am entitled to show why, in my opinion, certain acts of the Government necessitate this Supplementary Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet can see where that would lead. It would lead

    1981
    to Supplementary Votes being made the occasion for all kinds of discussions of policy, whereas it is clearly laid down that policy cannot be discussed on Supplementary Estimates. The only questions which arise here are whether constabulary were sent in too large numbers and whether the amount is a reasonable one for the numbers sent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I recall to your memory what took place the day before yesterday upon the Supplementary Vote in regard to Somaliland? On that occasion there was a considerable Debate upon whether or not the policy of the Government in having there only a Camel Corps in small number, and of withdrawing Imperial forces from Somaliland had not led to the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate and to the death of certain people? It seems to me that here is an incident, not a general incident of policy, but an incident directly connected with the reasons for which the police were sent to Dublin. The police were sent to quell the riots connected with the strike, and Larkin was concerned in the strike. It is not a general question of policy; it is a question which arises directly upon this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: The opportunity for criticising the Government in regard to the matter to which the hon. Baronet refers clearly arises on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary. It could not come on the Vote for the constabulary, even if it had been the main Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course I bow to your ruling. I have said enough to show that in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends, the matter to which I referred was one of the real reasons why this Supplementary Vote has become necessary. Having done that, I have more or less achieved my object, and it is not necessary to allude further to it. I understand the Chief Secretary to give as a reason for the Appropriations-in-Aid having amounted to £5,430 more than was expected that in certain counties which are more or less disturbed he has been compelled to keep a certain number of extra constabulary, who are charged upon the county rates. If that is so, I do not quite see why a considerable part of this sum should not have been charged upon the Dublin Corporation.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I explained that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman said that there was an Act of Parliament which prevented him from doing it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is an Act of Parliament which enables me to charge the county with any extra force over and above the free list, but there is no such Statute enabling me to charge the Dublin Corporation for any extra police that may be necessary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It would not be in order, because it would 'be a question of policy, to enter into the reasons why there; is one law for the counties and another law for the corporation, and I do not propose to do so. What I think I can do is to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he does not bring in a Bill to assimilate the counties and the corporations. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that matter can be dealt with under Home Rule. Home Rule is not yet passed. If it is passed this would give those concerned a good example, and would add a crown of glory to the right hon. Gentleman's already illustrious name. I suppose the riots did not begin until after this House had risen, and therefore, I think it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to have foreseen that it would have been necessary to send these police; but I would like to put one other question which I think will be in order: Supposing the right hon. Gentleman had sent earlier a larger number of police, and supposing he had instructed those police that they were to take strong measures, and were ruthlessly to put, down any attempt to intimidation which was exercised by the trade unions, would or would not that have had the effect of stopping the disturbance, and of lessening the sum of money which we are now asked to vote?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think yes. Of course, it is a matter of opinion, and no doubt my opinion is no better than that of the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, it seems to me that that was the sensible and businesslike course to have pursued, instead of keeping a smaller body of men there for a considerable time, and not giving them instructions to be sufficiently firm in the execution of their duty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly explain that before we come to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would

    1983
    not be in. order."] Well, I do not know, "he could try. I think, under the circumstances, and in view of the explanation that I have given, something might be said. I have no desire whatever to cast any imputation either upon the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary or upon the men of the Dublin police force, or in any kind of way to allow an impression to get about that I am against the maintenance of law and order. But because I think the Government were at fault I propose to reduce the sum by £830.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: Would it be in order to discuss the probable recurrence of this expenditure in the immediate future?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member scarcely means that seriously.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I desire to make a few observations upon this subject. I think it is the first time in the history of the police since I have been in the House that I shall probably be telling with the right hon. Baronet who has moved to reduce the Vote. It will be, however, for an entirely different reason that I support him on this occasion. He has moved to reduce the Vote because he thinks that had more police been brought in earlier, and had they been given more definite instructions to batter the people than they were given—that had a few more heads been cracked in the earlier stages of these proceedings, then possibly there would have been less trouble later, and this account would not have been so much as it is. I am protesting against the amount of the bill for an entirely different reason. That is, on the ground that from my own personal knowledge of the situation in Dublin, being there for three weeks and during the whole of this trouble having been sent there by the Trade Union Congress to investigate, I am quite convinced, from my own experience and also from the evidence that was laid before the committee that held an investigation—of which committee I was a member—that it was the over-display of force that caused practically all this expenditure, and that caused a great deal of the trouble and disturbance that occurred in Ireland. In support of my contention that there were too many police sent, let me say that it is a well-known fact that the Lord Mayor of Dublin himself protested against the enormous display of force in the early stages of this
    1984
    business. He stated that it had aggravated the situation; that it had created difficulties that ought not to have been created; and that in every possible way it appeared to him that the police authorities, over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, as over other authorities in Ireland, had against the corporation's advice, and against practically all civilian advice, sent the police. The peculiar part of it is that not only the civilian voice from the people of Dublin in the shape of the Lord Mayor and the corporation, not merely from the side of the workmen, but, I believe, that from the employers, actually there were protests that this enormous display of force in the early stages of this business had aggravated the situation almost beyond control.
    We get, therefore, this peculiar consensus of opinion: First of all, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, then the organised workmen of the City, and then the organised employers. They all agreed that the display of force was altogether out of proportion to the necessities of the case, both before and after. That is the evidence that was collected. I do not say that at a later stage of the proceedings there was not some necessity for a display of force, though even then I am given to understand by the Lord Mayor that the Dublin Metropolitan Police were quite capable of handling everything that had occurred during the whole of the proceedings. Had not the right hon. Gentleman, on the advice of Dublin Castle, introduced this aggravating element, and, in spite of the advice that I have referred to, decided that he would aggravate the situation by introducing these extra men, things would have been different. That is the extraordinary situation. One can scarcely see, and I should not imagine for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman himself wished to aggravate the situation, for it seemed quite difficult enough as it was. But there are the facts. The evidence from these separate and hostile sources, employers and workmen giving the same advice, is one of the most remarkable features of the case. Both agreed that there was such a display of force as aggravated the situation, and so made this extra expenditure necessary. The whole question, it has been decided that we have to keep the discussion to, is as to whether there were too many police, and whether there was the necessity for all these men being introduced. The evidence is entirely to the

    1985
    contrary. Is it not a positive fact that a great number of those men that the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon introducing into Dublin had no real police duties to perform at all? They were largely, in the later stages, employed, not in police duties at all, but really in assisting the employers. Is that not a fact? Is it not the fact that they actually removed goods, that they were not employed on police duty, but they were removing goods for the employers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; the only goods they assisted to remove were goods consigned to public offices, and to the lunatic asylum, and not for private people at all.
    Mr. WARD: The House is going to be asked to vote for men performing police duties. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted part of our case, that these men were really used for the purpose of participating as one of the disputants in a great labour dispute. It would be outrageous if it were to be generally understood that against the advice of the local authorities and against the advice of everybody concerned in the good government of Dublin and the peaceful conduct of the dispute, the right hon. Gentleman and his officers can introduce any number of extra police, to the extent apparently of 600 into the centre of disturbance, relying on being able to come here with a Supplementary Vote and get the money for it. I certainly thought that there would have been some definite statement upon the subject as to who decided that these men should be sent to Dublin; as to who decided their numbers, and the purpose for which they were to be sent to Dublin. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would at least have told us the fact that all this body of police were introduced be fore there was a, single riot in Dublin. They were paraded some twenty-five on each side of the street in every street abutting on Sackville Street. They were drawn up in a long line all along Sackville Street. There was such a display of force that I should imagine was never seen before in any town belonging to the Kingdom.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: How many were there?
    Mr. WARD: Between 500 and 600 men. It was a very formidable force. I am speaking of the time about two days after the dispute and a few days
    1986
    before the trouble had taken place at the arrest of Larkin. The hon. Member may not know that my information was got from Lord Aberdeen and from Sir John Ross, the Commissioner of Police. Of course, if the hon. Baronet knows better than either of them, I will sit down and listen to him.
    Sir H. VERNEY: What were the numbers?
    Mr. BOOTH: I saw scores of them myself.
    Mr. WARD: The hon. Baronet had better let me proceed. As a matter of fact I was there. It was an outrageous display—
    The CHAIRMAN: The matter, I think, is now going beyond what I have already ruled as out of order. There was a general Debate on the Dublin strike on the Address, and it certainly cannot be allowed on this Vote. I am not quite clear as to the Dublin police, and how the case stands in Ireland as compared with England. We must, however, not go into a discussion of the merits of the Dublin strike, but simply discuss whether these constabulary ought or ought not to have been sent to Dublin.
    Mr. WARD: That is exactly the only point I want to deal with, because my information on the spot was that this was a useless display of force which the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers brought in against the advice of every authority in Dublin, and that was what caused all the trouble and cost necessitating this Estimate. There is a suspicion that this force was not brought in for special police purposes at all, but I am not allowed to enter into that. But I suppose I am at least allowed to mention what they were employed at. The day I went into Dublin there were about twenty-five policemen at each side of every street. In Sackville Street there were squads of horse police drawn up as if the town was in a state of siege. It was difficult to know whether one was in a town governed by constitutional authority or somewhere where the Cossacks rule. We wanted to hold a peaceable meeting on a Sunday, and we begged the authorities not to use the police so that we might save expense, which now forms part of this Estimate, and the right hon. Gentleman for some days would not agree to the withdrawal of the police. Eventually he did withdraw the police that Sunday.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now infringing the ruling I already gave. There was a general Debate in the House on the Address on the matter of the Dublin strike. Other discussions of that matter will come up upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. WARD: My whole idea is to show there was no necessity for these police. The Dublin authorities themselves told the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers, because apparently they have no power themselves to prevent these police coming in. The right hon. Gentleman is the sole authority to say who shall come in so far as the policing of Dublin is concerned. It. was clearly against the advice of most of the authorities in Dublin that these extra men were brought in, and that this extra expense should be put upon the citizens, I think we should at least hear why in the Chief Secretary's opinion it was necessary to bring them in, and we should get chapter and verse as to why he went against the advice of the local authority in making this extra expense necessary in this Supplementary Vote. I have given my own opinion. I believe that these extra police were used merely as pawns in the game of the employers.
    Mr. SANDYS: As I understand this Supplementary Estimate it nominally concerns a comparatively small sum of £8,400, but embodied in this Estimate there is also that method of bookkeeping to which attention has already been called in the course of previous Debates on the Estimates which preceded this one. Attention was called from time to time to the extremely unsatisfactory process of reducing the actual amount which the House is asked to pass without any explanation whatever, by means of this system of Appropriations-in-Aid. A most objectionable feature in every Supplementary Estimate, and in this Estimate, is, that in every case it refers to a matter—I am not going to discuss it on account of the Chairman's ruling—to which the people of this country who have to pay the bill attach much importance, and they may be under the impression, from the way the Estimate is drawn up, that the sum they have to find is £8,400, whereas the additional sum is no less than £13,830. That is the first reason why I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), if he goes to a Division, and I hope he will get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. WARD: He will get mine.
    Mr. SANDYS: The hon. Member opposite made an interesting speech, and gave us some personal reminiscences, to which. I propose to make some reference later on. I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Estimate is, on the face of it, very misleading. We are asked to vote a sum of £13,830 under the pretence that we are only voting a sum of £8,400. Of course, the vital matter in connection with this Estimate is the policy of the Government. I am not going to discuss that, because I understand from your ruling, Mr. Whitley, that that discussion is reserved for the salary of the Chief Secretary, and I think it will be a very interesting discussion when it takes place. But I might remind the Committee that by that time the right hon. Gentleman will have got the money and we shall be, as it were, shutting the stable-door after the horse is stolen. It is always the privilege of this House that it should exercise control in financial matters. It was by the exercise of that financial control we won our liberties from a despotic Monarch. Now that privilege of the House of Commons is disappearing, and that financial control rests unimpaired and unchecked and uncriticisable by us in the hands of a despotic oligarchy.
    Mr. DILLON: That is due to your party, who passed the Closure Resolution.
    Mr. SANDYS: I think that is a very unmerited observation. I am quite welt aware as to the condition under which the Closure Resolutions were made necessary, and I have no doubt the hon. Member is perfectly well aware of the circumstances which made it impossible for the Government of this country to be carried on in. this House unless Resolutions of that kind, of a very stringent character, were brought into force.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. Are we entitled, upon this narrow Supplementary Vote, to discuss the Rules of the House with regard to procedure?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was replying to an interruption, and I think I should not be justified in disallowing that. But, of course, he will not go beyond replying.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am very much obliged. It is necessary that we should be allowed to deal with interruptions of this character in the course of our speeches. They

    1989
    make it very much more difficult to follow the line of argument to which we wish to address ourselves and to bring our speeches to a satisfactory conclusion. I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Ward). He dealt with the situation existing in the city of Dublin when the police were introduced to deal with the riots, and he described what occurred. I believe he was actually present on the occasion, and no doubt he did his best to pacify the strikers in every possible way. The hon. Member had some conversation with various personages occupying extremely important positions in the city of Dublin, and I believe the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) was equally favoured with the views of several important persons. The hon. Member for Stoke told us, in the course of his speech, that he had an opportunity of discussing the situation, and the question of this large police force, with no less a person age than the Lord Mayor of Dublin. I think we are entitled to listen with very great respect to those views, although we get them second-hand, but they are none the worse for that, because I have every confidence in the statements made by the hon. Member. He told us that, as a result of his interview with the lord mayor, he came away with the impression, and the lord mayor told him quite decidedly—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to Standing Order 19, which says that an hon. Member is not entitled to repeat his own words or the speeches of other Members. He seems to be giving us again what we have already heard.
    Mr. SANDYS: I will put it very briefly. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, as explained by the hon. Member opposite, thought that too many police were introduced into the city, and thought that the state of the city would be far more satisfactory if a large number of the police had not, as a matter of fact, been introduced, and that very much smaller numbers would have been sufficient to relieve the situation. I think that was a very good point, because the hon. Member, having been there and seen the whole thing, is entitled to speak, and certainly the suggestion he has made and put forward will influence me all the more in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. But there was a suggestion made by the hon. Member
    1990
    which requires some explanation by the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member actually suggested that some of these men, for whom we are called upon to vote this Supplementary Estimate, were not engaged directly in actual police duties, but were used by the employers. I think he went so far as to say that some, of them were engaged in removing goods.
    Mr. WARD: The Chief Secretary admitted, in certain cases, that that was so.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I described how the Royal Irish Constabulary were employed throughout most of the time in guarding goods. It is a fact that they were in small numbers employed, not in carrying but in securing the safe conduct of goods.
    Mr. SANDYS: That is not what the hon. Member said.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is what I say.
    Mr. SANDYS: Then I may take it that the hon. Member was incorrect when he said they were employed in moving goods?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
    Mr. SANDYS: Because I think that would have been an extraordinary state of affairs, and I do not for one moment see why we should be called upon to pay the bill for purposes like that. I think, on. the whole, evidence shows that for various reasons, to which I am not allowed to-allude now, but which we shall have an opportunity of discussing when the Chief Secretary's salary comes up, we may take-it that this force for which we are asked to pay this large sum of money might have been a much smaller force if the Government had pursued a different policy. I am not going to discuss that this afternoon. I think, at any rate, the larger force need not have remained in Dublin for two months. I think it is most regrettable to have to vote money and discuss it afterwards. I shall certainly support the hon. Baronet in the reduction he moves of the sum of £830, not because we can do very much, but as the strongest protest which lies in our power against the policy of the Government in connection with these riots, and against a system which enables the Government to slip out of an explanation at the proper time.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I wish to ask for some information as to the counties from which the police forming this force in Dublin were drafted. The right hon. Gentleman

    1991
    said that certain counties were charged with subsistence allowances for extra police, and one of those counties is Roscommon, which for several years—as is admitted by all authorities and by all persons connected with the county, whether representing the Government or the ratepayers—has been in a perfectly peaceable and law-abiding condition. This county has been declared over and over again by Judges of Assize and by statistics—
    The CHAIRMAN: That question does hot come up here, and it must be brought up on the main Estimates.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I think I can show how that question is in order. The point I want to make is that the ratepayers of certain counties are charged for sustaining a force of extra police in those counties, and into these very counties have been brought at the same time a number of police for whose subsistence we are now asked to vote the taxes of the country—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is suggesting an alteration of the law.
    Mr. HAYDEN: No, Mr. Whitley.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I am clear about the county of Roscommon. This is a charge which is laid down by Statute and cannot be altered without legislation.
    Mr. HAYDEN: No, Sir; it stands in this way: There are certain powers given to the Executive to introduce into those counties extra police and to impose a charge upon the ratepayers for those police. I am not going into the merits of that Act of Parliament, because I know better, but I want to protest against the ratepayers of those counties having to pay for police who at the same time are doing duty in Dublin.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, there were not any police from those particular counties imported into Dublin.
    The CHAIRMAN: If there were, it would not be a matter for this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Does this Estimate not include an appropriation taken from the ratepayers of those counties for the subsistence of those men? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If you look at the Estimate you will see that it includes sums taken from the ratepayers of those coun-
    1992
    ties in order to reduce the amount of this Estimate, and I think to discuss that matter is in perfect order. Of course, if the Chief Secretary tells me that no police were drawn from Roscommon, Galway, Clare, or any other county upon which a charge is now being imposed for the maintenance of extra police in the county or city of Dublin during the strike, that will alter the case. I am assured by representatives of the people at home, including members of the county council who are called upon to pay this appropriation, that a considerable number of their police did duty in Dublin during the strike. Not only policemen, I am told, were taken from the county of Roscommon to do duty in Dublin during a strike, but a resident magistrate was also taken from Roscommon. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman's information clashes with my own, and I ask him to tell us how many policemen were brought from counties in Ireland upon which a charge is imposed for the maintenance of extra police. If these counties can spare police for this purpose, it is unfair to them to vote money towards this appropriation. That is the sole point, and I submit that it is in perfect order, because the people whom I represent have no right to be asked to vote for the maintenance of police doing duty in another part of the country to relieve the taxes of this country from their maintenance. The Chief Secretary made an observation which I think is scarcely correct when he referred to these very policemen in Roscommon, Galway, and Clare—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have now had an opportunity of looking up the authority I had in mind for the ruling I indicated. It is perfectly clearly given by Mr. Speaker in a ruling on the 17th of March, 1911, in which it is laid down that it is not competent for hon. Members to discuss the policy in relation to an Appropriation-in-Aid and savings. That seems to rover the present case which the hon. Member is raising, and it shows that it is not competent for him, because there happens to be an Appropriation-in-Aid in reduction of this Vote, to discuss the question of the policy which has led to that appropriation.
    Mr. DILLON: My hon. Friend was not discussing the policy—that is a matter which we have frequently discussed in this House and perhaps we may do so again. He was discussing a point which directly affects the amount of the Estimate, and surely if we are at liberty to discuss anything on this Estimate we are at liberty

    1993
    to discuss the action of the Executive Government, not in regard to a general question of policy, but on the question of the actual police force on the present occasion, which affects the amount of this Estimate.. The point raised by my hon. Friend is that the Estimate which we are asked to vote would be a different amount if the county which he speaks for were not assessed in respect of this particular, vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be only an indirect way of doing what is against the Rule. If the hon. Member's contention were allowed, it would dispose altogether of the ruling of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. HAYDEN: May I ask the Chief Secretary where the 600 policemen came from; whether any of them came from the county which I represent, and why they were taken from that county which is alleged to be in such a state of disorder that it is necessary to keep extra police there, and impose an extra charge for extra police upon the ratepayers?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be introducing matters wholly extraneous, and it would open up the whole question of the state of Ireland, or of particular counties in Ireland, on Supplementary Estimates. I have already ruled more than once that that could not be allowed on a Supplementary Vote of this kind.
    Mr. LYNCH: I wish to ask whether it is competent for me to discuss the economy of the right hon. Gentleman, and to show that he has not used the funds at his disposal to the best advantage, and, consequently, that this sum we are now asked to vote is in excess of that which would be necessary if the right hon. Gentleman had exercised due economy in respect to that force? That is a subject which I want to raise in connection with the county I represent.
    Sir F. BANBURY:It appears to me that the discussion has been rather limited by your ruling. I have always understood that it was in order, in discussing a Supplementary Estimate, to give reasons why we should, or should not, pay the sum which we are asked to vote, and bring forward reasons to show why that sum should not be paid. Of course, I am not questioning your ruling, but it appears to me that the points we are now raising are extremely narrow, and I think it would
    1994
    be to the convenience of the Committee, if you, Mr. Whitley, would kindly tell us what subjects we are to discuss.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is so great an expert on these matters that I shall not attempt to give him a lesson in that respect. With the exception of this afternoon, I think he has nearly always managed to keep himself in order. The question put to me by the hon. Member for West Clare is rather too indefinite, and I will deal with that matter "when it arises. These points of Order seem to me to be somewhat wide of the subject.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Might I point out that this Supplementary Estimate is for the subsistence allowances of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary all over Ireland, not only in the City and County of Dublin during the strike, but over the whole of Ireland, and there is an Appropriation-in-Aid from several other counties? I submit that we should be at liberty to discuss the expenditure on this force as affecting other parts of Ireland, as well as the City and County of Dublin.
    The CHAIRMAN: That clearly is not so. This Vote, as the hon. Member knows, is for an
    "Additional sum required to provide for payments of subsistence allowances to members of the force absent from the station on duty in Dublin City in aid of the Dublin Metropolitan Police during labour troubles."
    Therefore we must be confined to that, and I must adhere to my ruling that we are not to discuss the policy or administration which has caused the increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid.
    Mr. MOORE: It follows from your ruling, does it not, that if hon. Members are really in earnest about this, their only; remedy is to vote for the reduction?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter for the Chair at all.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: On the point of Order, I am afraid that, if we accepted your word, we should find ourselves in a difficulty in another way. I think you read out the words actually on the Paper, that this was a subsistence allowance to the members of the force absent from station on duty in Dublin City, and, I understood my right hon. Friend to say, not only in Dublin City, but also in Dublin County. He gave

