Sitting of 2 March 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the county of York (Shipley Division), in the room of Percy Holden Illingworth, esquire (one of the Commissioners for executing the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland).—[Master of Elibank.]

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Mr. JOSEPH WALTONpresented a Petition signed by 7,510 electors in the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire, in favour of the passing of a measure for the enfranchisement of women by granting them the Parliamentary vote on the same terms as it is or may be granted to men.
Sir WILLIAM CROSSLEYpresented a Petition signed by 3,783 electors of the Altrincham Division of Cheshire in favour of women's suffrage.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLORpresented a Petition signed by 4,708 electors of the Radclyffe Division of Lancashire in favour of granting the franchise to women upon the same terms as to men.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Just-in-Roseland Docks Bill.
Read a second time, and committed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Ordered, That Sir Frederick Cawley, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. G. D. Faber, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Daniel Goddard, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. George Roberts, Sir Herbert Roberts, and Mr. Samuel Roberts be Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Fenwick.]
MANUFACTURE OF SPIRITS.
Return ordered, "Of the total amount of spirits manufactured in England, Scotland, and Ireland for the years ended the 30th day of September, 1907, the 30th day of September, 1908, and the 30th day of September, 1909."—[Mr. Crean.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought" (Officers' Reception).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he would state what were the circumstances which led to the giving of an official reception by the Commander-in-Chief, Vice-Admiral Sir W. May, and the officers of H.M.S. "Dreadnought," to certain reputed Abyssinian princes and their staff; whether these reputed Abyssinians were received by the admiral and the officers of the ship with full naval honours; whether by the admiral's orders they were furnished with a special train on the return journey to London; and whether any inquiry had yet been held?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epping last Thursday. No flags were hoisted or salutes fired, and no special train was ordered by the Admiral.
  Captain FABER: Is it not a fact that certain pairs of white kid gloves were actually purchased for the occasion, and can the right hon. Gentleman say who will pay the expense?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is better informed than I am, but if he will kindly give notice of his question I will inquire into the matter.

  H.M.S. "Renown" (Armament).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when the "Renown" last fired the guns of her main armament; and whether the casemate fittings for her 6-inch guns are available for immediate refitting?
  Mr. McKENNA: The 10-inch guns were fired in 1908, the 6-inch guns were removed on deposit in 1905. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The two after casemates on the upper deck have not had fittings removed.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain of the casemate fittings were sold as useless, and is he also aware that since the conversion into a Royal yacht His Majesty's ship "Renown" has not been out on navigation trials?
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would kindly give notice of his supplementary question.

  Cruiser "Niobe" (Sale).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the price paid by the Canadian Government for the cruiser "Niobe"; and when she was to be delivered?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty are not at liberty to state the price fixed for the purchase of the "Niobe" by the Canadian Government, as the matter is still the subject of negotiation between the two Governments. The arrangement is subject to the approval of the Dominion Parliament.

  Turkish Purchase of Destroyers.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he had any official information showing that the Turkish Government had purchased four destroyers, originally built for the German Navy, from the Schichau Yard?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information, but I believe the facts to be as stated in the question.

  German War Vessels ("Dreadnought" Type).
  Mr. LOUGHasked whether the Admiralty was still of opinion that Germany will have seventeen battleships of the "Dreadnought" type completed in the spring of 1912, as stated by him in the House of Commons on the 16th March last; if not, what was the present estimate of the number of battleships that Germany might have at that time, when this new estimate was formed; and whether it led to a corresponding reduction in the expenditure on naval preparations in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are thirteen ships of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" type at present completed or under construction in Germany. Four more are due to be laid down during the next financial year, but as it is understood that the orders have not yet been given, it is not possible yet to make a reliable estimate of the date of their completion. I will add that I do not agree that my right hon. Friend has correctly represented the opinion I expressed last March.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman now of opinion that there will be seventeen "Dreadnoughts" at any time in 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the orders have not yet been given for the four ships to be laid down in the next financial year, it is not possible now to give any reliable estimate, and I would refer my right hon. Friend to the language which I used last year.

  Children Act (Public-house Clause).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to a recent statement by Mr. Rose, one of the Metropolitan magistrates, condemning the working of the public-house clause of the Children Act; and whether he could state the result of the inquiry promised by his predecessor into the working of this clause?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend and predecessor set on foot his promised investigation of the working of Section 120 of the Children Act, and when the result of it is before me I will give the matter careful consideration. In the meantime I must not be taken as accepting every hostile interpretation which can be put upon any incident arising out of that enactment.

  Cotton-weaving Sheds.
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked when the Departmental Committee on Humidity and Ventilation in Cotton-weaving Sheds would issue their final Report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A series of experiments to determine the matters left outstanding by the Committee in their first Report are now in progress. I understand it is hoped that they will be completed in the course of the present year.