    1995
    us the subsistence allowances, which are different, being 4s. 6d. in the city and 3s. 6d. in the county. I therefore submit that if we were to interpret your words strictly, or this Paper strictly, we could not discuss the question with regard to Dublin County?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member to that extent is right.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I do not propose to pursue the point any further, except to ask the Chief Secretary, when he is speaking, to give some information as to the portions of the country from which those extra police were brought into the county of Dublin. It is a matter upon which we want to press him upon some future occasion, when we hope we may bring ourselves in order.
    Mr. NEWMAN: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) queried very strongly the number of constabulary employed in Dublin on certain occasions. If the hon. Member had been a free labourer working in Dublin during September or October last year, and he had had his head broken, he might have thought differently. I want to address myself really to the question of cost. Was the work done in the cheapest way? Was it the cheapest thing we could do to employ this great number and magnificent body of Royal Irish Constabulary? The Royal Irish Constabulary are quite distinct from the Dublin Metropolitan Police. One is a body in Dublin and the other is a body in the country, under different control, wearing a different uniform, and perfectly distinct. Was it the cheapest thing we could do to bring in this great number of the Royal Irish Constabulary? I dare say that a great many members of the Committee imagine that the Royal Irish Constabulary is a semi-military body, and that you can telegraph, say, to Galway to-day, and get them into Dublin in full marching order, with kits on their backs, rifles on their shoulders, and swords at their sides. That is perfectly wrong. The Royal Irish Constabulary, as a matter of fact, are really something like a police force. They are a body of men very underpaid, earning at the most 22s. per week, living in twos and threes, scattered about the country, with wives and families to support. You get these men up to Dublin, and you have to give them a large subsistence allowance in addition to their 22s. per week.
    1996
    There were employed 650 of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the cost was £13,830. That works out at £21 per head. That is an enormous sum of money. It is the wage of an agricultural labourer for more than six months. Therefore, surely the cheapest thing was not done when this big body of men were employed. Why could not the Irish Government have employed the military? You have in Dublin an enormous garrison, a garrison of several regiments of Infantry, a regiment of Cavalry, and some Artillery. Why were not those military employed? What do we keep the garrison for? They are in Dublin to keep law and order. They have been there for hundreds of years to keep law and order, and they will probably be there for hundreds of years more. I know exactly what hon. Members are saying to themselves. They are saying, "The one thing we object to is the employment of the military in strikes." To the average Irishman, however, a soldier or a policeman is one and the same thing. The Irishman does not mind whether a policeman or a soldier is employed, and on this work we might have employed the military, and employed them more cheaply. There would have been no subsistence allowance, and the thing would have been done quite cheaply.
    What was the work? The work was practically that of escorting coal wagons through the streets of Dublin. That work could have been done far better by two or three privates, commanded by a sergeant. What good practice and training it would have been for the non-commissioned officers of the various regiments! What better for a young corporal than to take command of three men where initiative and energy are required. You would have killed two birds with one stone. You would have saved a great deal of the cost, and you would have given men and noncommissioned officers of the British Infantry practice. I say that we ought to have employed the military from another point of view. The hon. Member for Stoke talked about this large body lining Sackville Street. I quite admit, if you are going to line Sackville Street, that you want a great many constables, but surely, the military could have done that. What you really wanted was to draw a cordon round the disaffected districts, cutting the red-hand gang from the rest of the citizens. If you could have done that you would not have had these riots at all. We ought not to have employed these men

    1997
    of the Royal Irish Constabulary at all. We ought not to have had 208 injured. We ought to have employed the military, and, if there is a Division, I shall support the ion. Baronet.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Most of the speeches have been out of order, and I am afraid my reply is hardly likely to keep in it. I will not, however, keep my eyes on you, Mr. Whitley, so that I may do the most. I can without you interrupting. I have had a great deal of advice from different quarters of the House. I hope the Committee will recognise the difficult position of an Executive Officer. Every one of the bits of advice is inconsistent with the others, and each would have got me into a worst strait than I am in at the present time The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was very confident what was the right thing to do. He would have filled the streets from the very beginning with policemen, to whom he would have given instructions to act ruthlessly, and to reduce the population of Dublin from the earliest moment to a full sense of its weakness. Then the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) said, "If you had only prevented this absurd parade of force they made; if you had not flouted it in the ridiculous way that you did, why, then, peace would have been preserved, and these determined attacks upon the tramway cars would never have been made— the windows of the cars would not have been broken, the men would not have been knocked off their driving posts, and nothing of the sort would have happened. You tempted opposition by your parade of force. Then the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Newman) had a nice, peaceful suggestion to make, one which, I confess, fills me with pride and pleasure, being a martial man. It was that I should have employed the military, the soldiers, who would have done everything more efficiently—with the weapons at their command, I suppose. Their appearance on the streets, instead of being received with missiles and glass bottles, would have been heralded with applause and affection. I am very glad that I did not undertake that course, and I am very glad that I did not take the hon. Baronet's course, and I am very glad that I did not take the course recommended by the hon. Member for Stoke. I think that, on the whole, I did the right thing.
    The hon. Member for Stoke told me one or two things, and I am quite sure that he would not have told me them if he had not
    1998
    received some authority for telling them. But I have heard to-day for the first time of the advice which I received from persons who may be called the parties to the disturbance. The men who were out on strike, who were attacking the tramcars, and who had their quarrel, advised me to have no more police: it was not necessary; Then the employers, I am told, also tendered to me the same advice. At all' events, I got the advice of the employers: "Do not mind, do not bother, all will be well, the Dublin Metropolitan Police are quite sufficient to meet the occasion." Then I am told that the Dublin Metropolitan Police resented the introduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. WARD: I did not say that. I said that the Lord Mayor of Dublin himself informed the committee,, of which I was a member, that, in his opinion, the situation was aggravated by this display of force.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I misunderstood. In most towns the Lord Mayor speaks on behalf of the police force, and is a responsible person whose opinion would be very authoritative in such a matter, but, as you know, in Dublin, rightly or wrongly, the responsibility does not rest with the Lord Mayor; and it is easier for a person who has not got the responsibility to advise a particular course, or to say off-hand, "It is not necessary," than it is for people who are responsible. Certainly, the heads of the Dublin Metropolitan Police never approached me with any such opinion, I can assure the hon. Member; and, therefore, I do not really think that I can have been said to have been guilty of disregarding the advice of authorised and responsible persons on the spot. Therefore, keeping away from policy as far as one can, I do not think that the ranks that are going to be swollen in a Vote shortly on this subject will be composed of a consecutive thinking body of men, because I am bound to say that everyone of them individually will have a different opinion from his neighbour as to what the proper course was for the Irish Executive to have, taken.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They will all have the opinion that the Government did wrong.
    Mr. BIRRELL: All that I admit, and I am prepared to say off-hand the same of any Government of which the hon. Member

    1999
    might be a Member. I should like to say a word with reference to a question raised, whether it was in order or not, by the hon. Member (Mr. Hayden) as to the counties and places from which this police force, which was removed to Dublin or to the county of Dublin, was taken, because, without going technically into the question, it seems to me to be, if not in order, so closely connected with order as to justify a passing reference. I have here before me the list of all the counties from which the police were drafted into Dublin City and Dublin County, and I can assure the hon. Member that neither Roscommon nor Clare, nor Galway, have any of—
    Mr. HAYDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind reading the list? It would be very instructing to us.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I did not wish to encounter the opposition of the Chair by speaking at too great a length, but I have got it here, and I will show it to the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Read it."] Well, I will read it till I am interrupted. East Riding of Cork 14 men, drafted on the 18th September, and, on the 19th, 9 more; that makes 23. West Riding of Cork 9, Donegal 24, Kerry 11, Kildare 8, Kilkenny 8, Longford 5, Tulla-more 3, Mayo 7, North Tipperary 3, Water-ford 1, and Carlow 10.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires this information he had better put down an unstarred question.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I submit that the information which the Chief Secretary is giving is relevant to the Debate. Is not the question that this Committee has to consider whether the Chief Secretary was justified in employing constables from these counties; whether he did not leave the counties unprotected, and whether serious consequences might not have resulted therefrom?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is distinctly not within the scope of the present Debate. I do not say it is out of order to ask where the men came from, but it is not in order to deal with the state of the counties from which the men were drawn.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Would it be in order to ask why men no longer wanted in counties in Ireland, like Galway, were not sent to Dublin instead of from the counties they were taken from?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the very question upon which I wish to avoid a discussion.
    Mr. CLYNES: This item of expenditure which we are now discussing is not peculiar to Ireland. We have had quite a number of similar charges incurred in industrial districts in this country. The first observation that occurs to me is that the: Labour Members have heard already from two hon. Gentlemen that have addressed the Committee from the other side what, to them, are sufficient reasons why they should keep out of their company in the-Division Lobby. There has been a suggestion that, instead of importing policemen to deal with the state of things which has been described soldiers should have been brought in to prance about and to keep* the poor in their place.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I never said "keep the poor in their place." I said "to escort coal carts, and do work of that sort."
    Mr. CLYNES: I have my own opinion as to the effect of importing soldiers on occasions of this kind. The hon. Baronet who moved the reduction did so because, in his judgment, the Government were not stern enough, and because they did not, at an earlier stage, import a larger force of police for purposes of repression. Are' we expected to accept the invitation of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they call upon us to accompany them into the Lobby in support of a proposal of that kind?
    Sir F. BANBURY: We did not ask the hon. Gentlemen to come into the Division Lobby with us. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) told us he was going into the Lobby, and it was very kind of him, but we did not ask the Labour Members to do so.
    Mr. CLYNES: I think I am within the recollection of the House when I say that allusion has been made to the companionship of Labour Members with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, my hon. Friend behind me warned the Labour Members not to come into our Lobby.
    Mr. CLYNES: I will venture to express the hope that a warning of that nature is-not at all necessary. We have had sufficient experience to teach us what is the right course to take on these questions. I want somebody to tell us how it is that

    2001
    hon. Gentlemen opposite choose their places in this matter of law and order. Is it their opinion that order is only to be maintained when it is a question of trade unionists having to be put down? Is law and order only to be respected when it is enforced by means of constabulary imported for the purpose of assisting employers in the course of an industrial dispute? This dispute was less a strike than it was a lock-out.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the Dublin strike.
    Mr. CLYNES: I thought that hon. Members have said so much on this question that I might be allowed to make a few observations in reply. I only want to say, so far as free labour is concerned, that the employers in this instance would not permit labour to be free. That was the initial cause of this dispute.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now is trying to get round my ruling.
    Mr. CLYNES: It seems to me that this item of expenditure is one of a considerable number of such items that have been incurred in connection with efforts to strengthen the side of the employing class in these unhappy labour disputes. The main body of the working- men in Dublin did not strike. The authorities, whether at Dublin Castle or in any other place, should have regard to the causes of these disputes before spending such vast sums in bringing in military or police, as they have done in so many instances. I think the Chief Secretary would have been acting in greater harmony with the traditions of his party if he had had regard to the right of public meeting and to the right to strike.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have said many times that matters of this sort must be raised on the Chief Secretary's salary, and not on the Vote for the constabulary.
    Mr. DILLON: I will not attempt now to discuss the policy of the Government in dealing with the Dublin strike. I hope we may have another opportunity of debating it, and, if we do, I should like to say many things by way of criticism. Of course I recognise that, after your ruling to-day, that subject cannot be dealt with. However, one or two things have been said in the course of this Debate which, as you did not rule them out of order. I am entitled to comment upon.
    2002
    First, I wish to say a few words with, reference to the speeches of the hon. Member who spoke from these benches and who took the Government to task for bringing in constabulary when they required an extra force to deal with the condition of the city of Dublin, and who urged that the military should have been employed instead of the extra police. The hon. Member used very extraordinary language, and, when challenged by the hon. Member who spoke last, recommended that the military should be employed for the purpose of escorting coal carts and work of that character. He also said that the soldiers should be employed because they were cheaper than the police. That is not a very complimentary or wise way in which to speak of the military.
    Mr. BLRRELL: I may say that they declined to be employed on such work.
    Mr. DILLON: This is a very extraordinary Debate, on account of the-contradictions that are coming out. I was resident in Dublin nearly the whole the of the strike, and I hardly ever went out without seeing a large force of military guarding a long procession of coal carts. In fact, a great body of the military were kept busy in supplying themselves with coal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And why should they not have coal?
    Mr. DILLON: I am not suggesting that they ought not to. What I am saying is, that it was hard enough for them to have to handle their own coal, yet it was an ordinary everyday sight in the streets of Dublin to see large bodies of military, with strings of carts, bringing coal to various buildings in the city. When the hon. Member says, by way of advice to the Irish Government, that they ought to employ the military instead of the police when extra force is required, I think he must know very little of the experience of the Executive Government in these matters. We in Ireland have had a good deal of experience. I have seen the military employed in the streets of Dublin doing the duty of the police, and a more distressing and deplorable spectacle I have never witnessed in my life. A military force is singularly unfitted to do police work, and should never be so employed, except in the last emergency. The occasion to which I am referring was the famous strike of Dublin police, when the

    2003
    city policemen refused to work, and the streets of Dublin were left absolutely without police protection. The military were turned out to do ordinary police work, and the hon. Member seems to suggest that they should have been again used on this recent occasion. The use of them had most deplorable results, both to the morale of the military and to peace and order in the streets. Pandemonium reigned, and the soldiers were wholly unable to maintain order in the streets. The condition of things was simply indescribable, and I cannot understand how anybody with real experience of executive government could make such a suggestion. The military were again employed in Dublin to do police duty on the occasion of the great railway strike some time ago, with results not at all satisfactory, and I do not think, therefore, there is the, slightest confidence to be placed in the hon. Member's criticism or in that piece of advice.
    If an extra force was required in Dublin —I suppose I am not entitled to discuss that question, although it seems to me to lie at the root of the whole matter—I say that the Government had no choice at all but to fall back upon the constabulary. The question really is whether that extra force was required. On that I should have a good deal to say if the limits of discussion were wider. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) declared that the constabulary who were brought in acted as agents of the employers and moved goods into the city. I have taken a very intense interest in this matter, and have followed very closely all that took place in regard to the strike, not as an eye-witness but in the public Press and from private information I have received, and no evidence has ever come before me nor can I recall that any charge was made even by the leaders of the strike that the imported constabulary were used to move goods or acted as gents of the employers, unless the hon. Member for Stoke considers that travelling on the tramcars and on the coal carts constituted such action. It does not follow because a policeman is sitting on a cart, that he is taking part in the removing of goods. For three months we in Dublin had this spectacle presented to our eyes every day: that hardly any carts of any kind of goods were moved into the city without, police guards of some sort. Of course, the police men were sitting on the carts and travel-
    2004
    ling on the tramcars, but I never saw them handling goods, nor have I over heard it alleged that they did so. If they did so, undoubtedly some hon. Member ought to state it to the Committee, because it would be a monstrous thing to call upon the Committee to vote the subsistence allowance for any policeman who handled goods for the employers of Dublin. That is quite a different thing from protecting carts going through the streets.
    If I were permitted to criticise the action of the Executive, I would be obliged to make a very much longer speech than I propose to make to-night, and I should have a very great deal to say. Seeing that for two or three months in the city of Dublin, whatever the merits of the strike were, no man could move goods through the city without a police guard or else without having a revolver in his own possession, there can be no doubt that the danger to men engaged in moving goods was extremely great. I say that quite apart from any question as to the merits of the strike or the action of the Executive. I do not know that even the Leader of the Labour party would complain of adequate police protection being given to men taking goods through the streets so long as that protection was of a moderate and not of an aggressive character, and was confined to protecting the lives of men and preventing carts being thrown into the river or goods being thrown into the street, as was very frequently done. That is the situation as I understand it. It appears to me that we are labouring under extraordinary difficulties in discussing the present Vote. We are asked to vote a considerable sum of money for the maintenance of policemen who were moved into the city of Dublin, and, so far as I have been able to discover by listening very closely to the Debate, we, are utterly debarred from discussing the question as to whether or not the Government really required the police, because we are prevented from discussing the action by which the Government alleged that those police were required to be moved into the city. Here is a sum of money put down and we are told, "You cannot discuss it; you must either vote the money or refuse to vote it." We are asked to vote it without having any real statement as to whether or not the police were necessary. I submit, as I am bound to submit, to this ruling, but I am bound to say after a long experience of thirty years in discussing Supplementary Estimates in

    2005
    this House, the ruling has considerably narrowed our capacity for doing it.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN:I also find myself in considerable difficulty owing to the Chairman's ruling, but I take it that in this Debate that we have to start with the fundamental assumption that we are not allowed to consider whether 650 men which was the number brought into Dublin, was too many or too few. Am I wrong in that?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have certainly not laid down any ruling of that kind. Whether the Chief Secretary was justified in bringing the men in, their number and the cost is the essence of the matter.
    Mr. GWYNN: In that case I do not see how we can discuss the number of men that was needed without some considerable reference to the circumstances which led to their being brought in. I leave that point to be taken up by someone else, because it is not the matter to which I wish to address myself. I am proposing to consider this—I think it follows logically from your various rulings, Sir, which I personally cannot, with great respect, reconcile—that we are bound to discuss the matter on the fundamental assumption that the 650 men were needed: I think I may at least be allowed to say that we are entitled to congratulate the Chief Secretary on having got his 650 men so very cheap. Here was a town, a large town no doubt, which needed an extra force of 650 men to be suddenly imported into it, to be kept there for a period of something like six months—I am not sure it did not exceed six months—yet the Chief Secretary has been able to accomplish that for the comparatively insignificant total of £8,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: £13,000!
    Mr. GWYNN: Some of that is put on the ratepayers and we are not allowed to discuss that. Therefore, from the point of view of this Committee, we are only faced with an expenditure of £8,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. Member that that is wrong: £13,000 is really the expenditure, because if that £13,000 had not been expended the £5,430 would have gone to the Old Sinking Fund, where it ought to be.
    Mr. GWYNN: Possibly I am wrong on that point, but we should still have to admit that the Chief Secretary met the
    2006
    need at a very low figure. How was it that he was so able to meet it? He has been permitted to tell us in part where the men came from. I think we may congratulate him on the fact that he was able to get the men, for the simple reason that if it had not been for the general success of his administration, I presume there would have been moments when he could not withdraw 650 police from East Cork and the other counties he mentioned without leaving those counties in a state of some difficulty and danger. At the present moment it appears, so far as we are informed, that 650 men have been withdrawn from a given range of counties in Ireland, and nobody in those counties has been a penny the worse. Admitting that these 650 men were needed in Dublin—that is a matter we cannot discuss—I think it has been demonstrated that they were not needed, where they would have been otherwise. In other words, I think the Chief Secretary has been able to supply police cheaply in an emergency owing to the fact that Ireland is supplied very extensively with police in the ordinary course of things. That is a valuable admission to result from this Debate.
    Another thing has been brought to the notice of the Committee, although incidentally, by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), who speaks, it is true, for an English Division, but who, nevertheless, speaks as an Irishman with a great knowledge of Irish feeling. He put it to the House that in an Irish dispute of this kind it made no difference whether you employed soldiers or constabulary. His implication was that in an English or Scotch or Welsh dispute it would matter very materially, and would affect the whole temper of the situation to which of those two courses you had recourse. I am inclined to think he was right, and that no extra ill-feeling would have been engendered in Dublin by the mere fact that soldiery were employed instead of the police. But what follows from that? I quite see that if I were to pursue that subject into its remoter issues I should find myself out of order, but, as things stand, I am glad the Chief Secretary decided to bring in the police instead of employing the soldiers. I am very glad that it was so easy for him to bring the police away from the rest of Ireland as it was; I am very glad it has been proved that, generally, Ireland is in such a condition that she does not need the police with

    2007
    which she is provided at the present time, and I am exceedingly glad that the. Chief Secretary is going to give us detailed information by way of question as to where exactly these police came from, and which were the counties that for six months were left with a largely reduced police force without any perceptible increase in criminality or disorder.
    Mr. BOOTH: There is one question I should like to ask the Chief Secretary with reference to the wearing of numbers by the police. The Metropolitan police, wearing numbers, can be identified. Considerable opposition was manifested against the introduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary, because they were strangers, having no local pride in the good name of the city—it may be unjustly, and it may be there was a prejudice against them that they did not merit. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there could not be some arrangement that if they should be drafted into the city in future they should wear some number or some means of ready identification, so as to put them on an exact level with the Metropolitan police, by whose side they are working.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I am sure the Committee have been waiting anxiously to hear the views of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) with regard to the Vote before us. He was present at the time of the strike, and we were ail anxious to hear his views; but he has not given us a lengthy speech upon the topic, and now leaves the Chamber without any reference to his actions upon that occasion. After the rulings the Chairman has given, it is impossible for me to attempt to keep within the bounds of order; therefore, I shall not at length discuss the Vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) suggested to the Chief Secretary that he should have used soldiers. That has been criticised by various Members on the Irish Benches. I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and I find myself for once in my life in absolute and complete agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon). It is only in the last resort that soldiers should be called in to do what is really police work. But what I really rose to do was to call the attention of the Committee to a most remarkable interruption which was made by the Chief Secretary during the hon. Member's speech. He said that the
    2008
    soldiers had declined to do the work. If they had declined, they must have been invited by the Chief Secretary to do work which was evidently police work. I have risen with the express object of inviting from him an explanation of his interruption.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The explanation of my interruption is this: I did not ask the military authorities to do the work, but I am perfectly well acquainted with their views on the subject, and have heard them expressed on countless occasions, and I know very well their aversion to take upon themselves police duties. There was no occasion to ask them.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: That is a very different thing from their declining on this occasion.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said soldiers always declined.
    Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) suggested quite rightly that Members on these benches were not averse to reasonable precautions being taken in a time of trade dispute for keeping the public peace and for the protection of life and property. As I understand, what took place during the period in which this-money was spent, the show of force was far greater than was needed for the precautionary measures which the hon. Member referred to. We had it on the authority of the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), who was present at the time, that large numbers of police lined the streets, twenty-five on each side, and if the numbers that he indicated correctly represented the numbers which were actually used at the time, it followed that much more was done than was needed in the matter of precautionary measures. In fact, the use of such a number of police must impede the orderly conduct of a labour dispute by preventing peaceful picketing, which is under the present law thoroughly permissible.
    Mr. DILLON: I strictly confined my reference to the assertion that the police handled goods, and I was referring simply to the constables engaged in that task.
    Mr. JOWETT: I misunderstood the hon. Member. The hon. Member (Mr. Ward), again speaking from personal knowledge, went further than the statement as corrected by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), for he said that constables had actually been employed in handling goods, and in

    2009
    answer to a question I put to him privately as he sat in his place he assured me that I had correctly understood him. Be that as it may, there are other matters that certainly should weigh in the decision of any Member occupying these benches as to whether they should allow a single penny to be voted for these expenses or not. These matters that I am thinking of were beyond dispute. It is beyond dispute, for instance, that if we vote this money we shall be voting money for conduct which cannot be excused in any civilised community. It is on record, even the very prejudiced and unsuitable and ill-balanced Commission placed it on record, that the police went into the homes of poor people—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have ruled several times that points connected with the conduct of the police under the authority of the Chief Secretary must be raised on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
    Mr. JOWETT: May I put this consideration? Is it not a fact that one of the chief constitutional rights that we, as representatives of the people, have in this House is to demand the consideration and re

    Division No. 24.]

    AYES.

    [5.55 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Doughty, Sir George

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Ashley, W. W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Falle, B. G.

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fell, Arthur

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Barnston, Harry

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Barrle, H. T.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Moore, William

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bird, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Grant, J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greene, W. R.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Butcher, John George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Campion, W. R.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Carlile. Sir Edward Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cassel, Felix

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cator, John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Royds, Edmund

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horner, A. L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Courthope. George Loyd

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jowett. Frederick William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craik. Sir Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

    Swift, Rigby

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    dress, if possible, of grievances before voting Supply? I quite understand that in this case, owing to it being Supplementary Estimates, the money is spent, but, if I understand rightly, the same principle applies, and we are entitled to state our grievances. We are entitled to make complaints, and the complaint I have to make is that the Dublin police, to whom we pay this money, behaved in a perfectly brutal fashion, and that the man Nolan, for instance, was murdered by a police baton.
    Mr. O'MALLEY: I am not going to give any advice to the Chief Secretary as to what should be done or not done in regard to the Dublin strike, but I should like to enter my protest against the employment of extra police in Connemara recently, and against a baton charge—
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not come in on this Vote.
    Question put, "That Item D (Subsistence Allowances) be reduced by £830."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 143;
    Noes, 248.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Weston, colonel J. W.

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green.S.W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Banbury and Sir A. Griffith-Boecawen.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Field, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, Michael

    Alden, Percy

    France, Gerald Ashourner

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Mooney, John J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morrell, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morison, Hector

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Muldoon, John

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hackett, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W)

    O'Malley, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Hinds, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Clough, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, George Heynes

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kiloride, Denis

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Reddy, Michael

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Maclean, Donald

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dillon, John

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas.. Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Waiter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sheeny, David

    Falconer, James

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Shortt, Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook.

    2012

    2013

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Waring, Walter

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Stratus, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Webb, H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glassgow)

    Tayler, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wiles, Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Postponed proceeding resumed on Question [25th February]

    Class III.—LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.
    "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £2,250 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in of course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed
    Mr. SANDYS: It is sometimes thought that questions dealing with Irish matters exclusively concern the representatives of Ireland in this House, or, at any rate, those who can speak with authority on legal matters. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Estimate of £2,250 will eventually come out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, and, therefore, as the representative of an English constituency where they take great interest in these matters, and where they are seriously perturbed with regard to the conditions prevailing at the present time in certain parts of Ireland, I feel I am entitled to speak on this question and to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who comes over here with full knowledge, presumably, of the conditions in Ireland, to explain to us why we should be called upon to pay this large increase in the Estimate for law charges and criminal prosecutions. Unfortunately, I was not in the House yesterday evening when this Debate was initiated, but some rather remarkable statements were made—at least, they appeared so to me from a perusal of the Official Report this morning—and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will, in the subsequent statements he will make this evening, elucidate these remarkable statements. One of the causes of my objection to this Vote is, as I understand,
    2014
    that he desires to put it to the Committee that the whole of this additional expenditure which he asks us to sanction is not to be regarded as spread over the financial year from 31st March, 1913, to 31st March, 1914. First of all, it does not deal with the current financial year, but with the Winter Assizes which took place at the end of 1912. This discloses a remarkable state of affairs, and a most unsatisfactory system, both of keeping and auditing accounts.
    I was here when the Estimates were passed for 1913–1914, and I had not the slightest idea that at some subsequent date we should be called upon to face charges incurred in 1912. The right hon. Gentleman gave some explanation, but I think it was a most unsatisfactory one, and I hope that, before this Debate closes he will explain to us how it is that we are now called upon to deal with matters that occurred in a financial year which came to a conclusion long before the ordinary Estimates were submitted last year. How is it possible for this House to exercise any control whatever over the expenditure of the Government if matters are dealt with in that way? It is perfectly impossible, and I think that a most careful revision of all these matters is required in view of the extraordinary state of affairs with which we are brought face to face in this particular Vote. I am glad this matter has been brought to our notice, for it will make us careful to ascertain when we are called upon to vote money for a particular year that the amount covers all the expenditure for the year, and that we will not on a subsequent occasion be called upon to go back fourteen months. This is, of course, very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, because it prevents what no doubt would have been very unpleasant for him and his Friends, namely, a general discussion on the condition of Ireland in relation to crime in various parts of the country. I think it is a pity when the original Estimates were drawn up that the right hon. Gentleman did not anticipate the situation, because I notice

    2015
    that under the head of charges for prosecutions at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions, and for other matters, there was no sub-division with regard to expenses which were expected to be incurred in respect of the various assizes. It was a large sum of money spread over all the assizes which were going to be held during the year under the supposition that if there were more cases at one assizes there would probably be less at another.
    In the circumstances, I do not quite see how the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to confine the sum now asked to the particular Winter Assizes of 1912. He will no doubt explain that in the course of the discussion. The figures which appear in the original Estimate show what the position was, and what the trend was in Ireland in connection with these matters. The sum of £13,700 was considered necessary in 1912–13; and £14,000 in 1913–14, but that was not sufficient, and now we have this enormous Supplementary Estimate. It shows a huge increase. It represents a 24 per cent, increase. I wish to emphasise that. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is to be regarded as dealing purely with the Winter Assizes of 1912, so far from improving his position, he makes it very much worse. I want to ascertain why the right hon. Gentleman did not make his Estimate more generous for these particular charges from the start. What reason had he to suppose that there would not be that continued increase of crime in Ireland, which is bound to go on, in my view, so long as he remains at the head of Irish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman from past statistics had every reason to believe that that increase would continue, and that it would be larger than that for which he provided in the original Estimate. Take cases of indictable offences. There were 9,831 in 1911; and 9,870 in 1910; but in 1912 there were 9,931. The number of persons tried for non-indictable offences was 185,345 in 1911, and 195,246 in 1912. The offences against property with violence which were reported to the police were 867 in 1911, and 960 in 1912. Of course, from such a condition of affairs the right hon. Gentleman might have anticipated that they would continue so long as we had this weak, effete, and cowardly administration in Dublin.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware that on this Supplementary Esti-
    2016
    mate it would not be in order to discuss a matter of policy.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am going to deal now with the details given to us yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement with regard to this particular Estimate. He told us that in the Winter Assize of 1912 there were 329 prisoners returned for trial as compared with 217 in the corresponding assize of 1911. The number of days occupied in the trials in 1911 was thirty-five days. This went up in 1912 to fifty-two days. In 1911 there were eight murder cases; in 1912 there were sixteen. In 1911 there were four cases of attempted murder, but, fortunately, in 1912 there was a reduction to only one. But what throws a very curious light upon the conditions in Ireland is that, whilst in 1911 there were only two riots and affrays, in 1912 the number had gone up to nine, and unlawful assemblies had increased. Of these, the right hon. Gentleman did not give us figures. He stated that unlawful assemblies had also increased, but that he did not draw any particular inference from that. No doubt that is the position the right hon. Gentleman takes up on these matters; but I can assure him that the British taxpayer, who has to find the money, does draw an inference from the fact that unlawful assemblies have increased, and that riot is taking place. I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention also to the statement which was made in connection with this very Winter Assize, about which the additional expenditure is necessary, and I hope he will be able to explain the matter to us as representing English electors who have to find the money. I hope he will explain to us whether everything possible is being done in Ireland to improve the condition of affairs in every part of the country.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. SANDYS: I thought I should be in order in dealing with Mr. Justice Kenny s charge at this particular assize.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to do so, unless the hon. Member's remarks had specific reference to the statements of the Chief Secretary as to items included under Sub-head D.
    Mr. SANDYS: It docs deal with these matters, because the judge referred to those cases for which we have to find the money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It so obviously opens up the question of policy that I must ask the hon. Member to restrict his remarks to the items in the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: On the point of Order. Surely this very item in respect of which extra expenses have been incurred refers to crimes dealt with in the charge of the judge to which the hon. Gentleman intends to call attention. Surely it is not only relevant, but directly pertinent.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. You can only deal with the items in the Supplementary Estimate. This increase in the Vote does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss policy.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Surely it is our common right on the occasion of a Supplementary Estimate to discuss the purposes which made it necessary. Surely it is open to hon. Gentlemen behind me to show, if they can, that had a different course been taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and a differen policy pursued, he would not have come to this House to ask for this money.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That raises the whole question of the administration of justice in Ireland, and that cannot be allowed on the Supplementary Estimate. The course which the Debate took last night was in connection with the expenses of witnesses, etc. The ground was not similar to that which is being opened to-night, and the discussion, therefore, on the general question cannot proceed.
    Mr. SANDYS: The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech in connection with the Estimate enumerated all the charges and crimes committed as a justification for the increase, and I am only dealing with the same matter with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt when I ask to make some observations. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech dealt with a large number of very serious crimes which had come up at the Winter Session. He owned to the fact that there was a greater number than he had anticipated, and that had made this additional sum necessary. What are those crimes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and in respect to which we are now asked to vote money? Speaking as an English Member, I want the right hon. Gentleman when he makes his reply, to give us some
    2018
    explanation, with especial reference to the county of Limerick, of why we are being asked to vote this additional sum of money. I find that at this assize the expenses of which we are asked to pay, the judge referred to the report of crimes in that county, and in Roscommon and Galway.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that the hon. Member is going beyond my ruling, and I must ask him to deal with the Question before the Committee.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think it is desirable, Sir, that we should understand the principle on which we discuss the Estimates. The other day, for example, we had a discussion of great interest on Somaliland, and I understand that that Debate was in order, because the money included in the Supplementary Estimate had been spent on proceedings in Somali-land which were criticised. I think by parity of reason, this discussion is on similar grounds, for the money in this Supplementary Estimate has already been spent, and it would appear should equally be open to discussion, as were the proceedings on which money was spent in Somaliland. I do not understand, at present, why we are not able to discuss these matters, in view of the fact of the discussion which took place in regard to Somaliland under circumstances similar.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These matters are frequently as difficult for the Chair as for hon. Members, and it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair to take what he deems to be a sensible line. As I understand, when there is a very large increase of the Estimate, as there was in the case of Somaliland, there you do raise-the whole question of policy. The question in the Debate to which the Noble Lord refers was as to fresh military proceedings in Somaliland, and therefore it was clearly obvious that in that instance the whole question of policy arose. But, as in this case, where the increase is not of such overwhelming proportions, and where the grounds for the increase have already been explained by the Chief Secretary as Witnesses' Expenses and other incidental charges of that kind at the Limerick Assizes in 1912, I am quite clear about my ruling, and I adhere to it—that the increase here is not of a character which would allow of raising-the general question of the administration of justice in Ireland.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: As I understand, the hon. Gentleman behind me was not referring to the question of general policy for the whole of Ireland.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I think, with all respect, Sir, that you are labouring under a mistake. The hon. Gentleman was dealing with the observations of the judge in reference to the charges for trial at the Assizes, and in respect of which this additional sum is asked for. He was speaking of the specific cases which had formed both the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and of this increased Estimate. Surely, if we are at liberty to discuss anything—unless we are prepared to keep our mouths closed—we should be permitted to debate that which was the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's observations in regard to the very cases for which the increased Estimate is put down!
    Sir F. BANBURY: As this is a, very important point, and the ruling of the Chairman may be taken as a precedent, I want to know quite clearly where we are. Am I to understand, Sir, that your ruling is that we may discuss more widely matters connected with the Supplementary Estimate if the excess asked for is large. How are we to know what the largeness of that excess is to be, whether it is to be 20 per cent, or 25 per cent., or whatever the nominal amount is? This Estimate shows an increase of something like 24 per cent.—practically a quarter of the whole amount—and surely that is a very large increase! That is the first question I should like to ask, for it raises a very important point. The next question is this: As I understand, my hon. and gallant Friend was replying to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I have understood that it has always been open to any hon. Member to reply to a statement made by a Minister. If a Minister makes a statement which is out of order the Chairman—I have heard it over and over again—warns the hon. Gentleman that if he takes that line he will open the discussion to any hon. Member who likes to reply to him. I should wish to know whether you make a new ruling upon that point?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I am making any new ruling at all.
    2020
    However, whether it be new or not, as I understand it, my ruling is following strictly the precedents which have already been laid down and constantly accepted. It is a very proper question to discuss how the increase in the sum estimated is caused, but as regards the policy connected with that increase, the proper time for the discussion of that issue is on the original Estimate itself. This is merely a question of what caused the increase, and not a question of the character of the policy pursued, which is a subject for the original Estimate.
    Mr. SANDYS: I do not want to deal further with the matter. I only referred to it because the right hon. Gentleman himself had enumerated all the serious crimes which were tried at the Assizes in connection with which this Estimate was required, and I thought that it would be in order for me to make some reply to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. As you have ruled that it is not in order, I will not proceed with it. I only desire to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has some advantage, as I am not permitted to refer to the very serious and weighty remarks which were made by the judge at the Winter Assizes at Limerick, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman himself this afternoon will give us an explanation of the state of affairs in Ireland, and especially in that part of the country, because we British taxpayers, who have to find the money, are extremely dissatisfied with existing conditions, which we regard not only as a serious expense to us, but also as a most discreditable stain upon the administration of justice in what is still, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MOORE: I beg to move, "That Item D (Prosecutions, etc.) be reduced by £250."
    I hope I shall not be against any of the rulings, but I want to say a few words with the best intentions on the matter to which the Chief Secretary, though he did not limit it on the Paper, verbally limited this discussion last night. We are told now that this Supplementary Estimate is entirely for the cost of the Winter Assizes in 1912. I am interested at what happened at the Derry Assizes in 1912. Those were the Winter Assizes for Ulster province, and I intend to make my position clear at the start. I wish to show what an absolute waste there was of this money, which might just as well have been thrown into the sea, owing to the way in which

    2021
    the expenses of these Assizes were swelled by the machinery which the Chief Secretary chose to set in motion. The Committee is probably aware that there is one Winter Assize county for each of the four different provinces in Ireland, and that that particular Assize county is an artificial creation. There is only one Assize town to which, in winter, the criminals are brought from the adjoining four or five centres, and, in the theory of the law, it is the county for each of them. It so happened that in 1912 the Derry Assizes, which were unduly prolonged, had for trial certain people from the city of Belfast. My submission is that the Committee ought not to vote this Estimate, because those people ought not to have been tried there at all—and in these circumstances: There was some little trouble in Belfast, and, of course, the police, as these men were Unionists, took them in charge, and they were brought up in the ordinary way before the resident magistrate or stipendiary, and returned for trial to the Quartet Sessions in Belfast. I make no complaint about that myself. The arrests were made in the month of August, and they would have been tried at Quarter Sessions at Belfast in the following October. The learned Recorder of Belfast, who was appointed to his present situation by the present Government, commands the very highest respect, and there could be no possible suggestion that the Recorder of Belfast at Quarter Sessions could not have disposed of these cases.
    That did not suit the Government at all. They were not anxious that these men should have a fair trial, and they did not care how they slighted the Recorder. They sent down a young Nationalist barrister from Dublin to the Recorder's Court to ask him calmly to transfer these cases from his own Court, as if he were not competent to try them, and to send them to the Winter Assizes in Derry. Such an application was absolutely unprecedented in the history of the law in Ireland. It had never been made before. No one had ever gone down to a judge of competent jurisdiction, who was going to try people, and said to him that he was not fit to try these cases, and that he should send them to the Winter Assizes. The Recorder of Belfast very properly said, that as the law stood he was competent to try these people who had come to him in the ordinary course, and he intended to do so. The Crown began the prosecutions at the ensuing Autumn
    2022
    Quarter Sessions. The cases were trumped up cases, and the jury acquitted in the first and acquitted or disagreed in the second case. Thereupon the Crown took a most extraordinary course. They entered nolle prosequis against all the prisoners because they would not have them tried in the Quarter Sessions Court, and these men were discharged. Accordingly they went home. Inside a week they were arrested afresh, and brought before a magistrate of the hon. Gentleman's creation. Other magistrates of Belfast with equal rights were excluded from the Court, and this magistrate of theirs went through the form of returning the identical men against whom nolle prosequis had been entered for trial at Derry Assizes, and put these people to the expense of going off a 100 miles away, instructing solicitors and bringing their witnesses, and all than, because the high and mighty feelings of the Crown were slighted when the Recorder of Belfast would not return these men for trial at the Derry Assizes.
    That is the sort of thing that brings the law into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had loaded the dice against the prisoners. Before the cases came on there was a writ of certiorari taken in the Court of King's Bench to quash the proceedings. It came before the judges of the High Court, and the Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Gibson expressed themselves as astonished at the unfair course that had been taken by the Law Officers. Mr. Justice Gibson said that he had never known such a thing, and that in future if the Attorney-General of the day entered a nolle prosequi before a jury he would see that the jury acquitted the prisoner, so that the man would not be brought up again under the old charge; because it is a maxim of British law which the Government ought to observe that a man ought not to be tried a second time for the same offence. These people were brought to Derry, and I am glad to say that the Derry jury, though the Government had selected the venue, investigated the facts, and they were all acquitted. Look at the extra expense of bringing these men and their witnesses to the Derry Assizes. If they had been tried in the ordinary venue, the Quarter Sessions, the Committee would not now be asked to put its hands in its pockets for a Supplementary Estimate for Winter Assizes. That is the sort of thing that the Chief Secretary tries to burke. We have never had a chance of raising it

    2023
    in Debate in the House since it happened, and if it was not that the Chief Secretary sprang an explanation upon us before the House proceeded to other matters at a quarter-past eight last night, we should not have had the opportunity. I want the Chief Secretary now to justify his action in taking these men to Derry Assizes, an action which was unfair to the prisoners, and was declared by the King's Bench to be unfair.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The King's Bench did not reverse the procedure.
    Mr. MOORE: The Kings Bench said that it was unprecedented, and said in terms that it was practically unfair, and the Committee will recognise how unfair it was. It is doubly unfair when you ask the Committee to pay for it. That is the position. I hope we will have some justification now for the expense necessitated by sending these men to Derry. Why was not the Recorder of Belfast competent to try the cases in his Court, and why were these men put to the hardship of a trial 100 miles away, to satisfy a mere political end—men who were innocent, because the jury cleared them, and men who would not have stood before a jury if the wheels were not clogged, and the dice were not loaded against them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I wish that the proceedings had not been suspended as they were yesterday evening at a quarter-past eight o'clock, because it necessitates my repeating some of my observations which I made then, and I am speaking to what is largely a different audience now. What I did say was, that this was a Supplementary Estimate to make up for what was, if you like so to call it, bad budgeting on the part of those for whom I am responsible. When they were making their original Estimates they fell short by rather more than the sum which we are now seeking to obtain by way of a Supplementary Estimate, The reason was because we had underestimated the cost of the Winter Assizes in the four provinces to which reference has been made, and when you come to look at the history of those Assizes, you will find that there was at the Winter Assizes an unprecedented number of prisoners. The Assizes consequently lasted an unusual length of time. There was an increase practically of 50 per cent, in the number of prisoners, and of 50 per cent. in the number of days. In reference to
    2024
    the cost of prosecutions and witnesses, the hon. Gentleman pointed out properly, yesterday, that in Ireland private prosecutions are of very rare occurrence, and that they are all taken up by the Crown; but, even though that is the fact, when prosecutions are taken up by the Crown, the prosecutors receive their expenses, both personal and travelling, according to the scale. Therefore there are costs connected with prosecutors, as well as costs connected with witnesses, in all these classes of cases.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, who is not here now, asked some very pertinent questions. He seemed to think that this Estimate was very extraordinary. He did not seem to understand how it could be accounted for, by the costs of prosecutors and witnesses. But I do not think that there is anything very extraordinary in it. Turning to the scales in Ireland, the maximum allowance is—Labourers, 5s. per day and 2s. 6d. per night; farmers, shopkeepers, and assistants, 6s. per day and 5s. per night; merchants and bank officials, 10s.; county surveyors, 10s.; and doctors and solicitors, 2 guineas, and so on. I do not say it is-extravagant at all, but it is a highish rate of payment, and if we felt that that is the reason—I do not go into the question whether it was in order or not—it was essential for my case to point out that, there was at these Winter Assizes an unusual number of cases of difficulty and expense, and I am sorry to say there was also an unusual number of cases connected with indecent assault. Those were cases which involved medical witnesses, analysts and the most expensive kind of evidence, and that was the reason I enumerated those crimes. Hon. Members opposite will quite readily turn and say, "You are responsible for all the crime in Ireland, and if you were not there, and if your Government disappeared, and if we took their places, there would not be these cases, and the expenses of Assizes would dwindle down." That raises the whole question of the administration of justice and the history of crime during the last seven or eight years in Ireland. That is a question on which I cannot now treat. I should not be in order were I to attempt to do so and to argue it piecemeal on a Supplementary Estimate. I am not, however, frightened of it in the very least. I have here the judge's addresses to the grand juries in the several counties in Ireland.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to those mutters on a Supplementary Vote.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I take it I am not in order in referring to the general position of crime in Ireland. All I can say is that this arises because we had to pay the costs of witnesses. The more prisoners there are the more evidence there always is, and the longer the Assizes last, the greater the cost of keeping those witnesses in attendance. This was really due to bad budgeting if you like. We had supposed that the Winter Assizes of 1912 would have been of no greater dimensions than the earlier Assizes of that year, whereas, for reasons over which I have no control, they were. I hardly suppose that any hon. Member is going to say that from the Spring Assizes to the Winter Assizes crime went up owing to my greater and growing iniquity. Those crimes were unconnected, except in the case of a few riots, with politics. They were the ebullition of a natural sinfulness of man in a way which you will see has occurred if you look at the history of Assizes. Occasionally, you will find these spasmodic increases which put everybody out and which necessitate a Supplementary Estimate of such a character as this. That is really the whole history of Sub-head D, which bears the cost of witnesses, and also a proportion of the expense incurred in connection with the conveyance of magistrates or other officials, and payments in respect of Crown witnesses. They amount to £2,000 out of the total of £14,000. If you consider that in regard to the 50 per cent, increase in the number of prisoners and in the length of the Assizes, I do not think it is a very extraordinary or unreasonable amount, although I regret very much this item, which we would have avoided if we could by budgeting. I see the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is on the pounce. He knows perfectly well that there is no more difficult matter than making a Budget when you are acting on averages. As a rule we may be perfectly safe, and as a rule we are, but now and again cases like these occur which add enormously to the cost of our proceedings.
    That is the whole history and secret of this Supplementary Estimate. It is no part of my business now to go into the history of crime and say, supposing we had all been wise and sensible, and everything else, we could by different arrangements have secured that these Assizes
    2026
    would not have lasted so long, and that there would not have been so many prisoners, and that some ought to be tried at Quarter Sessions. That may or may not be the case. Every Government is open to criticism in that manner. I was criticised on the last Estimate in reference to introducing police into Dublin. Some said there ought to have been a great many more, and some said there ought to have been less, and some said there ought to have been no police at all there. You also can criticise these Estimates in that sense. The Winter Assizes have been held. They were exceptionally heavy and protracted, and the cost of the witnesses and other persons named in the Memorandum have occasioned the increase to the amount stated. I shall be very much surprised if the House of Commons does not agree that this is a Supplementary Estimate which we could hardly be expected to provide against.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Members of the Committee on both sides will have noticed one remarkable omission from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that he failed entirely to deal with the speech my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore). We now have had two explanations from the Chief Secretary of the way in which this increased Vote was made up, and an explanation from the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. I must say that after three explanations that of my hon. and learned Friend appears to be the more probable. The Chief Secretary knows perfectly well, and, in fact, his silence is a tacit admission, that the greater part of this expenditure has been caused by bringing the men, against whom a nolle prosequi was entered at Quarter Sessions, to the Assizes with all the paraphernalia of justice. The increase, as my hon. and learned Friend said, has very largely arisen from, as he called it, that travesty of justice. I noted a distinction between the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night and that which he made last night. His statement last night was that this sub-head included no expenses for prosecutors and only included expenses for witnesses. I now understand, and it is perfectly apparent, that it does include, not fees to counsel, but the expenses of prosecutors.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Member called attention to, and wanted to know, what the cost of prosecutions