  Deri Colliery (Explosion).
  Mr. RICHARDSasked if the right hon. Gentleman would bring before the notice of the Royal Commission on Accidents in Mines the full particulars under which the five persona engaged in rescue work after the explosion in the Deri Colliery, South Wales, lost their lives, with a view of pressing forward the provision at all collieries of efficient rescue appliances?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Royal Commission have already submitted their recommendations in regard to the organisation of rescue work, and the question of giving effect to them is now engaging my attention. I have received a report on the

  835
  circumstances attending the accident at the Deri Colliery which ought, I think, to be brought to the notice of managers and others engaged in the industry, and I hope to issue it in the course of a few days.

  Underground Workings (Ebbw Vale).
  Mr. RICHARDSasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to a report of the medical officer of health to the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council that certain workmen had died in consequence of a disease they had contracted through the insanitary conditions of the mine they were employed in; and would he instruct the Royal Commission on Accidents in Mines to include in their investigations an inquiry into the sanitary conditions of underground workings?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention had not previously been called to the report referred to, but I will make inquiry into the circumstances of the case. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will find that the Royal Commission deal with the subject of the sanitation of underground workings in their Second Report, and make certain recommendations.

  Pilkington's Tile Works (Lead Poisoning).
  Mr. CLYNESasked whether the Home Secretary's attention had been called to a case of alleged lead poisoning at Pilkington's tile works, Clifton Junction, Manchester; whether the medical referee heard the medical attendant attached to the works without also hearing the medical attendant of the workpeople, and the judge therefore referred the case back; and what action his Department had taken or would take in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to this case. Where an appeal is made to the medical referee in a case under Section 8 of the Act both parties receive notice from the referee of the time and place of the examination and both are empowered, if they so choose, to send a representative or to make a written statement. In the present case the employer's medical man attended; the worker put in a written statement, but her medical man did not attend. The medical referee was, in these circumstances, acting in accordance with the law in deciding the case; but I understand that at the request of the judge he is about to re-open it and to hear the worker's representative. There do not appear to be any grounds on which my Department can take action in the matter.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is this the first case of lead poisoning at this place?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is so.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has supplied the answer as well as the question.

  Cardiff Corporation (Parks Committee).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government. Board whether his attention had been called to the fact that the Parks Committee of the Cardiff Corporation had been in the habit of selling its hay to a local corn merchant at £3 2s. 6d. per ton, whilst the Health Committee of the same corporation had been purchasing its hay from the same corn merchant at £4 2s. 6d. per ton; and whether he would instruct the district auditor of the board to make inquiries into the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Except as regards education, the accounts of the Town Council are not subject to the audit of the district auditor. I have, however, made some inquiries on the subject, and I understand from the town council that it is true that the Health Committee purchased hay from a contractor at £4 2s. 6d. per ton on the 23rd November last, and that on the 1st February the Parks Committee sold hay to the same firm. The hay sold was disposed of in bulk and not by weight, and not cut in any way; the contractors were required to cut, truss, and haul the hay at their own expense, which is estimated at £1 per ton; this hay, moreover, is described as of poor quality, being gathered from the cemetery and fields adjoining. It is stated that the hay purchased was, on the other hand, of first class quality, clean cut, according to sample and specification, and was delivered by the contractors free of all charges.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information which he has given is diametrically opposed to every explanation given by the Mayor of Cardiff.
  Mr. BURNS: I have taken great pains to ascertain the facts with regard to this matter, and I believe them to be as stated. I know there is considerable difference between the Cardiff City Council and my hon. Friend, and I have difficulty in reconciling the two statements. I am, how-

  837
  ever, consoled by the motto of the hon. Gentleman's own paper:
  "The world is a bundle of hay,
  Mankind are the asses who pull,
  Each tugs in a different way,
  And the greatest of all is John Bull."
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman in fairness quote the rest of the motto?
  Mr. BURNS: I think it is appropriate that Burns should be satisfied with Byron.

  Poor Law Institutions (Mortality of Children).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the night hon. Gentleman can yet take steps to obtain the information as to the rate of mortality in Poor Law institutions of children between the age of two and five years, and the rate of mortality under one year of age of infants being maintained on outdoor relief, the absence of which was noted and regretted in the Reports of the Poor Law Commission?
  Mr. BURNS: The whole question of obtaining more and better statistics on Poor Law matters is receiving attention, but I am not yet in a position to give particulars as to the figures which will be collected with a view to meeting the suggestions of the Royal Commission. I may mention that an inquiry is now being undertaken by Dr. Darwall Smith, on behalf of my Department, as to the causes of mortality among new-born babies.