    2027
    meant. In reply I pointed out that, although there were no private prosecutions, nevertheless private prosecutors in cases taken up by the Crown had their expenses paid the same as witnesses.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand that this sub-head refers to the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. Then I agree with the remark that it would have been very much better if that were clearly stated oh the face of the sub-head, instead of leaving it to be inferred or gleaned by explanations by the Chief Secretary. I now take the Chief Secretary's explanation. He says the cost of these witnesses is sometimes very high, and ranges from 5s. to 6s. and 10s., and even, in some rare cases, to two guineas. If you take the cost of the witnesses as a pound, that involves 2,250 witnesses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Mr. BIRRELL: They were there for days.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Seventeen days was the extra duration of the Assizes. The total extra amount is £3,380, and a simple calculation shows that £200 a day approximately has been the increase caused by the witnesses and others. I confess, I think, that wants a little more explanation. I now come to the form in which this is presented. The amount of the extra expenditure is given as £3,380, and we are told that £1,130 of that will be met by savings on other subheads. I think that is a most unsatisfactory way of setting out the true figures. In the first place, it conceals from the Committee the fact that the real increase is not £2,225, but £3,380, and, in the second place, it says nothing whatever about the sub-head on which those savings have been effected. If the right, hon. Gentleman and the Committee will contrast the way in which every detail of saving and every sub-head is given in the Navy Supplementary Estimates, which we will have on Monday, they will see there the proper way.
    7.0 P.M.
    There is a further point, and this is a matter really of some importance to this House. This money was spent rightly or wrongly in December 1912. The Estimates for 1913–14, dated, of course, to the end of the financial year, the 31st of March, and this is a Supplementary Estimate to the Estimates for 1913–14. What has happened? The year 1913–14 went past,
    2028
    and the Estimates were duly prepared, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General has now reported that there was actually an excess in hand at the end of the year. The Grant was £65,410, and the expenditure £62,696 17s. 4d., leaving a surplus of £2,713 2s. 8d. That surplus was surrendered, and here is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to say that the accounts were closed, and that the surplus had been surrendered. What happens after that is all over. In the beginning of March, 1914, the Chief Secretary and the Government come down to the House and ask this Committee to grant a further sum of money dealing with 1912. Look at the effect of that! These Supplementary Estimates we are now asked to pass will not be reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General until the middle of next year. From what I know of the practice of the Public Accounts Committee, it will be June, or possibly July, 1915, before that body deals with that particular account. What does, that mean? Here is an expenditure made in December, 1912, which will not be brought under the ken of this House, through the Public Accounts Committee, and the matter finally disposed of until June, 1915. That is really ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department must have known perfectly well by the 1st January, 1913, that this charge had been incurred. I presume that the witnesses were paid on the spot; they had not to wait for their money. I suggest that the proper way of dealing with a case of this kind is to put the extra expenditure in the Estimates for the succeeding year at once. We are now being asked to grant money for an exepnditure which took place in December, 1912. That is making a fool of the House of Commons as a financial controlling authority. It is a hopelessly sloppy method of finance. I do not say that in any party spirit. It is a criticism which ought to be made whichever party was to blame. The system is radically unsound.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I suppose the hon. Member is aware that these payments were not made by the Treasury? They are made by the counties, and after the counties have made out their case to be refunded the accounts are audited by the Local Government Board. That is a proceeding which necessitates throwing the accounts over for a considerable time.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully cognisant of that. I still think it ought to be within the bounds of financial possibility to complete the transaction in such a period that the sum can be taken in the next Estimate. At all events, if the exact sum could not be taken the right hon. Gentleman could take a sum sufficient to cover the expenditure. He knows within a comparatively small amount what the expenditure is.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is what I do not know.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that when the Assizes last seventeen extra days, he does not know that there is to be any extra expenditure? He could perfectly easily safeguard himself. The method of finance is altogether unsound, and I hope that such a case will not recur.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. We have just ascertained that this money has already been spent.
    Mr. BIRRELL: By the counties.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Manual of Procedure, in paragraph 226, says:—
    "An excess Grant is needed when a Department has by means of advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund, or the Treasury Chest Fund, or out of funds derived from 'extra receipts,' or otherwise spent money on any service during any financial year in excess of the amount granted to that service and for that year."
    In addition to that, when that had been done, the first, proceeding necessary is to go before the Committee of Public Accounts, obtain their authority, and then submit a Resolution to this House. I submit, therefore, that the whole of this proceeding is out of order. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have gone to the Public Accounts Committee, obtained their consent, and then brought in a Resolution to authorise the expenditure. That the right hon. Gentleman has not done.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think the hon. Baronet's point is a sound one. I have taken the trouble to examine the Estimate, and I find it is in a form which has obtained for a great many years past. In the case of refunds, where money has to go through two hands, it is not possible always to present the accounts in the year in which the expendi-
    2030
    ture occurs. It seems to me that the correct course has been followed in bringing the matter forward now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Question put from the Chair stated that the money was to meet the charge which "will come in course of payment." That is not right, because it has already come in course of payment, and the money has been expended. Therefore, the very way in which the Question is put shows that the procedure is not right. In Erskine May, 554–5, it is stated:—
    "A proposal for an excess Grant must be first brought before the Committee of Public Accounts, and then presented to the Committee of Supply in the form of a Resolution which includes all the excess expenditure on the branch of the public service to which the Resolution applies."
    It will further be seen that Erskine May states that these excess Grants rarely occur in connection with the Army and Navy, but they are occasionally required for the Civil Services.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Vote is not of that nature. It is not what is technically known as an excess Grant.
    Mr. ASHLEY: The explanation of the Chief Secretary seems to me very unsatisfactory. We are now, in February, 1914, asked to vote money for an expenditure incurred in 1912. The Chief Secretary says that the money was paid first of all by the counties, that then the accounts had to go to the Local Government Board for audit, and that finally the claim was-made on the Treasury. Surely it ought not to take three months for that not very elaborate process to be carried out! These Winter Assizes were held in December, 1912. The Estimates for the financial year are usually presented in the middle or towards the end of March. Therefore there were from two and a half to three months for the counties, the Local Government Board, and the Treasury to make up their minds what money had been spent, and how much they were going to ask this Committee to vote. This is not treating the House of Commons as it should be treated. The matter could easily have been dealt with at the proper time, if due care and expedition had obtained. I shall certainly vote for the reduction as a protest against the way in which the House of Commons is treated. By such a system we absolutely lose all control over expenditure. Although that is a very important point from the book-keeping point of view, and from the point of view of our duty as guardians of the public exchequer,

    2031
    the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh, which the Chief Secretary did not attempt to answer, is still more important. My hon. Friend pointed out that the chief reason why we are asked to sanction this extra expenditure is that, owing to the extraordinary and unprecedented action of the Irish Government, more prisoners than usual were, tried at the Winter Assizes at Derry, that consequently more prosecutors had to be paid, that a vast number of witnesses had to be taken long railway journeys from their own towns, and that, as a result, the work was increased by 50 per cent. That is a very serious charge, and one which, if true, accounts for nearly all the extra money required. The charge is not one to be tightly passed over. It is a charge, not of actual illegality, but of creating a most undesirable precedent. The Government withdraw from a prosecution, rearrest the prisoners, take them from the jurisdiction of the judge who ought, in the ordinary course, to deal with them, send them to another Assize, where, I suppose, they hope to have a judge and jury more favourable to the prosecution, and then put all the cost on the English, and not on the Irish Exchequer. Before we pass the Vote we must beg the Chief Secretary to say a few words in explanation of this extraordinary procedure.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I know nothing about the incident raised by my hon. Friend, but I wish to speak from some practical experience in these matters. I have never had the pleasure of practising in Ireland, but I know a good deal about Assizes in this country. That no less than £3,380 has been spent on the expenses of witnesses alone during seventeen days is an astonishing statement to me. There must be some other reason. It has been suggested that the witnesses might have to be at the Assizes for many days. They have to be at the Assizes for some days. I suppose that the Assizes in Ireland are carried on very much as they are in this country. The witnesses have to go to the Assizes for the first day or two for the purpose of going before the grand jury, but they are not detained throughout the duration of the Assizes; they go home again, and are brought to the Assizes when wanted. It is misleading to say that all the witnesses have to be there every day of the Assizes. Therefore, you have the astonishing fact that, although
    2032
    there were only seventeen extra days, £3,380 were spent upon witnesses. The nature of the crime with which the judges were engaged was not in the least degree out of the ordinary. The Chief Secretary was at pains to explain that it was ordinary crime, and he gave us in some detail a description of the cases concerned. The great majority of the witnesses would get probably 5s. or 6s. a day. Those who receive two guineas a day—doctors and other professional people, would be a very small minority. When you have an expenditure of £3,380 upon witnesses, a large majority of whom are getting only 5s. or 6s. a day, I am led to the conclusion that there must be some other reason for the expenditure, and the only reason that has been brought forward is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh. I join in the appeal to the Chief Secretary to give us an answer, "Aye" or "No," to the question whether this expenditure has been incurred in the manner suggested. If it has, I shall certainly vote against it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will not detain the House a moment longer than necessary to give an answer to the question which has been put to me, and which seems to arise out of the Estimate itself. The allegation, the assertion, is, that this large sum of money has been swollen—and undoubtedly it has been increased—although the suggestion that the whole of it, or even the larger part of it, is due to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested—
    Mr. MOORE: Taking the men to Derry.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No doubt this Estimate has been increased by the fact that a certain number of persons were taken from Belfast to have their case tried at Derry. There can be no doubt of that. But it is quite a mistake to suppose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down supposes, that the whole of this, or the most of it, is due to this particular cause. The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that this question has never been debated or discussed in this House. I certainly have a recollection of it having been made the subject-matter of remark here. [An HON. MEMBER: "A question."] At all events, it has been discussed considerably somehow or another. I have certainly not refreshed my memory about the thing. It is a matter for the Law Officers, whose services, unfortunately, I am deprived of, and I cannot take upon myself to give such a reply as

    2033
    I am sure they would give. Therefore, I would much sooner say nothing about it, except that, in the opinion of the Law Officers, the course taken was a right and proper course. I am sure that the Law Officers will agree with me when I say that there was no reflection upon the learned Recorder of Belfast, who undoubtedly presides over his Court in a most learned and suitable manner. I suppose it was the opinion of the Crown that these persons would not be tried impartially by a Belfast jury in the Recorder's Court, and that, therefore, it was desirable and proper, having regard to the nature of the case that they should not be proceeded with any further in that court, but that a nolle prosequi should be entered against them, and that they should be tried elsewhere. I am not a lawyer. It is a very long time since I practised law, and probably the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with me that my law has become rather rusty. At all events, I have rather got into the attitude, I confess, of regarding the advice of my legal friends with just a little suspicion, and I do not always associate myself, as I once was proud to do, with the legal profession. Therefore, I am very sorry that they are not here, and that they are not in a position to give their view of the case, as they have done. I can only suppose that it was that they felt that justice required a change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be the last person to assert that in no part of Ireland was there any kind of case where a change of venue was not desirable in the interests of justice. The law officers wore of opinion that the change of venue—
    Mr. MOORE: This was not a change of venue; it was a fresh prosecution.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, no. They wanted to have them tried elsewhere. They advised the proceedings, the entering of a nolle prosequi, and that the men should be re-arrested and tried elsewhere. These are the proceedings the legality of which was challenged. I am not surprised that they should be challenged. The legality of many things may be challenged. Certainly there was, primâ facie, some sort of case for challenging them. Their legality was established.
    Sir E. CARSON: Was it ever done before?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I admit that it was unprecedented.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not attack the legality of it, but the unfairness of it; that is what you have to defend.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Pardon me; I do not think I have to defend the unfairness of it at all. These expenses have been incurred, and the Supplementary Estimate covers them. I am no more bound to defend the fairness of these proceedings than I am bound to vindicate the character of Ireland from the aspersions I or the criticisms which have been passed upon it. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have wished to raise with this question the policy and administration of the present Government. I am not prepared to do more than I have done. All I can say, as a matter of fact, is that these persons were tried at Derry, and these expenses were no doubt incurred in travelling and in other ways during their stay in Derry. That is really all that I have to say on the matter. I cannot think it was an unfair or improper proceeding. It was a proceeding which was well considered by the legal authorities in Ireland who have direct responsibility in this matter. They took that course. Its legality was established. Whatever criticism hon. Gentlemen opposite or other people, perhaps, may pass, it is not one that can now be challenged.
    Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, that he ought not to be expected to enter into a very full and elaborate defence of the proceedings in Belfast that were dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Armagh. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman did not anticipate even that this question would come up, though I think that one question which I took the opportunity of putting to him ought perhaps to have satisfied him of the great probability that this matter would turn up. The question I put to him was whether the proceedings taken in Belfast, and the consequent removal of these men and their trial in Derry did not add at least the whole of this Supplementary Estimate? Let there be no mistake as to what I mean. You may have an Estimate increased, and you can come forward and put the whole of that Supplementary Estimate under one head. That is not my point. The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of figures on which he could inform the House as to what was the additional expense rendered necessary by the transfer of these men from the place in which they ought to have been

    2035
    tried, namely, the City of Belfast, taking them their witnesses, prosecuting counsel, and others, to Derry. I am absolutely convinced that the extra expense amounted at least to an entire sum equivalent to this Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, while I do not tell the House that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting in any way to deceive hon. Members, it was entirely wrong to give an entirely erroneous impression, and to suggest that this is wholly and solely due to the expenses of the witnesses. It was an extraordinary thing, certainly not least in Ireland—that home of extraordinary results—but I do not think even Ireland has happened to attain to that degree of excellence by which we can take for seventeen days at a trial the enormous sum of £3,300 out of the pockets of the taxpayer solely for witnesses' expenses.
    It is quite a mistake to imagine that witnesses are kept at Assizes for anything like seventeen days. What happens is this: These cases are disposed of from day to day, and the very instant a case is over the Crown Solicitor pays off the witnesses and sends them home, and they do not come back again. In cases in which it is known that they will not be reached for several days, the witnesses are given notice that they will not be required until a certain day, and, therefore, it is ridiculous and an exaggeration to suggest that this sum represents the attendance of the witnesses throughout the entire Assizes. It does nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not attempted to defend with any success—certainly I do not think with any great heart—the action of his Law Officers in regard to these unfortunate men in Belfast. I agree with him that it is unfortunate, when these questions are raised, that he has not got the advantage of having his Law Officers by his side. If they were here, I would much rather attack them, for though the right hon. Gentleman is technically responsible, the probability is that he was never consulted in the matter at all. He doubtless left the matter to the responsible Law Officers. It is useless for him to seek to get out of the position in which they have placed him by saying that this is a change of venue. In these criminal cases, as is well known in Ireland, the change of venue is a most wholesome provision that has been utilised by successive Governments on both sides. It is utilised in this country too. It is very valuable in the administration of the
    2036
    criminal law that when a particular crime has excited either animosity or has excited sympathy in a neighbourhood that the representative of the Crown, who is responsible for the administration of the law, should seek to take the criminal to some place where the venue will be impartial.
    The extraordinary thing about the case we are discussing was that, instead of taking that course, which was open; instead of putting these men on trial before the Recorder of Belfast; instead of going up to the King's Bench, Dublin, and applying there in a constitutional way for a change of venue upon an affidavit that you could not get a fair trial in Belfast, those concerned deliberately neglected that course. They waited until these men were actually upon their trial before the Recorder, a gentleman to whose ability and integrity the right hon. Gentleman has borne testimony in this House. I happen to have known him for very many years. Ho is a gentleman beyond all reproach or suspicion for fairness and integrity. They take the case after two of these men have been tried—the jury either acquitted them or disagreed, I care not which—I believe they acquitted in one case, and disagreed in another—and then this extraordinary thing took place. The right hon. Gentleman has himself described it as unprecedented, and the Lord Chief Baron, in a most elaborate and well-considered judgment, denounced it as unconstitutional and unfair. They took this extraordinary course, and then wonder why it is that feelings have been aroused in Belfast and the neighbourhood. Let them themselves realise what would be the state of indignation in their City if such things as I am now narrating which are beyond dispute, controversy, or doubt occurred amongst their people. These men, including the man's case in which the jury disagreed, were no sooner discharged and out of the dock, as a result, it appeared, of the action of the Crown in entering what is called a nolle prosequi—that is, "We do not intend to prosecute"—an old technical expression, meaning "We have determined not to prosecute, and there is an end of it"—these men were set at liberty, and walked out of the dock, and they no sooner got out into the street and hardly, I believe, reached their homes when they were rearrested under fresh proceedings on precisely the same charge. They were brought, not before the ordinary

    2037
    magistrates, but before a single justice of well-known Nationalist proclivities, who excluded—the Court of King's Bench decided illegally excluded—the whole of the magistrates from the Bench, and insisted on taking this preliminary inquiry by himself and without the assistance of others. That was done.
    When this magistrate had returned these men for trial a second time on precisely the same charges, they were not even then allowed to remain to be tried at the assizes at Belfast. They were haled away at this enormous expense and cost to Derry. Again I venture to say, and I challenge contradiction, I have no exact figures, but I have had a long experience of assizes, and the conduct of prosecutions and the defence of prisoners in Ireland extending over nearly thirty-five years, and I am well within the mark when I say that a sum equivalent to the entire Supplementary Estimate would not account or pay for the extra cost of taking these men to Derry. There is no justification for that. The right hon. Gentleman should have told us fairly, squarely, and candidly what it was that brought about this extra expense. There is another matter that has rankled very deeply and will always rankle in the minds of these men in Belfast. That was that a gentleman was deliberately selected to carry out these unconstitutional and novel methods of prosecution who, a few months before, had signalised himself by defending others in connection with the Cork election petition, winch was the subject-matter of a very grave scandal and comment. That was the gentleman who was selected to go down to do this dirty work at Belfast, and he did it in the way I have described. There is nothing in the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's administration—though I acquit him frankly from personal participation in it—that has done more to exasperate and arouse feeling in the North of Ireland than the conduct of this prosecution. All I can say is that I do think it would have been treating the Committee more fairly and with more frankness if he had at the outset told us what had caused this extra expense, and not here lead the Committee to believe that it was some ordinary and incidental increase due to what he called a sporadic outbreak of indecent offences.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have at last heard the real explanation. My hon. Friend beside me says, there is some more to come, but I think there is enough to
    2038
    show that the Chief Secretary has not been quite as frank as usual.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfect news to me to hear that the figure for the Derry trial was anything like that.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Give us the figures, then.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have not got the figures. I stated everything fairly and frankly that I knew as the ground and justification of this Estimate. I had not got the Derry case in my mind at all. I did not know that this Winter Assize, of which I have been speaking so much, was the assize at which the Derry trial occurred. It was not in my mind at all. My attention was not called to it. I was sure, and I am sure, although I have no doubt now from what I have heard that the Estimate must have been swollen by the expenses of the witnesses at Deny. I had not the figures, I do not know how many there were, and I have no means of checking the figures.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have heard now the explanation of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell), and, of course, I accept at once the statement that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, was not acquainted with this particular case.
    Mr. BIRRELL: You must not expect that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the Derry figures would represent the whole of this Estimate.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, either that he was not acquainted with the Derry case, or that it had passed out of his mind, but I draw attention to this, that half an hour ago he gave us the reason for this Estimate, and referring to me her said that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, had experience of budgeting—he was mistaken, as I never had—and he said it was very difficult when you have to average to give an accurate average, because there were times when there were more outbreaks of crime or lesser outbreaks, and at the present time, unfortunately, in averaging there was an increase in the average of crime and indecent assaults. The great part of this Estimate is evidently owing to something quite different. Further, I might point out this was budgeting for something, the cost of

    2039
    which was already ascertained, because the expenditure was in December, 1912, and the Estimates were not presented until somewhere about April, 1913. Therefore, it would not be bad budgeting or underestimating, it was not a mistake. I do not say that this is a deliberate attempt to conceal from the House of Commons what was going on, but if it is postponed for better budgeting, it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to put this amount into the ordinary Estimates, when we can discuss it without any difficulty or without any hampering. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have just had the admission from the right hon. Gentleman that he was not acquainted with the Derry case, or had forgotten it, and in order that he may acquaint himself with the details of this Supplementary Estimate, I beg to move, Mr. Whitley, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think a stronger reason for asking to report Progress is that when we come to look at the original Estimate and compare it with
    this Supplementary Estimate, we find that the original Estimate was for £65,488. If you look at the items of that original Estimate, you find that there is £7,100; for Law Officers, £18,208 for Crown solicitors—I will not read the rest of the items; we are not discussing them—but prosecutors, etc., which includes witnesses, figure in this Estimate to the extent of £14,000 It is on this £3,380 that information is now withheld. But there is another feature, and that is that £1,130 has been saved under other sub-heads.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: One moment! I think there is more reason for reporting Progress and asking leave to sit again, because we want to know upon which of the sub-heads the saving was made, and if we sit again there probably will be somebody here to give the information we are struggling to get at.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 254.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Adamson, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Addisen, Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    O'Conner, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Alden, Percy

    Hackett, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Dowd, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hardie, J. Keir

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Shaughnessy, P, J.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hodge, John

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hogge, James Myles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pratt, J. W.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Radford, G. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reddy, Michael

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Joyce, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clynes, John R.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Crooks, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeten)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Delany, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    M'Kean, John

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Manfield, Harry

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Dillon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Sutton, John E,

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Doris, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Duffy, William J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Falconer, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Morison, Hector

    Waring, Walter

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Field, William

    Muldoon, John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Webb, H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gill, A. H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Neilson, Francis

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    2042

    2043

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnen (Glasgow)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I had no intention whatsoever of taking part in this discussion, but it was really impossible to find out from the way the Vote was put on the Paper what it was that caused this excess of the original Estimate for law prosecutions in Ireland. We now find ourselves in a very peculiar position. The Government took what was admittedly an absolutely unprecedented step in relation to these men, against whom charges were made in Belfast. They would not have dared to take that same step down in the South or West of Ireland against cattle o drivers or moonlighters, but they took them against men who were alleged to have committed crime arising out of the excitement the Government have caused by their own policy. Having done that, we are now in the position, although we are discussing this absolutely unprecedented matter, that the Chief Secretary cannot even tell us what it costs. That is the way business is transacted in this House. This is a constitutional Government, and they say: "We will do anything we like against our opponents, because they are our opponents, however unprecedented, and we decline to tell the House of Commons what it costs, and our obedient majority are quite satisfied with the way we conduct our business."
    The whole of this prosecution was a lamentable partisan business from beginning to end. Whether the Chief Secretary knew of it, I do not know, but I hope he did not know for his own sake. The case in which the Government took procedure of this kind arose out of the present condition of Belfast, which has been brought about by the Government—[An. HON. MEMBER: "By you."]—who have not even yet made up their minds what they are going to do. One would have thought that proceedings of this kind would have required, before this House voted the money, a defence for every incident in every step that they took. But what does the right hon. Gentleman say. He says he knows nothing about the merits, and cares less. These men, as I understand the case, were at first brought up in the ordinary way before the ordinary tribunal, and then the Crown tried to do by a side wind what they could not do directly by the
    2044
    Crimes Act, which they say they always adhere to, and are always trying to bring into play—by unprecedented action; they wanted to remove these men from Belfast 100 miles away, and bring them from their work and their homes 100 miles there and 100 miles back, and yet they had not the courage to go to the King's Bench in Dublin and make a case before the judges there, and ask upon any grounds they had for change of venue. They had not the courage to do that, but they invented a procedure of their own, which has never happened before, and which was denounced by the Lord Chief Baron as a most unconstitutional method of dealing with the Courts of Law.
    They adopted this procedure by which these men were taken away from their work and put into the dock to be tried before the authorised tribunal, and then the Crown Counsel gets up—I suppose upon the instructions of the Attorney-General—and he enters a nolle prosequi against these men, which meant that the Government were not going on with the ease, and the moment these men walked out of the Court they were re-arrested on exactly the same charge for which they had been put into the dock before, in order that they might be taken one hundred miles away to Derry, to prosecute them there without having gone to the King's Bench to get the ordinary order to change the venue. I say that that is a prostitution of the law which would not have been allowed in this country for one moment. You may search the annals of the law of this country, and you will find nothing to equal it in the tyranny of the Executive to try and override the Courts that have been set up in Ireland. I go further and say that if resistance had occurred, and if there had been a disturbance, as there might very well have been in Belfast, the Executive would have been accountable for that disturbance, and nobody else. There are many places in Ireland and England where if such an attempt to override the law had been attempted, there probably would have been disturbances. I am very glad there was not a disturbance in Belfast in this matter, and that the people kept their tempers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Somebody says "Oh!" but they are the advocates of law and order. Go and cut the tails off your cattle.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Roast Catholics in Queen's Island.
    Sir E. CARSON: But there is something more. [Interruption.] I am not in an Irish Parliament now. Not only were these men re-arrested, but the Committee will scarcely believe that a special Nationalist magistrate—these men being of the other party—was selected to go into a private room, and he was given directions not to allow any other magistrate to sit with him in order that he might return these men for trial. And now Liberals in this House are asked to approve of this action, vote money for it, and pay for the whole prostitution of law by the present Executive.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I think we are entitled to hear something more by way of explanation in regard to this Vote. We have just been voted down upon moving to report Progress by a subservient majority, who have not heard the facts, and who do not know them. By whose advice was this unprecedent procedure adopted? If it was adopted on the advice of the Irish Law Officers, I think this House is entitled to have some explanation from them. It seems quite inadequate that we should be asked to rest content with a mere bald statement in regard to a matter which occurred so long ago, and in regard to which we have neither the figures nor the facts clearly before us, and we have no adequate official information as to why this unprecedented procedure was taken. I should have thought it would seem an outrage to most hon. Members of this House that two men should be put on their trial, a nolle prosequi entered, and the men allowed to go free, and afterwards to be rearrested on the same charge. That seems to me to be an outrage on English justice, and it is quite by chance that this matter has come before the House of Commons, because it was going to be buried in the depths of official pigeonholes. My right hon. Friend said that there was considerable risk of a disturbance, and he was glad that there was not a disturbance. All this seems to require more investigation, and I think that all impartial men in this House will agree that some further opportunity should be given of placing all the facts and figures before us. I do not think we should give a decision on the point at this moment.
    Mr. MULDOON: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but after what
    2046
    has happened I think it is imperative that some remarks should be made on this question from these benches. The senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) said this evening that he was not in an Irish Parliament. I think this ought to remind him more of the Woodford Court house in the old days. The circumstances of this case in Belfast are not in the least novel, and there was no element in those prosecutions which were not present in cases on many previous occasions in every part of Ireland. I challenge the Chief Secretary, or any other official of the Government, to say that on every single occasion since, in the city of Belfast itself, the same procedure has not been adopted. What were the circumstances which led to these prosecutions in Belfast? A series of the fiercest outrages that ever took place in that city occurred, and in the course of them over eighty persons were treated in the hospitals of Belfast; and to this hour not one single person has been brought to justice in reference to those outrages. These men were brought before the Belfast magistrates and were prosecuted by the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Attorney-General was represented by an Irish senior counsel (Mr. George McSweeney) whose reputation and honour at the Irish Bar is as high as that of the two right hon. Gentlemen who represent Trinity College in this House. Mr. McSweeney took no steps in those prosecutions which was not advised and directed by the then Attorney-General for Ireland, who is now the Lord Chancellor. Wat took place? One case was proceeded with before the Recorder of Belfast, and I have no hesitation in saying that that trial was a farce. Instead of charging the jury on the facts—
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow any reflection on the Court. What the hon. Member has said is a direct reflection on the judge, and I cannot allow it.
    Mr. MULDOON: The charge to the jury was in reality an attack upon the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I will not pursue that point. In the exercise of his discretion, and as advised by the Attorney-General, the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. I wonder how many times the senior Member for Trinity College did the same thing in the old days?
    Sir E. CARSON: Never!
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. MULDOON: In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman always brought the

    2047
    accused before the resident magistrate, and had them returned for trial—a procedure which has been adopted in the county of Galway and every other county. The Attorney-General directed that this course should be taken. The case was appealed to the Court of King's Bench, and it was argued there for a whole week. The procedure adopted by the Attorney-General and his representative in Belfast was defended, and successfully defended, and a majority of the court decided that it was entirely in accordance with statutory requirements, and especially decided it on an English case decided about fifteen years ago. These were the circumstances under which that procedure was taken, a procedure followed in every instance since. I challenge the Chief Secretary to say whether the cattle driven cases for months before had not in every single instance been brought before a resident or two resident magistrates, and then returned for trial. I would just like to read two observations of the present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland upon this procedure. These men were brought for trial before him, and in every single case the jury refused to convict. This is what the Lord Chief Justice said:—
    "It was a most disgraceful thing for the City of Belfast that a respectable workman should not be allowed to go home from his work without having these savage attacks made upon him. That was the important thing in this case. Was no person to be brought to justice in reference to it?"
    He went on to say that it would be a still worse and a still more disgraceful thing if evidence of the clearest character were given as regarded who were the assailants, and a Belfast jury would not convict them. He told the jury that plump and plain, and in the cases before him there was evidence of identification in every single instance. There were eighty persons treated in hospital, and an attempt was made by the Attorney-General to bring their assailants to justice, but in no single case did he succeed, and not one single person has suffered one hour's imprisonment in reference to all those outrages. We hear a great deal about miscarriages of law and justice in Ireland, and I say that within the last fifty years there has not been a worse miscarriage of justice than took place in Belfast in July of 1912.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I regret that I did not know that a legal matter of this sort, which I feel to be of the gravest importance, could be raised. I did not know that it
    2048
    was going to be raised, or that it could be raised on a Supplementary Estimate of this character. If I had known, I would have had the opportunity, which I have not had, of refreshing my memory and of acquainting my mind with all the facts of the case.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will you consent to an adjournment?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, because it has nothing whatever to do with a Supplementary Estimate of this nature. Whether the Law Officers took the course which recommends itself to hon. Members or not,, it was a course which has been found to be a legal course which they were perfectly entitled to take, and was a course which, when referred to the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, was proved as a course open to them to take. I say that, so far as the purpose of a Supplementary Estimate is concerned, when all I am asking for is an additional sum to meet the expenses of witnesses at the Winter Assizes of 1912, the fact that this course was a legal one. That it was challenged and was affirmed to be a legal one rules out the question as to whether or not it was a course which a wise Attorney-General or a prudent Attorney-General, or such wise and prudent Attorney-General as Ireland has had in the past, would have taken or not. They took a course, the legality of which was challenged, and which was affirmed to be legal. The result has been to increase the expenses of the Winter Assizes. Assuming always that they were tried at the Winter Assizes at Derry, the expenses may have been swollen by that fact, and that entitles us to come and say it is a sum which ought to be granted by way of a Supplemenatry Estimate. We have taken the ordinary course in the matter; the course which pays the expenses of the prosecutors and the witnesses at all these assizes. At these particular assizes there were certain witnesses brought there by a process of law which the Court of King's Bench declared to be legal. Their expenses were properly and legally paid, and we ask the Committee to say that this is a Supplementary Estimate that ought to be passed.
    Mr. MOORE: I wish to say this about the question of notice. When I came down to the Committee yesterday, I was under the belief and your recollection, Mr. Chairman, will confirm me, and other Members of the Committee were under the belief, that we were going to discuss

    2049
    the proceedings at the Winter Assizes held in Ireland in 1913. That would have been.the natural supposition; but, when I got up to make my case about that and to attack the policy of the Government for arresting people for seditious speeches, imprisoning them and letting them out privately, the Chief Secretary got out of that by giving a verbal explanation that this referred to the Winter Assizes of 1912. Now he complains that we have raised matters without notice, when he has himself driven us back to 1912. I do not wish to refer to any other part of the Debate, except to say that the speech we have heard from the hon. Member from below the Gangway (Mr. Muldoon) is very typical of the love and toleration and treatment Belfast would be likely to get. It is not the ease that the Chief Justice of Ireland ever tried one of these men or ever had anything to say to one of them. They were arrested after the Belfast Assizes in the summer; they were tried before the Recorder in October, and sent to the Winter Assizes at Derry. Therefore, the Chief Justice had never anything to say about them whatever. That is typical of all the quotations we get from that quarter. As we are on this subject, hon. Members below the Gangway ought to be very grateful that we do not bring up the Castledawson affair which was tried at the Derry Assizes.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be going beyond the Estimate before the Committee.
    Mr. MOORE: I can bring it up still. The hon. Member says that no one has been brought to justice, but I consider that he has, if he is put on his trial fairly before a judge and jury and they acquit him. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not call that being brought to justice if the man happens to be a Unionist and a Protestant, and he is acquitted by his fellow countrymen.
    Mr. MULDOON: None of the cases were sent to Derry at all; they were tried in July before Mr. Justice Cherry, now the Chief Justice of Ireland, and they were acquitted.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I cannot leave unnoticed the very surprising defence the Chief Secretary has made. He said that he did not know that the matter was going to be raised on this Supplementary Estimate, but I believe this is the only opportunity on which it can be raised under
    2050
    the forms of the House, because when the main Estimate comes up it will be so far in the past that it will not be relevant to the Estimate. Therefore, this is the only opportunity, and I think it extremely unusual that the Government should refuse an adjournment of the discussion of a matter about which the right hon. Gentleman admits that he cannot inform the Committee, and thereby prevents the Committee having a discussion when it would be properly informed by the representative of the Government. That is not the only thing he said. He said, the proceeding being legal, it was not necessary to consider whether it was proper or prudent. It is very proper for the Committee to criticise Ministers when they act imprudently and improperly. We do not wait for illegal action before we criticise the Members of the Government. That observation, indeed, almost amounts to an admission that he is unable to defend the action of the Attorney-General from the point of view of propriety and prudence. Observe the significance and the real importance of this episode. What a lesson to teach the future governors of Ireland! What an example to set them of the proper way to treat the Protestant minority! The right hon. Gentleman and his Government are always telling us that we ought to trust their guarantees for fair government and fair administration. What sort of fair government and fair administration do we get from him and his friends? He has set an example of unfairness by tyrannical usages which others may follow, and he has shown there is nothing like fair dealing contemplated under the auspices of his friends.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: We are apt to lose sight of the fact that what we are discussing is whether we should pass the payment of £3,380. It is perfectly evident that this is entirely for prosecutors and witnesses. What does that mean? It means that there has actually been a saving in each of the other heads of expense connected with the Assizes, or else you would not have £1,130 Grant-in-Aid. Therefore, the whole of this money has clearly gone in paying witnesses and prosecutors. A very simple calculation would show anybody in this Committee that if you have got £3,000 odd to deal with you can give sixty witnesses £50 apiece. I fail entirely to believe that sixty witnesses could possibly have been taken from Belfast. The prosecutors and witnesses, if there were sixty of them, have actually

    2051
    received £50 apiece. They were unsuccessful in that prosecution. One of the prisoners was acquitted, and with regard to the others the jury disagreed. Is this some sort of solatium for the Nationalists who were prosecuted? Have they had a present of £50 each from the Executive? I am asking the question. Here comes the Chief Secretary, and he says "Give me a Vote for £3,380." We say to him, "What for?" "Why," he says, "this is entirely for prosecutors and witnesses." It is quite clear it is not for any of the other heads; it is not for Law Officers; it is not for Crown solicitors, or for fees of the Law Offices, or counsel, or general law expenses. It might be general law expenses, because in that item would be included the taking of prisoners from one place to another. It was not; it was simply prosecutors and witnesses. I think we are entitled to know what has become of his £3,300 for prosecutors and witnesses? Some years ago, when I was in practice, I had some acquaintance with trials, but I do not remember a trial that possibly could be associated in any way with anything of this sort where £3,300 was paid for witnesses. It is a preposterous amount. Is it right we should vote this money to-night not knowing what the real facts are? The Chief Secretary suggests that the Vote may have been swollen by other items, and does not relate solely to the payments for witnesses. What in the name of Heaven does it refer to? Are we not entitled to know what we are voting the money for? Is the Government going to use its mechanical and obedient majority to prevent the House of Commons finding out where the money has gone? It is, I repeat, a preposterous Vote, especially when it is remembered that every other Department of the Administration has cost less money. This is the only swollen amount. What has become of it? If the Chief Secretary cannot tell us, he should send for someone who can. The Government, in common decency, should adjourn this Debate, until someone has given us an intelligible account of what has been done with the money.
    Mr. DILLON: We have for the last hour been discussing the improper use of this money for paying the expense of bringing men to Derry to be tried. But the men were never taken to Derry. The trial was in Belfast. It is a most refresh-
    2052
    ing and amusing thing to hear the two hon. and learned Members for Trinity College standing up in this House and denouncing methods of procedure which they and their Government invented and carried on for years, methods which we on these benches have frequently fallen victims to, methods by which they have earned large incomes. As for hauling men before a resident magistrate, or before a partisan magistrate, and preventing other magistrates acting, that was a plan invented by a Tory Government in the old days against Nationalism, and there is this difference that, in the old days, we did not get a jury: in those days a partisan magistrate tried us and sent us to gaol without the intervention of a jury.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: It did not cost £3,600!
    Mr. DILLON: Does the hon. Member expect to secure the removal of right hon. Gentlemen for that trifle? Why that was only a flea-bite in the old days. Then we used to have Votes, not for £3,000, but for tens of thousands of pounds for Irish law expenses. Those were the days when the two Members for Trinity College were, responsible for the prosecutions; they constituted very expensive machinery to be put in motion in Ireland. In those days you packed your magistrates' bench; it was always partisan; you did not go to the trouble of committing us for trial, but a partisan magistrate disposed of our case in a peremptory and, to you, entirely satisfactory manner. I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have now left the House were not, ashamed to bring up a case like this here, in view of the fact that in the city of Belfast there were the most brutal, cruel, and atrocious outrages that have been perpetrated for fifty years in any civilised city in the world. They were carried on in broad daylight, in the sight of hundreds of men, for a fortnight at a time, and, as a result of the prosecution, not a single man was punished.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has introduced an element of prejudice in this discussion which is entirely uncalled for. Reference has been made to the Queen's Island case, and I may at once say there is not a man on these benches who does not deeply regret that case. The fact that there has been no recurrence of the outrage is due, however, to the magnificent discipline

    2053
    of my right hon. Friend. In the second place, I would like to call attention for one moment to the altered procedure of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. As a rule he darkens counsel with a multitude of vain jokes; on this occasion he has relied on pure technique. He has said that no criticisms should be levelled against his procedure because it is legal. I well remember hon. Members below the Gangway denouncing again and again action of the Executive based on an Act of Edward I. But do they think they are going to prevent a recurrence of such events as those deplorable troubles in Queen's Island by methods of legal chicane? The hon. Member who last spoke was careful not to make an attack on the two right hon. Gentlemen until after they had left the Front Bench; if they had not left the House he would soon have found that his indictment did not lie.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are again getting wide of the discussion. We are discussing not only present, but past administration, and I must ask hon. Members to try and keep to the Supplementary Vote.
    Mr. HOPE: I was following exactly the line taken by the last speaker. I think there is one precedent for the action the Chief Secretary has taken, and it goes back to the days of the prosecution of Titus Oates. That is an almost exact precedent. On one of those occasions the first prosecution by the Crown failed, but the moment the trial was over the defendant was rearrested and tried on another charge. In this case the trial was on the same charge. As long as these methods of chicane are used hon. Members below the Gangway will find it in vain to expect the natural and proper feeling against such outrages as those which occurred in Queen's Island.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Hon. Members below the Gangway have trooped in to support the Government in spending thousands of pounds in trying to bring a certain number of people to justice in Ireland. The Chief Secretary said last night that in 1911 there were two riots and nine in 1912, and the number of cases of unlawful assemblies had also increased. I take it that it was to bring these people to justice that this money was expended. The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech told us he required this money on account of the extra expenses incurred during the Winter Assizes of 1912. It is for that purpose that hon. Members below the Gang-
    2054
    way are going to vote this money. But if we on these benches were sitting on the opposite side of the House, would hon. Members below the Gangway back us up in spending money to bring people to justice in Ireland? I do not think so. If it had not been for the question of Derry I would have been inclined on this occasion to vote against my party. I have been High Sheriff of the county of Cork, and I know that no money is better spent than that which is expended in bringing offenders to justice and in giving them a fair trial in places where the Crown cannot get a conviction in the ordinary way. I remember sitting in Court and watching men brought up for trial for comparatively petty offences from Limerick and Kerry, and they were brought to Cork because there was a bigger panel from which to obtain a jury, and it was possible to get a fair trial. I repeat that if it were not for the case of Derry I should on this occasion be inclined to vote with the Government and against my party.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I do not want to detain the Committee more than a few moments, but I must say that during the time I have been in this House I have never listened to a more amazing discussion than this one. What is the Estimate the Committee is asked to vote? It is to enable the law to be carried out.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is for witnesses.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is to enable the law to be carried out, and the hon. Member, who is a lawyer, must know that in order to do that witnesses are necessary.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is the only item.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Be that as it may, here is a case where there is no dispute whatever that the Law Officers have not acted illegally. What is the condition of affairs that prevailed in Belfast? Is one body of His Majesty's subjects to be subjected to outrage and are the Law Officers of the Crown and His Majesty's Government not to see that these people get justice? For weeks at a time numbers of men in Belfast, because they happen to hold one religious belief, have been subjected to these gross outrages. His Majesty's Government would be degraded and unworthy of their position if they did not take every possible step to see that the majesty of the law is upheld. Then the

    2055
    hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) gets up and says that, but for his two right hon. Friends on the Front Bench opposite, the outrages would have increased. Are they the majesty of the law? The hon. Member is one of the constitutional party who have always proclaimed their regard for law and order, and he evidently regards his two right hon. Friends as the majesty of the law. Is the majesty of the law to give no protect-

    Division No. 36.]

    AYES.

    [8.28 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Falconer, James

    M'Kean, John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Alden, Percy

    Firench, Peter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Arnold, Sydney

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Barnes, George N.

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, Michael

    Benn, w. w. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Money, L. C. Chiozza

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gulland, John William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Boland, John Pius

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, John J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hackett, John

    Morison, Hector

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hancock, John George

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Neilson, Francis

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cough, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Clynes, John R.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Crooks, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Cullinan, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Radford, G. H.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Dillon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Doris, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Reddy, Michael

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, J. G. Switt (Donegal, South)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    tion whatever to the men who have been mercilessly hammered by the partisans of hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. BIRRELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 96.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sutton, John E.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Taylor, Theordore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Rowlands, James

    Thomas, James Henry

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbropugh)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wardie, George J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Waring, Walter

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Watt, Henry A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Shortt, Edward

    Webb, H.

    Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    NOES.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fell, Arthur

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Peel, Lieut-Colonel R. F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Swift, Rigby

    Campion, W. R.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Moore, William

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nlnian

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

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

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Doughty, Sir George

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Nield, Herbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Ashley.

    Question put accordingly, "That Item D be reduced by £250."

    Division No. 27.]

    AYES.

    [8.36 p.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Barnston, Harry

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Benn Ion Mamilton (Greenwich)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bird, Alfred

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Blair, Reginald

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Campion, W. R.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newman, John R. P.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 242.

    2059

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Western, Colonel J. W.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Swift, Rigby

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Touche, G. A.

    Moore and Mr. Barrie,

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Chafes

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    French, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    Adamson, William

    Field, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Molloy. Michael

    Alden, Percy

    Gill, A. H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Ginnell, L.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mooney, John J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Goldstone. Frank

    Morison, Hector

    Barnes, George N.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Muldoon, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gulland, John William

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hackett, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Hancock, John George

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nolan, Joseph

    Boland, John Pius

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hodge, John

    O'Malley, William

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cawley, Harold (Lanes., Heywood)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Chapple. Dr. William Allen

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clough, William

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Clynes, J. R.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, H; Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crooks, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Radford, G. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cullinan, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Reddy, Michael

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Delany, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Doris, William

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Kean, John

    Rowlands, James

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Manfield, Harry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Falconer, J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marshall, Arthur H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    2060

    2061

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Sheeny, David

    Verney. Sir Harry

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Shortt, Edward

    Wardle, George J.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Waring, Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Sutton, John E.

    Webb, H.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Class IV.—PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,250, 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, 1914, for Public Education in Scotland."
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: It is one of the important things in connection with these Supplementary Estimates that they enable us, to a certain extent, to place our hands on the pulse of the educational machine, and to see what is the real increase in cost and by what it is caused. I am inclined to regard the matter raised by this Vote as one of very considerable importance, and I would have been glad if more of my colleagues from Scotland had thought it worth while to attend on this occasion. Other attractions apparently have drawn them from these benches, and I am left to call attention to this important Supplementary Vote. In order to enable the Committee to know what it really means I must go back to the Act of 1872. That Statute enables a certain Grant to be paid to school boards to supplement the rates when very high. The normal rate fixed by the Act of 1872 was 3d.—exactly the same rate as was fixed by Mr. Forster when he was indicating the probable result of the Act of 1870 in England. Not only was it indicated as the probable amount, but the Act of Parliament embodies in its Clauses that 3d. was to be considered the normal rate. If a rate of 3d. did not yield 7s. 6d. for every child in attendance, then the State was to come in and raise it to that amount. But as time went on this became utterly absurd. The 3d. rate was hardly ever exceeded by a very large amount in Scotland. It is a happy and fortunate parish that has not to pay a rate of more nearly Is. than 3d., and it was necessary for the State to come in and give assistance to those hardly
    2062
    pressed school boards. Now we see in the Supplementary Estimates how that is acting, and what are the necessities of those school boards. In 1897 the Clause in the Act of 1872 which provided for an addition by the State where a 3d. rate was not producing 7s. 6d. per child on the average attendance was made very much more liberal—so much so that for every 1d. increase over 3d. the State was to come in and pay 4d., so that a rate of 6d. entitled a school board to a Grant of 1s., and a rate of 9d. brought an additional Grant of 2s. That is, I admit, a very considerable addition, but how was it to be gained? The Committee must attend to that in order to ascertain the real significance of this Supplementary Estimate. It could only be gained by those school boards that were prepared to put their hands in their pockets to an enormous extent, and impose upon the ratepayers in the locality a rate of 2s. in the pound, or it might be 3s in the pound in order to get the State subsidy. Why is it, if that State subsidy from 1897 ascended by small and moderate amounts for fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years, it has in recent years made an enormous jump? The Committee will remember that the increase is not merely £9,250, which you are asked to vote now, but is actually £19,250, because by some manipulation of sub-heads, which, no doubt, the Secretary for Scotland will explain, he has been able to save £10,000. What does that amount to? The total Vote was only £75,000. Last year it was £72,500, showing a normal increase of £2,000 or £3,000, Now you have an increase of £19,500–in other words, an increase of 25 per cent. of the total Vote.
    In my experience a miscalculation so large is unprecedented. For twenty years I was responsible for the Scottish Education Vote, and no doubt I was sometimes mistaken, but to be mistaken to the extent of 25 per cent. is a very important matter. It shows a very alarming state of things,

    2063
    to the bottom of which we ought to get in the interest of Scotland. Is that enormous increase due to an increase in the average attendance at the schools? If they were bringing more scholars into the schools, and if this additional Grant was asked because there were more children to educate, and the school boards were obliged to incur more expense, then we might perhaps console ourselves, but the fact is—and it is a very alarming fact—that the average attendance in Scotland is falling off. The average number of children attending schools this year is some 7,000 or 8,000 less than last year. That itself is a point of very considerable importance. The expense has not been caused by any increase in the average attendance. What is it due to? It is due to this fact, and this fact alone, that rates in Scotland are mounting, not slowly or gradually, but by leaps and bounds. It is only because that for every additional penny on the rate there is a Grant of fourpence by the State. It is by reason of this enormous and abnormal increase that you are called upon to open the purse strings and to vote this 25 per cent. increase. Does not this show that the matter is of considerable interest to Scotland? The party who support the Secretary for Scotland will vote the money whatever representations we may make; but is it not a matter of interest to their constituents that hon. Members from Scotland should lay their heads together and see what is causing this enormous increase in the rates of Scotland. Is it anything in the right hon. Gentleman's administration? Is it anything that he has demanded of the school boards? Why are not hon. Members on the other side here to ask him for an explanation? The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) and the hon. Member for Kircaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) are here, but I would like to see many more of them. Is that the measure of the interest taken by hon. Members on the other side in Scotch education?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member has drawn attention to that point, I think he might pass from it.
    Sir H. CRAIK: This additional aid-grant to the school board is, after all, a mere stop-gap. It is admitted that this growing evil of the burden of the rates and the necessity which is shown in so marked a form by this Supplementary Estimate is one which demands immediate attention.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the questions of policy.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg your pardon, I am not dealing with a matter of policy.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will forgive me, but I am the judge of that, and I am of opinion that the hon. Member is dealing with a question of policy.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The practice of the Department has been to delay this help by the appointment of a Committee, and I want to know when it is to report. If the Committee had only given an explanation this abnormal increase would not have taken place. School boards have been led into abnormal expenditure by expectations held out sometimes, but nothing has been done, and therefore they have found themselves in the middle of the school year having planned an expenditure on a certain footing, grievously behind, and they have been obliged to go to the Scotch Education Department, and the right hon. Gentleman has to come here and ask us to meet this abnormal burden placed on the ratepayers by a Grant of 25 per cent, more than his advisers deemed it necessary to begin with. Shall we have an explanation of this? Is it owing to the fact that new burdens of education have been placed upon them? It is certainly not due to an increase of average attendance. Is it due to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has forced them to build new schools, to restrict the number of classes, or to do something that they did not do before? At all events, this serious fact is before the people of Scotland.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Shall I be allowed to go into the policy of the Scotch Education Department in replying?
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No. As I understand what the hon. Member is now doing is this: he is asking definite questions from the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Vote. He is asking what is the cause of the increase. I think I might suggest that it would be very much more convenient for the purposes of the Committee that the explanation should be given as soon as possible.
    9. 0 P. M.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I point out that this could not be demanded unless the rates had increased to such an abnormal extent

    2065
    that you have to ask for a 25 per cent. increase in subsidies. Has this been caused by the action of the school boards themselves, or a diminution of the Grants of the Departments, or by requests made by the right hon. Gentleman which the school boards have been forced to carry out?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will take your suggestion of replying at once to the hon. Gentleman who has spoken with a great deal of knowledge of this question. I thought it showed great courage that he should attempt to explain the extremely complicated question of the basis upon which this Grant is made, and I congratulate him on having been able to make a very complicated question, if not completely, at any rate fairly intelligible to the Committee. He spoke about the increase of the rates as alarming. I am not sure that I would agree with that I do not think that increased expenditure on education is an alarming thing for the country, but on the contrary. I would like to explain exactly what the position of the Scotch Education Department is in regard to this Vote. This is not a question of the expenditure of the Scottish Education Department. It is a question of a statutory Grant to which the school boards, on fulfilling certain conditions, are entitled, and over which the Department has no power whatever. I will not go over the explanation, as I should be out of order if I did, which was given by the hon. Member of the principles upon which the Grants are based. We are bound by them, and in the Supplementary Estimate we must presume them. The first question which I have to answer is: "Why has the Grant increased so much?" As the hon. Member has said, it is a very large percentage of increase. For some years past the number of school boards claiming this Grant has been fairly stationary. In 1909 the number was 244; in 1910 it was 243; in 1911 it was 242; and the next year it was actually down to 217. The Scottish Education Department reckoned upon some increase. They made an estimate for 250, and the number has amounted to 290. Two hundred and ninety school boards have been able to make good their claims to this Grant, and the average amount demanded by the school boards has also slightly increased. We estimated for £300 per school board on an average, and the amount turned out to be £325. That is the explanation of the increase, which is
    2066
    a considerable increase. The hon. Member asked whether it was due to the Department having insisted on a large and general reduction of the number of children in the classes. The answer to that is "No." The Education Department think it desirable that there should be a reduction in the number of children in the classes, but we recognise that the burden on the rates and the burden on voluntary schools in Scotland must be taken into accounts, and until we get larger Grants from the National Exchequer, we think it our duty to consider whether we should press that provision, which, from the educational point of view, is very desirable. So that at the present moment—I will not make any promises for the future—we have not insisted on that general reduction of classes which I may say, from the educational point of view, we think is desirable. That is not to be thought of. It rather follows that the other point of the hon. Member, as to the pressure put by the Department to build new schools, is not the cause of the increase, nor does the question of the diminution of other Grants affect this matter very much. The fact of the matter is that undoubtedly recent legislation has put burdens on the school boards. There is the question of medical expenses and medical treatment, although the Treasury gives a Grant in proportion to those expenses; there is also, I must admit, for the future—it does not affect this Vote, and I certainly will not dwell on the question—the question of dealing with medical attendance. These are matters calling for the attention of the school boards, and which I have no doubt the State will meet in the near future. I think we are all agreed that in regard to the question of national education the highest proportion of the cost should be provided from national funds. But besides that, I think it is a good thing that we should find the school boards in Scotland, although they feel the pressure to be pretty heavy, are still prepared to spend money out of the rates to maintain the national character in regard to education. There is no doubt that the expenditure has been heavy, and that, of course, is the reason why the Grant from the State, which bears relation to it, must be larger.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the school boards would be able to claim the increase if the rates had not gone up?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course, obviously, it would not be so large if the rates had not gone up; but the proportion of Grant depends on what a certain rate in the pround produces. I must point out to the Committee that this is a matter over which the Scottish Education Department have really no control. It is a statutory right on the part of the school boards. If they can make good their claim, the Grant has to be given to them. I am sure the Committee would not desire that we should withhold anything by way of Grant from the School Boards of Scotland, who are doing a great national work and fulfil conditions under which they establish a right to a Grant which Parliament has given them. This is purely an automatic matter, and I think I have answered all the questions.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, and passed some strictures on Scottish colleagues. I myself was endeavouring to address the Committee at that time, but I think the Debate which has occurred has answered the points that I desired to raise. I, however, wish to emphasise the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the immense burden which is coming upon the rates in the smaller towns of Scotland, where the penny rate only produces a moderate amount. Various new educational questions come up—the question of reducing the size of the classes and the question of paying Grants by instalments, not to speak of controversial local matters affecting Forfarshire, Galashields, and the question of accounts, which, I think, might cause many of the boards to abolish free places, would have a distastrous effect on secondary education. One has very often to criticise the Department, but on this occasieon I desire to return grateful thanks to its officers, who have met this point, very important to my Constituents and the constituents of some other Members, in a very handsome way. I know it states at the bottom of the page in the Estimates that the increase has been due to a larger number of claims made by school boards this year for the first time. I am glad to see that the school boards are making those claims, and that the Department are making an increased Grant.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The school boards can only claim on the ground that their rates are enormously increased.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: I really only rose to say that, in my opinion, as a matter of personal experience, that whether the rate in small towns is—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entering upon the question of policy.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Though I may not be familiar with the peculiar conditions attaching to Grants in Scotland, I must say that the explanation given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman is not altogther satisfactory. I am not quite certain that I wholly understood the full explanation which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for the University, but the position which is before us as a Committee dealing with Supplementary Estimates is, of course, clearly set forth in the Paper before us. The increase is £19,250 upon the original Estimate, and of that amount £10,000 will be met by savings under other heads. We, as members of the Committee, are not concerned with Scottish policy as regards education, but we are anxious to know for what purpose this increased expenditure is required, and for what purpose it has become necessary to ask this Committee to vote it. I gather that there has been no increase of attendance of children at the schools of Scotland during the past year, and I also gather that there has been a large increase in the number of school boards. But what I want to know is in what respect the education in Scotland has been improved by this largely increased Grant. We arc also desirous of knowing whether the number of children in attendance at school has been increased in a manner to justify this extra Grant. I have not been able to gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he can point to any reason whatever for this increase, except the fact that an additional burden in the way of medical expenses and attendance has been thrown upon the school boards of Scotland, and that a large part of the expenditure is defrayed by the State. We are told that the rates have been increased, and that as the rates increase automatically the Grants from the State also increase.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going into a question of policy.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I point out that this increased Grant of £19,000 and more

    2069
    is due to the fact that the rates have increased? How can we possibly ascertain the reason of the increase of over £19,000 unless we ask why the rates have increased?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Grant rises automatically with the increase of the rates, and that point has already been explained; but if I allowed the discussion to proceed as widely as the hon. Gentleman would make it, then I should have to permit a Debate on the whole question of the administration of the school boards in Scotland.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I hope, Sir, you will allow me to explain what I mean. We are asked to grant a net increased sum of £19,250, and we are told that that increase is an automatic result of the increase in rates. Those rates cannot have increased except for some educational purpose, and I cannot help thinking we are here to no purpose if we are unable to obtain an explanation as to that purpose. We are here to criticise the Estimates, and it is only possible to do so if we can refer to these matters.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The procedure on Supplementary Estimates is laid down by the Standing Orders of the House, and I am only asking the hon. Member to follow those Standing Orders.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I quite understand your ruling, that we cannot discuss the general policy, but can we not discuss the real change of a most momentous kind that has occurred this year, and which has required the Department to come upon this occasion for a special Grant? If we cannot do that we might as well close the Committee and go home.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: In support of that, may I say I presume we have been discussing the requirements of the Department within the limits of the Estimate?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will ask hon. Members to keep to the subject of the Supplementary Estimate.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I will avoid the use of the word "rates." I would like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether there has been any increase in the efficiency of the schools. He has told us that the classes have not been reduced in size. I should have been very glad to learn that
    2070
    they had. I would like to know, are there any subjects of instruction which have given rise to this increase, and, also, whether there has been any increase in the salaries of the teachers which would be a reason for this increase. All those are very important matters from the educational point of view, and, as far as I have been able to gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we have had no reason assigned why we should be asked to vote an additional sum of £19,250 towards educational Estimates in Scotland.
    Colonel GREIG: I do not know whether I am in order in indicating some information which I have received myself, and which I think throws a little light upon this demand for an extra payment. From a certain county council, or county authority which deals with education in Scotland, it is pointed out to me that the rate is limited under a Section of the Scottish Education Act. Thus, in 1909 they got per scholar 3s. 6d., and in 1910–11 3s. 1d., and in 1911–12 3s., in 1912–13 1s. 6d. per head, and in 1913–14 6d. That showed a diminishing rate per head, and the reason of that was that the prior charges fixed on the allocated sum had been increasing in the meantime. The actual objects to which they have to apply the fund, and to which this fund goes—bursaries, medical inspection, specialist teachers, and a good deal of expenditure in general has increased. That is a common experience with all the educational authorities in Scotland well-known to all Scottish Members, and I dare say if the hon. Member who has just spoken would apply to my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Sir H. Craik) he will tell him that we all agree that something ought to be done, and that this is a very proper expenditure in order to help an educational purpose.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £250.
    This Supplementary Estimate may be proper or improper. What I desire to complain of is the way in which it is presented in the White Paper. We are told by the Secretary for Scotland that this increase of £19,250 is purely automatic, and that we have no control over it, and yet we find in a footnote that £10,000 will be met by savings under other sub-heads of the Vote. If that £19,250 is governed, not by the Committee but by Statute, at any rate the £10,000 is controlled by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman

    2071
    has given us a wholly inadequate explanation as to this increase. These Supplementary Estimates are the only opportunity we have for criticising the amount of a Vote. We consider policy upon the general Estimate, and we consider the amount on the Supplementary Estimate. I am very suspicious of this round figure of £10,000 on the Estimate without any explanation. We are not told of the sub-heads, and it is not a right way to present such an Estimate. Before we vote £9,250 of the taxpayers' money—not only Scotsmen's money, but the money of Englishmen, Irishmen, and Welshmen—to pay for this extra special Grant for Scotland, which we cannot get in Wales, where we deserve it just as much, I think we are entitled to an answer giving particulars as to what the savings have been effected on, and if he was able to save such a large amount, why he should not have saved £11,000 or £12,000. In order to get an explanation, I move the reduction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I remember that Lord Melbourne once said to his Cabinet, "It does not matter what we say, as long as we all say the same thing." We have had two defenders of this Vote, and they have both said different things. One is the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote, and the other is the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Greig)—I do not know whether he is a candidate for the Scottish Office in the event of the right hon. Gentleman being sent to the House of Lords—who has given us an absolutely different and contradictory explanation to that of the right hon. Gentleman. His explanation practically was, "Education is a very good thing; Scotland is a very nice place, and if the people there are in a hole why should we not help them over the stile by granting this Supplementary Vote?" The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is quite different. He says that the increase is owing to recent legislation, such as the medical examination of children, and some other Act. We are asked for another £19,000. That is a very large addition to an original Estimate of £75,000. When I was sitting on the other side of the House, over and over again I heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite denouncing in impassioned language, which I wish I could command, incorrect budgeting. They said that nothing was worse; there was no greater fault that
    2072
    a Department could commit than that of making incorrect Estimates. But here the right hon. Gentleman, who originally wanted £75,000, now wants £94,000, and the only reason he has given is that it is owing to recent legislation.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I took the words down. It is the only note I have. I cannot possibly conceive that I was mistaken over such a plain statement. If the right hon. Gentleman can show that I am in error I will accept his explanation, but I appeal to my hon. Friends whether that was not the explanation which he gave. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know what the legislation was when he framed his Estimates? Why did he not take into account the recent legislation which would affect the Estimates to such a great extent? The footnote says that the increase is due to the number of claims which have been made by school boards this year for the first time. According to the footnote, it was due to something which presumably the Department could not foresee. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is absurd, because the effect of recent legislation was something which the Department could have foreseen. I wish to enter a protest against what we have had to do the whole of this evening—that is, to drag out explanations from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as if we had got them in a chair and were pulling out teeth. They begin by making statements which are absolutely incomprehensible to any ordinary Member; then they shelter themselves behind the narrow rules of order under which we are suffering. Then, if we have been able by some fortunate chance to get a really good hold of the tooth, we begin to get some explanation. It would be much better, in their own interests, if there are to be Supplementary Estimates—which are wrong in themselves, as hon. Members opposite have said over and over again—if Ministers would put footnotes which ordinary Members can understand, and then, if through lack of ability we are unable to understand the footnotes, they would give reasonable explanations. I shall have pleasure in voting for the proposed reduction, not because I desire to hamper Scottish education, or to prevent proper money being spent in Scotland, but as a protest against the endeavours of the Government during the last few days to

    2073
    conceal from the House of Commons the real object for which they are asking us to vote money.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: When the hon. Baronet was speaking I was particularly reminded of the judge who assured a witness that he must have said something because he had got it on his notes. The hon. Baronet says that I must have said something, because that is the only thing he has got on his notes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not asleep, but I think the judge referred to was.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must admit that I have never seen the hon. Baronet asleep. What I did say was something quite different. The hon. Member for Glasgow University had put several points to me, and I was answering those points with my usual candour. I did not say that the whole of this increase was due to recent legislation. As a matter of fact, I could not say that any of the increase for last year was due to that cause, because there was no legislation that occurred immediately before last year which has seriously increased the expenditure. The hon. Member for Glasgow University asked why there was this increase, and made a whole series of suggestions—was it due to this or that or the other thing; was it due to smaller classes; was it due to the building of new schools; was it due to recent legislation; was it due to new exactions by the Department. I answered those questions seriatum.I said that it was not caused by this, and I admitted that to some extent it was due to something else. That is a very different thing from saying that the whole of the increase is due to recent legislation. As a matter of fact it is due to two things. As the hon. Member for Glasgow University truly says, it is due to the fact that expenditure on education is steadily increasing. I should have thought that the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) would have considered that not a misfortune, but rather a good thing.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I never said that it was a misfortune.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe he does think it a good thing, but then he need not have addressed us in such lugubrious accents. This increase is not due to recent legislation alone. I admit, of course, that if you impose duties of medical inspection and medical treatment, even
    2074
    though you provide a considerable propertion of the cost out of Government Grants, you must add to the cost of education. That is common ground amongst us all. I think one criticism which is fair and obvious in this Estimate is, "Why is there such a jump this year, why did it go on comparatively steadily in a number of school boards for a number of years past, and suddenly jump fifty in a year?" That is not a matter which I can explain better than by stating the fact that a number of school boards that never made a claim before have made a claim this year. These school boards have not suddenly increased their expenditure so as to make themselves entitled to the Grant this year. They have not done it suddenly like that. For some reason or another they did not make a claim. No doubt some of them might have made a claim before if they had looked into the matter. There was no discrepancy whatever between the explanation of my hon. Friend behind me and myself. The hon. Baronet thought so because I do not think anyone can understand educational finance unless it is a subject to which he has given special attention.
    I am bound to say that even if he has, given a great deal of attention to it, it is an extremely difficult thing to explain, or to understand an explanation of. The bases of the Grant in education are extremely complicated. They often proceed on no principle at all, except for the purpose of giving one class of area a little more, and another class a little less. If the hon. Member had understood Scottish education, he would see that there is no difficulty at all. The hon. Member for London University asked a question as to whether teachers' salaries have increased, and whether there has been a general improvement in efficiency. Yes, I believe there has been. There is a general improvement in efficiency steadily going on. The old Scottish interest in education is not by any means dead. There has been, of course, some improvement in teachers' salaries, but nothing that would account for this. The hon. Baronet will understand that this increase of rates is made up of many elements, not one element alone. There is this matter in connection with the teachers which is important: When the Scottish Education Fund was created, amongst other objects is was to provide money for a proper superannuation scheme for the teachers. That scheme was not complete when the

    2075
    fund was first distributed, and the school boards obtained the benefit from that fund without having to bear the burden of superannuation for the first year or two. It was before my time, but I understand that one reason was that the actuarial calculation took longer than had been anticipated, and the scheme was not complete. Now they are having to pay for superannuation, and naturally more in the first few years, though the amount will subsequently diminish. For the present it does increase the Grant they are receiving from the fund. I would not have gone into that question had not the charge of inconsistency been raised. The hon. Member for Denbigh asked a very natural question, namely, what the saving of £10,000 was derived from—under what sub-head is was to be found. It deals with Grants in respect to capital expenditure and Grants for institutions for the training of teachers. This Grant is paid in instalments as the work proceeds. It happens that during the current year the new training college buildings which are to be erected by the provincial committees for the training of teachers have not progressed as rapidly as anticipated, and consequently the amounts of the Grants which we shall be called upon to pay this year is less than the Estimate. I think that meets that point. May I point out to the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote that, after all, this is a question in which Parliament has determined that this Grant shall be made, and that the school boards have an indefeasible right to it. Perhaps, therefore, he will not persist in his Motion.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have nothing to complain of in the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in attempting to answer the questions put to him, but I have a great deal to complain of at the attitude which he adopts as regards the position of this Committee in relation to Supplementary Estimates. He suggests that because Parliament has made this Grant that therefore we should pass it automatically, and he really—I am sorry to say—had the audacity to state that there was considerable difficulty m Educational Estimates, and that Grants were made without any sort of reasonable basis. He suggested that people who had not gone into them very fully could not understand them at all. I have devoted myself very fully to educational subjects—[An HON. MEMBER: "These are Scottish."]—also to the law.
    2076
    My experience is that when counsel cannot explain to a lay client the reason of a point of law which he is going to take into court for him, and says, "Leave it to me; it will be all right," that nine times out of ten the lawyer does not very clearly understand the law.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: May I say that, as a matter of fact, the bases of these Grants were explained before the hon. and learned Gentleman came in, and very efficiently explained, by the hon. Member for Glasgow University, who was at one time a permanent head of the Department.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I was here and. heard my hon. Friend speak. I was only called out of the House for a few minutes I say that the hon. Member for Glasgow University did not explain, for, of course, he did not know the reason why we are asked to vote this £19,000. That is a duty which devolves upon the Government. It is not taken away from them by anything that the hon. Member for Glasgow University says. Let us come to one point. We as Members have a duty and a responsibility here, quite apart from any Act of Parliament. We have got to vote here £19,000. [HON. MEMBERS:"£9,000."] There is no difficulty about the matter—£19,000. Before hon. Members opposite go into the Division Lobby let them find out what they are voting for. Meanwhile let them take it from me that it is a Vote for 19,000 sovereigns. Does any fair-minded man on either side of the House suggest that any sort of a reason has been given by the Government why we should pass this Vote? I have listened attentively and honestly, and I have never heard any sort of reason. An hon. Member on the back benches made a gallant attempt, and a very fair attempt, to give us an explanation. "It was quite simple," he said. "There was increased expenditure," he continued, as he turned over certain pages of the Estimate, and he told us what the increase was in, and that because of that expenditure therefore we wanted £19,000–to help the Government over the stile, as my hon. Friend below with his happy analogies, said. If this increase occurred, as suggested by that hon. Member, why did not the Government foresee it? How did it come to make an Estimate which is £19,000 wrong? Not one word has been said by the right hon. Gentleman in explanation of that. He suggested that

    2077
    recent legislation which could not be anticipated was responsible for the increase. He has withdrawn that, and I do not wish to press it. We are entitled to two things on these Supplementary Estimates. First, why there should be these additional sums; and, secondly, why, if that is a good reason for a Supplementary Estimate being made, it was not foreseen by the person who drew up the Estimate a year ago? I think the explanation of the right hon Gentleman is unsatisfactory in the extreme. He might at least have given the exact figures and found out what this £19,000 was for. While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy for the way in which he answered, I do submit that if we are to do our duty, we ought to vote for this reduction, for I respectfully suggest it is playing with the Committee of the House of Commons to give no sort of reason as to why this Supplementary Estimate is asked for.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I would like to reply to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member. He objects to this £19,000, which is to go for the benefit of education in Scotland.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Neither I, nor my hon. Friend the Member for London University has the slightest objection to money being voted for education, but we want to know why it is necessary to have this Vote and why they did not foresee it?
    Mr. AINSWORTH: That is just the reason I am going to explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman what the cause was. As the representative of a very important centre of education, I should have thought he would have had a little sympathy with the voting of money to the poor in many parts of Scotland where, I am thankful to say, they have one advantage, and that is that everyone has access to the university. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why the educational system is so marvellously good I will tell him that since the days of John Knox we have had a magnificent system of education in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants an explanation. If he objects to this Vote in favour of education in Scotland, and if he wants to know before voting for it why it is necessary, I will tell him In Scotland we have the advantage which, I am sorry to say this country has not now got, but once had, of school boards for every parish. We have the great advantage, also, that parents take the greatest in-
    2078
    terest in the education of their children, and in scattered Highland parishes you will find special school boards set up to meet the needs of the children.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The advantages of Scottish education do not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I was only trying to explain why this money is granted. I do not want to say more upon that subject, but the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know why it is wanted. It is wanted because it is required by the school boards of Scotland. That money is wanted, as every sovereign that goes to Scotland is wanted, and the hon. Gentleman may feel quite sure that it will be well spent. It will enable a great many children to complete their education, and to pass on to the university, where they will become loyal subjects of the King. In trying to comply with the desire of the hon. Member for Cambridge, I am sorry, Mr. Maclean, I transgressed your ruling. I only hope the hon. and learned Member will come to Scotland some day, and he will be able to see what a national system of education really means, and then he never again will vote against money for it.
    Mr. J. HOPE: If it were in order to do so I should like to break out into lyrical praises of the Scottish education system, not only on the ground of its excellence, but on the ground of its recognition of definite dogmatic teaching. I should like to bear my testimony to the unruffled placidity with which the Secretary for Scotland bore himself, and which afforded a very happy contrast to that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the last Debate. I want to ask the Secretary for Scotland under what Act, or Acts, this Grant arises. I know he cannot carry all these things in his head at the moment. I gather that there was an Act passed in 1897 for England, known as the Voluntary Schools Act, and in the same year there was an Act passed giving a certain Grant to the English school boards. I admit that there was an equivalent Act for Scotland at about the same time. In the year 1908 there was a larger and more comprehensive Act—I remember it well, because I was returned to Parliament after a short compulsory holiday, and the first work allotted to me was to serve as an additional member of the Scottish Committee. After coming back in such elation, it was an extremely valuable experience, and I think all these financial matters were dealt with under

    2079
    that Act. I want to know whether it is under the Act of 1897 or the later Act of 1908 that we are responsible for this increase. Under this Act, there were very large sums set apart for this very purpose of relieving the poor. I refer to Section 16, Sub-section (f), which provided for additional expenditure and dealt with the balances that would remain and their application to the Education Fund under Section 17, and I confess I should have thought, having regard to the large sums voted then, that an extra Grant of this kind would be needless. Section 17 provides that where the valuation of the school board district is very low and the expenses high, certain sums may be applied from the funds in relief of rates, so as to give greater aid in these districts where the burden of expenditure for education expenses is excessive, and that being so, I ask how far these funds have gone in reducing the burden on the rates and adding to the burden of the taxpayer? Whether the Act of 1908 has acted in any way in mitigation, or whether the whole has been swallowed up by this

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES.

    [9.57 P.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Sallord, South)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Butcher, John George

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campion, William Robert

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Swift, Rigby

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cave, George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Norman, (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Du Pre, W. Baring

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    F. Banbury and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Alden, Percy

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Adamson, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    expenditure, I do not know. We have to vote this money, and it is only right that hon. Members on this side should know where the money goes.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This Grant arises purely under the Act of 1872, Section 67, and it is not really affected by the Scottish Education Act, 1908.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Surely the Act of 1908 must have relieved to a greater extent than the existing Act.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Then the rates would be reduced, and the claims of this particular Grant would be reduced.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I take it that all the relief given by the previons Acts has been swallowed up.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It does not affect this Grant at all.
    Question put. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 247.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Peace, William (Limehouse)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barnes, George N.

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pratt, J. W.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bock, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hodge, John

    Radford, G. H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Joyce, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kelly, Edward

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowlands, James

    Clough, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clynes, J. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sheeny, David

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crooks, William

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Crumley, Patrick

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Cullinan, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutton, John E.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Manfield, Harry

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Delany, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thomas, J. H.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Dillon, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Doris, William

    Millar, James Duncan

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wardle, George J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Waring, Walter

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Mooney, John J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Morison, Hector

    Watt, Henry A.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Webb, Henry

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Muldoon, John

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Murphy, Martin J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Falconer, James

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Neilson, Francis

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Field, William

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Gill, A. H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    O'Malley, William

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hackett, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Gulland and Mr.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.

    Class V.—TREASURY CHEST FUND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £19,905, 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, 1914, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1912–13."
    Mr. MILLS: I have one or two questions which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this deficit of £19,905. First of all, I would like some explanation of the item of £170,000 under the head of a loan to the Persian Government. I understand that this large sum has accumulated by various payments since February, 1912, when £50,000 was paid out of the Treasury Chest Fund to the Persian Government. I am quite aware that the Act of 1877 authorises the Treasury Chest Commissioners to make advances out of the funds in their possession, temporary advances for public purposes. There are two points to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman. First of all, I think that it is rather doubtful whether a Persian Loan can be called a public purpose, and, moreover, whether we can call a temporary advance a series of advances which have extended over two years.
    I am only asking for information, but it seems to me very important that we should know whether this loan to the Persian Government has been definitely authorised by a Vote in this House. I understand that the money is going to be repaid this year, but if the principle of lending this money to the Persian Government has not been previously voted, when the House is asked to repay this money to the Treasury Chest Fund, they will, in fact, be asked to pay a debt which they have already contracted; and it will not, therefore, be in their power to come to a proper decision on the matter, and it will not be in their power to say they think that it was wrongly granted. I should like an explanation of this, because it seems to me that there is a certain danger that this Treasury Chest Fund, which is, after all, mainly intended to be the medium of paying our forces, our soldiers and sailors, our dockyard people, and so forth in the various foreign stations is going to be used as a sort of nest egg from which hardup Chancellors of the Exchequer can take
    2084
    various small sums to put right various Estimates. There is another item of rather a similar sort which seems to me rather curious, and that is an item of £44,000, Royal Irish Constabulary pensions. There is no doubt good reason for this, but it does not seem to me that the Royal Irish Constabulary are a foreign service, and I do not see why they should be paid out of a fund which is generally employed in paying people m our foreign stations.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the two points which the hon. Member has raised, I cannot at present see where those figures come in.
    Mr. MILLS: On page seven you will find the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is Command Paper 90, printed by order of the House of Commons on the 12th of this month, and it is an account showing all the sums received into the Treasury Chests and paid out of the same between 1st April, 1912, and 31st March, 1913, and the liabilities and assets on the latter date. It shows the actual movements of the fund. The amount on the paper is only just a small amount, and is the balance on the debit side. This shows the whole method in which the money has been spent, and it shows the money received. This is a new service, and as it is the first time that it has been discussed, I submit that my hon. Friend is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am informed that those figures are taken from a White Paper. It seems to me that the hon. Member is in Order in asking questions, but I do not think he would be in Order in raising the question of the merits of particular expenditure, because that, no doubt, will require the confirmation of the House. He is quite in Order as far as he puts the question as to whether it is justifiable to use the Fund for these purposes.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May we not discuss the merits of the loan to Persia? It is treated as an asset in this account, and you cannot get at the balance shown on this Paper except by treating that as an asset, and there maybe observations on that point.
    The CHAIRMAN: As I understand the matter, it is bound to come before the House in a direct form, and I think the proper course would be to discuss now

    2085
    whether it is justifiable to use the Treasury Chest Fund in this manner, and then take the merits of the question when we are asked for the actual payment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The debit balance which we are now asked to vote would be greater if the £170,000 which is treated as an asset in the account was not in fact worth £170,000, but was only worth some smaller sum, and I submit to you that it would be in order to discuss the value of that loan.
    The CHAIRMAN: The general rule of the Committee will apply in this case, the rule that where there is a specific opportunity given for raising particular points that is the place to raise them; but it is clearly correct to say, this being the only occasion, that the method of its management is open to discussion.
    Mr. J. HOPE: May I ask what specific opportunity there will be other than the present?
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand, and I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is not the case, that the amount will have to be voted in the main Estimate of the year in a specific form.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Yes, it will appear in the Estimates for 1914–15 as a Vote to the Foreign Office to be repaid to the Treasury Chest Fund.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As a repayment only.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that really answers the question. At any rate as far as we have now got, we are dealing with the question whether it is justifiable or not to use the Treasury Chest Fund in this way, and I think that is in order.
    Mr. MILLS: I do not propose to discuss the rights or wrongs of the question of lending money to Persia. I was only trying to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this loan to Persia has been running for two years, and Parliamentary sanction to the loan will have to be granted some time this year. That seems a rather grave scandal, as it takes from this House its proper control over Foreign Office policy, and, in addition to that, by taking this sum from the Treasury Chests, it creates a grave dislocation of the book-keeping arrangements of the fund. It is, further, directly responsible for this debit balance for which we are asked to
    2086
    vote a Supplementary Estimate. It would have been a surplus had it not been for this item. I think the item for pensions for the Royal Irish Constabulary comes under the same criticism. These pensions have no doubt to be paid, and rightly so, but that is not the point I am discussing. This fund was not started either to make loans to Persia or to pay pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary. It seems to have been a practice which has been going on for some time. There was originally a loan from the Treasury Chest of £155; £143 of that was repaid—I suppose by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But then a further sum of about £30 was borrowed, so that, at present, the Treasury Chest Fund shows an asset of £44 15s. 6d., which has been advanced to the Government for the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It seems to me that that is an irregular practice. It is using money from this fund for purposes for which it was never intended. As far as I am aware, there is a fund for Civil Contingencies which has been created for matters of this sort, and that is the proper fund from which this deficit should be put right.
    It is said in a note by the Controller and Auditor-General that the chief reason for this deficit, which we are asked to meet to-night, is to be found in transactions on the part of the Treasury Chest in Hong Kong. It seems that a, rather extraordinary financial state has arisen at Hong Kong, and that we lost a very large sum last year — about £40,000–a rather smaller sum the year before,, and £23,000 this year, simply on exchange operations which the Treasury undertakes in Hong Kong, and they seek to reimburse themselves in this way. The loss is incurred in providing Mexican dollars with which to pay the troops. I understand the difficulty is that the price of silver on which these Mexican dollars are based fluctuates considerably. The Government find that they cannot pay the troops at the current rate of exchange, because the men would never know what their pay is going to be from day to day. Therefore they fix the price of the dollar on the average of the preceding quarter, and they pay the troops on that fictitious average. I suggest it shows very unbusinesslike management of the exchange transaction if they cannot manage to sell their sterling exchange at a better rate than they do at present, a rate which produces every year a loss. It is not perhaps for me to suggest a remedy,

    2087
    but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not meet this difficulty if we went as far as we could to copy the example of India, and standardised the price of the Mexican dollar in the way in which we standardise the price of the Indian rupee? We might take the average price for a longer period than three months and we might take a low average for the price of silver, in order that, on the exchange of silver, the seller would get as many dollars as possible for his sovereign. If you had it spread over a longer time there would be less excuse for the Treasury Chest Commissioner in Hong Kong to make these very bad blunders in reimbursing himself out there. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that if you are carrying on exchange operations in a foreign country, as many people do for their own profit, and were, without any office expenses to make on these transactions a loss of 2¼ per cent., if it were not that the whole strength and prestige of the British Treasury were behind this fund and those who administer it out there, he would soon find himself in the Bankruptcy Court. I should like also to allude to the position of Malta. It is clearly set out in the White Paper that a large loss was made in Hong Kong by the discount of bills and telegraph transfers. Malta has about the same amount to pay out during the year. I know the exchange situation is not so difficult in Malta as it is in Hong Kong, but I think it is only right that the result of the operations there should be set out in this Paper so that we can see whether they have made a profit or a loss which has helped to swell the heavy deficit we are being asked to face this evening. I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions, and especially if he will throw some light on the question of the Persian loan, which seems to me to be an extremely irregular matter, and one that fully merits the earnest attention of this Committee.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should like to answer the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me at once. The Act of Parliament upon which this Treasury Chest Fund was founded—the Treasury Trust Fund Act, 1887–makes it permissible to make temporary advances for any public service, to be repaid to the Treasury Chest Fund out of money appropriated by Parliament for the same service or out of other money
    2088
    applicable thereto. It was under that Section — Section 3 of the Treasury Chest Fund Act, 1887–that this advance was made to the Foreign Office for the purpose of making a loan to the Persian Government. The hon. Member will know, if he has studied the question, that there are any number of precedents for this sort of loan for matters of high policy. No inconvenience has been caused to the Treasury Chest Fund. It is the intention to abide strictly by the terms of the Act, and, as no final charge can be made on the Treasury Chest Fund, to ask Parliament to appropriate a sum to reimburse the Treasury Chest Fund for this temporary advance, which will be included in the Foreign Office Votes which will be presented for 1914–15. There is no statutory necessity to reimburse the Treasury Chest Fund in the same financial year as the liability is incurred. There are several precedents for that. There was a loan to Crete in the autumn of 1901. That was not repaid till the next financial year. There was in 1891 a loan of £8,000 to the Oil River Protectorate, which was repaid in 1893. The hon. Member is entitled to ask what was the point of waiting so long, and the answer to that is that there was no inconvenience being suffered by the Treasury Chest Fund or its operations for the temporary loss of his money, and we were assured that it was possible that Persia would be negotiating a large loan out of the proceeds, and which it would be repaid without making it necessary to come to Parliament at all. It was considered by the Treasury that it might be inexpedient to wait much longer, and therefore they proceeded, rather than wait any longer, to ask Parliament in the terms of the Act to appropriate this sum in the Foreign Office Votes of next year. I would also remind the Committee that the sum of £50,000 advanced to Persia appeared in these accounts for 1911–12. There was a Debate on the subject of the Treasury Chest Fund, and although some very trenchant criticism was made by the hon. Member for Down on the subject of loans and as to some charges which ought to have been, in his opinion, met out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, no one drew attention to the Loan to Persia, nor did the Controller and Auditor-General make any remark upon it in the Note that he presents to the House.
    With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, I suspect the hon. Member

    2089
    sees here that we have been giving a subvention to Ireland in a disguised and very wrong form. It is a very simple matter. There are certain pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary living abroad, and simply for convenience in this case the money has been paid by the money voted by Parliament into the Treasury Chest Fund, and paid wherever the pensioner may happen to be, so that he can get the money where he resides. With regard to the Hong Kong loss, it originated in 1888, with a view to letting the soldiers and sailors in Hong Kong know more or less the sort of pay they were going to get, and it has occasioned a loss to the Treasury year after year, at any rate, recently, with very few exceptions. It was pointed out last year by the hon. Member for Down, and as a consequence of his activity, a Departmental Committee of the. Treasury was appointed which investigated this case, and I think the Treasury owes to the Members of that Committee very great thanks, for they investigated the matter with great care. I am surprised that the hon. Member (Mr. Mills) does not seem to have read the Report. It was published as a White Paper. All its recommendations have been adopted by the Treasury. A Minute has been issued authorising the procedure which they recommend. The practice, which has existed since 1888, ceased on 1st January, 1914, and now, by fixing the rate of exchange for a month, or the telegraphic transfer, rather than on the price of the Mexican dollar a quarter previously, it is hoped that the loss will be very largely obviated in the future, for a fixed rate for a month even must be a slight loss. I think I have answered all questions, and I suggest that there is nothing exceptional in this Vote.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry I cannot agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that there is nothing exceptional in this Vote. There is a great deal more in it than meets the eye. First let me examine the somewhat extraordinary argument advanced by the Secretary to the Treasury. He said in effect that in a previous Supplementary Estimate there was a sum of £50,000 as an advance to Persia, and because my vigilant Friend the hon. Member of Down did not happen to see it, and the Auditor-General did not happen to see it, the precedent was established that the Treasury Chest Fund might be used for the purpose of other
    2090
    advances to Persia. That seems to me a most extraordinary doctrine which I cannot think has any justification in fact. There is much more in the Vote than appears, because when I asked the Secretary to the Treasury for the date when these advances were made, something emerged from him. The first Loan of £50,000 was made on 9th February, 1912. I believe I am right in saying that the first statement made in this House at all by the Foreign Minister was on 25th March, 1913.
    Mr. MONTAGU: No. A statement was made on 21st February, 1912, and it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date in column 678.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me if the Foreign Secretary intimated that he was going to make the loan from the Treasury Chest Fund. It is true that the Foreign Secretary said on 25th March, 1913, that certain loans were going to be made, and also that we were going to aid in the strengthening of the gendarmerie. If hon. Members will look at the public information which was given, all they will find is that a loan of £120,000 has been made during this year. No dates were attached to it, and in the assets statement there is an outstanding loan of £50,000 taken credit for as an asset, and if you add the two together you get £170,000. But there is no information whatever of the times when the various sums were advanced, and it was not until I asked the Secretary to the Treasury that I found out that at different dates advances had been made which make a total of £220,000.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): There is a White Paper in which the hon. Member would find all the dates.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not say that I have been digging about for the information. It is impossible from the Supplementary Estimate now before us to get the information. What the hon. Gentleman has done is that he has convicted his colleague of not giving sufficient information to the House of Commons, because he has now told the House that there is a White Paper in existence which would have saved hon. Members an immense amount of trouble if they had referred to it. The hon. Member has helped the Committee by his intervention, and I think he has proved that his colleague has

    2091
    been negligent in the matter. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in fact this £50,000 was advanced on the date stated? I wish to know, also, on what account, and on what authority, it was advanced? We know that it has never been authorised by a formal Vote of the House. It has been taken out of the Treasury Chest Fund without any Vote of the House of Commons. Apart from Votes, has any information been given to the House of Commons, and has any warning been given that the Government were going to advance this sum. Has the hon. Gentleman had any advice from the Law Officers, or anybody else, that the course which has been pursued in taking this money out of the Treasury Chest Fund is in accordance with the provisions of the Act? Is this a public service? Is an unauthorised loan to Persia a public service? I think it is not. It is not a public service at least within the meaning of the Treasury Chest Fund Act. Did Parliament, when it passed that Act, ever contemplate that there was going to be a loan to Persia? Assuming that it was a public service, has it even then been dealt with in accordance with the Act? The hon. Gentleman did not read this addition to Section 3:—
    "No expenditure whatever shall be finally defrayed out of, or payments charged on, the Treasury Chest Fund."
    The first part of this loan was made on the 9th February, 1912. After that date there was a Supplementary Estimate of the Treasury Chest Fund. It was not included. After, that, again, there were the permanent Estimates of the year, and it was not included. Again there was a Supplementary Estimate, and the Treasury have avoided giving notice to the House on two occasions on which they might have done so, and they have avoided taking a Vote when they might have done it. If the Treasury Chest Fund, which has £700,000 capital, can be used in this way, the whole of the finance of the country can be disorganised. Any year when they are short they can simply go to the Treasury Chest Fund and take £500,000 from it. They can postpone a Vote, and therefore, in any year before a General Election, can throw upon the succeeding Government the necessity of repaying the debts which have been incurred. I am not by any means sure that that is not what they have done on this occasion. There are £220,000 outstanding loans to
    2092
    Persia. That is not included in the Supplementary Estimates. There are no Supplementary Estimates for the Foreign Office to repay to the Treasury Chest Fund—the £220,000. If there were, the finances of this year would be worse to that extent. It is common knowledge that there is going to be a considerable deficit this year, and I can quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer shying at increasing that deficit by £220,000. But that is not fair, and is not in accordance with the principle upon which our finances are conducted. It is a serious matter. The hon. Gentleman, answering the question which I put to him, said:—
    "Provision for the repayment of these sums to the Treasury Chest Fund will be included in the Civil Service Estimates, 1914–15, about to be presented."
    But why not now? Why is not this year paying the expenses of the year, and why are they casting those expenses upon their successors?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who read from the Act of Parliament omitted a point which seemed to be of very great importance. Section 3 of the Act says that the Treasury may draw on the Treasury Chest Fund in making temporary advances for any public service, to be repaid to the Treasury Fund out of money appropriated by Parliament to such service. If English words have any meaning, that means that certain sums of money can be advanced for public services provided that on the first opportunity they are repaid by an Estimate presented to Parliament. That seems to me to be absolutely clear. I turn to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, dated 12th February, 1914, which says:—
    "An advance of £120,000 to be repaid out of the Vote of Parliament has been made during the year on account of the loan to the Persian Government. That is in addition to the sum of £50,000 advanced for a similar purpose in 1911–12. No Vote for the payment of those advances has yet been taken"
    My contention is that an advance made in 1911–12 cannot be considered a temporary advance out of the Treasury Chest Fund, and, therefore, a Vote of this House ought to have been taken. As a Vote of this House has not been taken, that advance has been illegally made. I have something else. The Treasury Chest Fund may be used "in making a temporary advance for any public service." Public service means something "for the benefit, advantage, or carrying on of certain servants relating to the Empire." Persia has

    2093
    not yet taken the place of Ireland as part of the Empire, and I fail to see how "public service" can be described as advancing money to the Foreign Office to lend to Persia. There is no doubt as to what "public service" means. There is a definition Clause in the Act:—
    "The expression 'service' includes Colonial service."
    That does not include Persia, which is not yet a colony of this country. Therefore, I advance two propositions—one, that the £50,000 advance out of the Treasury Chest Fund in 1911–12 is an illegal advance, because no Vote has been taken to repay that sum. Under the Act only temporary advances can be made, and they are to be paid out of a Vote of Parliament. The second is that "public service" may mean a Colonial service, but it cannot possibly mean a Persian service. Under these circumstances I shall certainly divide, because I believe the advance to be illegal.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In reference to the Act, the words "public service," as the hon. and learned Solicitor - General knows, has been considered very lately by a Select Committee of this House, and also by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the hon. Member for White-chapel. It was strenuously argued in that case, on behalf of the hon. Member for Whitechapel, that the words "public service" could only be used in respect of a public service in the United Kingdom. The Judicial Committee decided that they could extend to a public service in India, and it is clear, under this Act, that they would extend to the Colonies. What I do not know is this: Could it by any perversion of language be extended to mean a loan to a foreign country? This is a matter in which hon. Gentlemen ought to get a direct Vote of this House, and where you rely upon the legality of this loan in connection with the Treasury Chest Fund, you ought to look at the words of this Act and nothing else. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury has he obtained the advice of the Law Officers on this matter? In his speech he sought to justify this apparently exceedingly irregular and illegal proceeding by referring to some other cases where matters of this nature appear to have got through the House without discussion. One would like to know has this question ever been raised in the House before, and has it been decided by the Law Officers of the Crown? I am glad to see the
    2094
    Solicitor-General present, and I hope he will be able to tell us whether in this Act the words "public service" would include such a transaction as lending money, to a foreign Government on loan. It would be an exceedingly dangerous thing if we were so to extend it. It is contrary to the words and clearly contrary to public policy. Unless he can persuade us that the words "public service" mean to authorise the lending of money to a foreign country, then this Vote is absolutely illegal. If it were not for the lending of the money to Persia there would have been no deficiency in the Treasury Chest, and it is only because the loan has been made under colour of this Act that we are asked to vote this £19,000. I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some authority.
    Sir ROBERT FINLAY: There are a few points I invite the Government to deal with, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General here. The first is this: Under the Act there is a Section which defines what "public service" means—
    "The expression 'public service' includes Colonial service."
    Could anything more clearly imply that foreign Powers are excluded? I invite some explanation as to how, by any possibility, a loan of this description to a foreign country has been brought within those words. The second question I wish to ask is this: Another Section of the Act provides that—
    "The Treasury may employ the Treasury Chest Fund in making temporary advances for any public service."
    Suppose they could bring Persia within the definition and extension to the Colonies, then, by any possibility, how could they make out that this is a temporary advance? It is perfectly clear that the duties to which the Treasury Chest may be put were to be temporary in their nature. I do put it to the Government that there has been some extraordinary mistake in this matter, and that, in the first place, the Treasury Chest has been used for a purpose for which it was never intended it should be used, and, secondly, that the loan made has not been of a temporary nature at all.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I should be glad indeed if any words of mine could allay

    2095
    the anxiety of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I think, notwithstanding the criticism to which this Section has been subjected, that its meaning is reasonably plain. In the first place, there is no doubt that the objects for which the funds are to be employed are temporary purposes. All that means is that the money is not to be permanently employed. I should have thought that that was so obvious that hon. Members opposite would hardly have challenged that this money is for a temporary purpose. Surely a loan is, in its very nature, a temporary purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite do not encourage one to lend money to them if, when it has been lent for a temporary purpose, one is to be told the loan is permanent and will never be repaid. The next question is whether or not it is for the public service. I think that all the hon. Members who have criticised this Statute have made a great mistake in suggesting that the Statute contains any definition Section. It does not.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Oh!
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It does not. It merely states that the phrase "public service" shall include one particular service. That is not a definition. [An HON. MEMBERS: "It is called a definition."] The suggestion is that it means nothing else—that it means only a Colonial service. It is quite obvious that that is not so. The whole point is that "public service" shall receive a construction there which in some Statutes it does not receive, and include Colonial service as well as the public service of the United Kingdom.
    Lord HUGH CECILrose—
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The inclusion of Colonial service—
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Of course, if the learned Solicitor-General will not give way, I cannot ask a very necessary question.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The Noble Lord may ask any question he likes.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the learned Solicitor-General answer it? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman mention a single Statute in which "public service" is so defined as to include Persia or any other foreign country?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It is quite obvious that that can have nothing to do with what I am saying, which is that the inclusion of "Colonial service" here was for the purpose of making "public service" extend to something to which without these words it would have no application. No better illustration of that could be found than in the case to which the hon. and learned Member for York referred—the case discussed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council last year. The "public service" here is the public service of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall be glad to know why it is suggested that the application of money to the Foreign Office is not on behalf of the public service of the United Kingdom. This money was advanced to the Foreign Office and used by them for the public purposes of this Kingdom, for the purpose of smoothing the trade routes and making commerce easier with Persia. If that is not a public service of this Kingdom, it is hard to know what is. I cannot help thinking that this matter has been the subject of consideration before, and I am not satisfied that it was not considered at a time when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir K. Finlay) was Attorney General. I speak with some hesitation. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman's memory will enable him to recollect the circumstances, and he will be able to tell us whether a similar question was not raised in regard to the advance of money to Crete while he held—
    Sir R. FINLAY: Crete was very different.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I do not know whether it is intended by that to suggest that Crete is a Colony. In 1896, it was in terms asked of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when payments had been made for the expedition to Suakin of Indian troops. He was then asked whether it was proposed to submit to the House a Vote to repay to the Treasury Chests any sum that might have been expended in the expedition, and whether there was any precedent for paying the expenses out of the Treasury Chest without such expedition having been previously sanctioned by Parliament? The then Chancellor of the Exchequer (now Lord St. Aldwyn) answered, that any advances out of the Chest must be repaid by a Vote of the House, or by the Egyptian Government, and that his answer to the last paragraph

    2097
    of the question was "Yes." I have no doubt he was very well advised before he gave that answer.
    Sir R. FINLAY: Was that a loan to a foreign Government?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Instead of feeing temporarily applied it appears to have been permanently spent.
    Sir R. FINLAY: The point is whether this is a foreign Government or a Colonial Government.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The next thing is this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not really know what it is that hon. Members desire to know. If they are anxious for further precedents of their own Government, ransacked to show what has been done again and again, no doubt they can be obtained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Answer what? I have repeatedly stated my own view of this matter. That is, that a loan is made for the public service that is advanced by the Foreign Office of this country to be applied for the benefit of this country. Finally, I have been asked whether this was to be repaid out of money appropriated by Parliament to such services, or whether "Appropriation" did not mean that it had either been appropriated by loan or immediately afterwards. There is no limitation whatever placed upon the word "Appropriated." It might either be moneys already appropriated or moneys which are to be appropriated.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made the case very much better in his doctrine on loans, for it comes strangely from a party which raised every possible objection to the Military Works Loan Act. In regard to "public services" the hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no definition in the Act. It is very odd that there is a Section in the Act that in the margin is labelled "Definitions."
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: What is in the margin is not part of the Statute.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am perfectly aware of that, but it is not a bad guide to intentions. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the expression "public service" was read by the framers of this Act as meaning the public service of the United Kingdom only. If the assumption of the hon. and learned
    2098
    Gentleman be true, why is it necessary expressly to put in the words "Colonial service"? Is not the Colonial Office also part of the service of the United Kingdom. From the fact that the words "Colonial service" were put in is a clear intention that the service should be confined to the service of the United Kingdom, except in the case of the Colonial Office. The case does not stop there. The suggestion that was made by the Financial Secretary was, that under possible circumstances, if Persia, had raised her loan, that they need not have come to Parliament to sanction it—
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. Committee also report Progress, to sit again upon Monday next.
    The Orders for the remaining Government Business were read and postponed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS(VENTILATION).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what changes, if any, in the existing system of heating and ventilation of the House of Commons may be desirable and practicable.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Dr. Addison, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Dillon, Sir Philip Magnus, Captain Murray, Mr. Soames, and Captain Tryon be Members.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  GREY SEALS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LAND VALUES TAXATION.
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. CASSEL: I rise to call attention to a matter which arose yesterday at Question Time. I asked the Chancellor of the

  2099
  Exchequer how it was that he was able to announce the policy of the Government with regard to the rating of land values before the Committee, which the Government themselves had appointed to advise them on this matter, had reported, and more particularly having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself in this House had said that it would be unfair for him to express any opinion upon the question until that Committee had made its Report. The right hon. Gentleman then said he would have to look into the quotation. I have no fault to find with that. I do not think anyone could be expected to carry in his mind all his own dictums upon which he may be criticised, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore have given him private notice of the reference, and I now propose to call the attention of the House to it. The date was the 16th February, 1912, and the occasion was an Amendment to the Address, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), in which he asked for an additional subvention from the Treasury for the local authorities. To that Amendment the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme himself moved an Amendment proposing to leave out the last words of the original Amendment, in order to add the words
  "and urging the hastening of the valuation on the full site value of the land now being prepared under the Finance Act, 1910, in order that the increased subvention may be levied in the only just and effective manner."
  We called attention to the fact that this Amendment consisted of two parts. The hon. Member asks, in the first place, for a hastening of the valuation, and, in the second place, that the subvention should be levied in the only just and effective manner, and he did not fail to make it clear that he considered the only just and effective manner was the rating of land values. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with that, made the statement to which I refer. He dealt with the first part of the Amendment, namely, the hastening of valuation, with which he agreed. With regard to the second part, he said:—
  "My hon. Friend will not expect me to express any opinion upon the latter part of his Amendment as to the question of local taxation. I am anxious not to express any definite opinion until the Committee reports. It would not be fair, because that would be expressing an opinion on the whole case before we have got the Report of the Committee—the Committee that has been appointed expressly to advise the Government on that particular subject. As my hon. Friend knows, facilities
  2100
  have been given to put their side of the case before the Committee, and all due weight will be given in the Report of the Committee to his evidence, as well as to the evidence of those who make suggestions for the solution of this problem."
  That was a proper attitude. He had appointed a Committee to advise him, and had taken evidence both in favour of the rating of land values and against it, and he said that it would be unfair to express an opinion on the question. The right hon. Gentleman observed the same attitude in the course of his land campaign until he went to Glasgow. Until then he did not make any announcement with regard to the Government's policy on the question of the rating of land values. Yet another Member of the Government—Lord Lucas—on the 21st of January, 1914, said:—
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in all his speeches devoted to the land question, had not yet reached the question of rating. The chief thing the Government were waiting for was the report of the Committee."
  The Noble Lord said it would be rash to make any statement before the Committee reported, but all of a sudden there was a change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when he went to Glasgow. I say the reason for that change was that he had a pistol presented to his head by the Land Values League, and they clearly indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that his visit to Glasgow would be wholly unwelcome unless he made a definite pronouncement in favour of the rating of land values. My reason for saying so is an article which appears in the February number of "Land Values," which is the official organ of the land value group, signed by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), in which the following passage occurs. First, he deals with the land inquiry in England, and then he says this:—
  "Then came a check. It was necessary for Mr. Lloyd George to carry the campaign to Scotland, and the agents of the Land Inquiry Committee were duly dispatched to that country. But they were at once met with an inquiry as to who had appointed them and by what authority from Scottish Liberals. In the face of this discouragement they faked up a report on the lines of that which had served for the well-controlled Liberals of England and Wales, who are accustomed to dance to whatever tune is piped from official headquarters. But from Scottish Liberals came an emphatic warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to come to Scotland and make a speech except on the taxation and rating of land values would split up the party. So the Scottish report never saw the light and the Chancellor postponed his Glasgow speech from 11th December to 28th January. This gave the United Committees of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values the opportunity to step into the field. At great demonstrations held at Glasgow. Dundee and Aberdeen the position of affairs was revealed. Immediately the breeze of discontent rose to a storm, of which Glasgow became the centre, and on 21st January the executive of the Scottish Liberal federation, by way of a resolution

  2101
  unanimously carried, sent an official warning to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer that a declaration for the taxation and rating of land values was essential."
  Again the Glasgow meeting was postponed; this time to 4th February.. Then came 4th February, and a pronouncement was made by the right hon. Gentleman definitely committing him — at least -according to the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Members sitting below the Gangway; but whether he did commit himself or not, I leave him to fight out with those hon. Gentlemen. He did, at all events, state that the Government were committed to the policy of rating land values, and that they would give effect to it by legislation. The Solicitor General for Scotland, who shares with the Chancellor of the Duchy the position of a Minister of not having a seat in this House, and who for some time has not had a seat in this House, moved a Resolution foreshadowing legislation of a far-reaching character, dealing with the rating of land values and expressing his welcome of the pronouncement, the definite pronouncement, made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Undoubtedly it had a marvellous effect, because the hon. Member for Hanley, who previously was very dissatisfied and said the Liberal land policy was not worth fighting for and was only started for the purpose of getting votes, then said that his anxiety had been removed and that he was quite satisfied.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I did not say that the Liberal land policy was only started for the purpose of getting votes; I said that the only way you could get votes would be to advocate the taxation of land values.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have the words of the hon. Member. What he said was this: "It is not that the Liberal Government—" [An HON. MEMBER: "What paper?"] It is from a report of the hon. Member's speech in the "Express." If the hon. Member disputes its accuracy he can say so, but this is what he is reported to have said:—
  "It is not that the Liberal Government want to tax land or that the Liberal party desires to do so. I prefer to put it that Liberal Ministers want to remain Liberal Ministers, and that the Liberal party desires to remain the Liberal party. The fact is the Liberal Government desires to remain in office, and the time has come when it has to find a new policy with which to get votes."
  That was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt he will be able to produce statements near his own
  2102
  by the Prime Minister and others in support of the same policy of land rating and valuation. No doubt he will be able to produce these. But I think they have been, if I may say so, kept in cold storage, to be produced at election times or as electoral or Parliamentary exigencies require. But, in any case, the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee to inquire whether this policy was practicable. It was one of the matters expressly referred to them. If you turn to the reference you will see it was to examine proposals which had been before before the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, 1901, and, among others, was the rating of land values. The majority of that Committee had reported against it, and the minority had damned it with faint praise. The matter is a serious one, because this is largely an important question affecting a great number of persons. That Committee, when appointed, ought to have been given a fair chance of making a Report before the Government committed itself. It is a question which, whatever its theoretical attractions, may be is beset with practical difficulties. Speaking for myself, I was looking forward with interest to the Report of this Committee to see what they would say about the practical difficulties. [Interruption caused by circulation of the figures announcing the result of the Leith Burghs election.] It really is unfair to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken that course. The Committee was appointed to deal with this particular question.
  It is a question of great difficulty and importance, and they ought to have had an opportunity of dealing with it thoroughly. I do not say that any Government is bound to take the advice of a Committee which it appoints, but I do say if they appoint a Committee, they ought at least to consider its Report before they come to a decision. I propose to close with these words. I use no harsher terms about the right hon. Gentleman than he used himself by anticipation in February, 1912, when he said that this was grossly unfair. I say it was unfair to the Committee, unfair to the witnesses called before that Committee, unfair to this House, unfair to the large class of persons who have an interest in this security, and who are not drawn, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks, in the main from Dukes and Baronets, but in the main from the most thrifty of the working class community.
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)rose— [Interruption].
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: What effect did your Glasgow speech have on Leith? [An HON. MEMBER: "Order in the compound."]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless I am mistaken, it at any rate means a larger progressive majority than ever. It is a majority of 3,000 for progressive proposals—for Home Rule, for Land Reform.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: For Welsh Disestablishment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Including the taxation of land values. That is an increased majority for the taxation of land values. I have but a very short time to deal with the hon. and learned Member's question. I am not complaining that he has not left me time, because there has been an exciting little episode which has intervened. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a great discoverer of mare's nests, and this is the finest specimen in a very large collection. What is it of which he has complained? He said that his suggestion was that the Government had never committed themselves to the taxation of land values until I made a statement at Glasgow. He knows perfectly well that that is not so, because he anticipated my answer. The Prime Minister himself, I believe, in the House of Commons, in February, 1908, made a declaration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—if hon. Members will listen to the declaration they will then see how it was carried out. He said:—
  "For the local expenditure which is ultimately to be charged locally you will have to rely, first, upon an improved system of rating, and, secondly, upon additional revenue to be derived from some system of taxation of site values. I am most anxious to have an early opportunity of dealing with local taxation, but, I repeat, I cannot put the matter in train for legislative solution until, first having swept aside the cumbrous system of assigned revenue, we next get a proper system of valuation in working order, and so can do even-handed justice, not only as between the Imperial Exchequer and the ratepayers of the country, but also as regards the localities."
  2104
  That was in February, 1908. In 1909 it was taken out of cold storage. You had the valuation set up—that is, the valuation which will be completed next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh."]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Now they are frightened.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You had that admission; you had the admission materialised in the following year in the valuation. The only thing I said at Glasgow was this: I committed myself to the principle, but I said distinctly that the alternative methods of putting it into operation were under consideration by the Government. There was the inquiry by this Committee. There are two or three other inquiries proceeding. [HON. MEMBERS: "What inquiries?"] I am referring to the inquiry by the Glasgow Corporation, among others. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in reply to my hon. Friend. I stated that I could not commit myself because of this Committee. What was it to which I would not commit myself? I would not commit myself to his proposal that the whole of the subvention should be raised by the taxation of ground values until the Committee had reported. I have not committed myself to that at the present moment. Neither has the Government. I stated distinctly "I cannot commit myself until the Committee has reported." The Government are uncommitted at the present moment to the raising of the whole of these subventions by means of the taxation of site values. There is no committal. The hon. Gentleman thought he had discovered something, as he has done many a time before. There is absolutely no more in it than the other things which he has discovered. I apologise on his behalf because he has no time to do so, for keeping everyone out of bed for twenty-five minutes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'clock.