  Horse Breeding (Government Ear-Marking).
  Mr. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Government proposed to give any grant for horse breeding, and to arrange for the ear-marking of certain classes of horses which, in return for monetary consideration, their owners would undertake not to export, but to retain in the country for military purposes?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): We hope to be able to obtain a grant for the encouragement of horse breeding out of the Development Fund established by the Act of last Session. The suggestion made in the latter part of the question is one for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Has any application been made by the Board of Agriculture with regard to this?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We shall make it at the proper time.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether under a voluntary system of payment of a premium once for all for each brood mare or gelding, a stud of 50,000 of either class could be ear-marked and made available when required for military purposes?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We hope to obtain a grant out of the Development Fund for this purpose, but I regard the other part of the question as hypothetical.

  Small Holdings and Allotments (Staffordshire).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked with reference to land obtained on lease for small holdings in Staffordshire, whether the hon. Baronet will state for how long the leases generally run; and whether the leases contain clauses allowing of extension at specified rentals?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The leases for land in the parishes of Gnosall and Hatherton are for thirty-five years, in the parishes of Penn and Seighford for twenty-one years, and in the parish of Cheslyn Hay for fifteen years. The lease of the land in the parish of Gnosall contains an option for its renewal for a further term of twenty-one years. None of the other leases contain provisions of this nature.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Where there is no power to extend the lease, what is there to prevent the improvements effected by the county council from becoming the property of the landlord at the expiry of the lease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That depends upon the terms of each lease.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked, with reference to land obtained for allotments in Staffordshire, how many acres have been purchased and at what average price; and how many acres have been leased, and at what average rental?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No land was purchased for allotments in Staffordshire in 1908. Twenty-two acres 0 roods 8 poles were leased for rents amounting to £95 5s., being an average of £4 6s. 7d. an acre. The information for 1909 is not yet available.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked, with reference to small holdings and allotments in Staffordshire, how many applications for these have been received during 1908 and

  839
  during 1909; and whether such applications are still being received by the county, borough, and urban district councils?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Two hundred and twenty-four applications for small holdings in Staffordshire were received in 1908 and 34 in 1909. One hundred and ninety-nine applications for allotments were received in 1908. The number for 1909 is not yet available. So far as we know applications are still being received.

  Cold Storage of Fruits.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked whether any experiments had been carried out with regard to the cold storage of fruit; and, if so, with what result?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A number of experiments on the cold storage of fruits have been made in this and other countries, and notices of the results have appeared in the Board's Journal for September, 1894, June, 1899, June, 1900, March, 1903, June, 1904, and January, 1905. These experiments indicate that when due regard is paid to the stage of ripeness and colour of the fruit cold storage may usefully be employed by traders dealing in either hard or soft fruits.

  Small Holdings Act, 1908 (Agricultural Labourers).
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked how many bonâ fide agricultural labourers had been supplied with small holdings under the Small Holdings Act of 1908; and what proportion they were in to the total number of small holders who had acquired holdings under the Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: 4,470, or nearly 34 per cent. of the total number of applications received for small holdings in 1908 were from agricultural labourers, and in 1909 they numbered 893, or 25 per cent. We have no means of knowing how many of them have actually been provided with land except by asking the county councils to instruct the small holdings officers to prepare a special Return on the subject, and we are reluctant to take this step at the present, when, as the hon. Baronet knows, those officers are so fully occupied.

  Agricultural Development (Great Britain)
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board has applied, or intends to apply, for any, and, if so, what, amount
  840
  out of the Development Fund for the purposes of agricultural development in Great Britain?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board propose to submit applications for grants out of the Development Fund so soon as the Commission is constituted. It is not possible as yet for me to state the amounts for which we shall make application under the various headings specified in the Act with which the Board are concerned.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the Board propose to make application for a portion of this Fund?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the Board take care that England gets her fair share of the grant?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member may be quite certain the Board will see to that as far as possible.
  Mr. STAINER: May I ask the hon. Baronet when is the time application should be sent in for this grant?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As I have already replied to another hon. Member, the Board will certainly send in an application at the earliest and at the proper moment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Baronet aware now that application can be made by the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already replied that the Board propose to make application.

  Drumhawnagh Station (County Cavan).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further steps had been taken by his Department to provide a goods side at Drumhawnagh station on the Midland Great Western Railway line to Cavan; what steps, if any, the Board recommended the company to take; whether he was aware that there was ample space each side of the existing station to grade and provide a proper loading shed; and whether he would bring this case to the notice of the Railway and Canal Commission at its next sitting in Dublin?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): It is no part of the duty of the Board of Trade to provide accommodation at railway stations, and it is for the railway company to consider

  841
  the advisability of the works suggested in the question. The Board of Trade have, however, again communicated with the company, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of their reply. I do not think that the matter is one which I could properly bring before the court of the Railway and Canal Commission.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending one of his inspectors to see this place and report?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will consider that point, but our information is that it is really beyond our scope.
  Mr. FARRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the attitude of the Railway Company is non possumus, and if he does not take some action there is no possibility of it being forced through?
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will get the answer sent by the railway company, and if after that he asks a further question I will endeavour to answer it.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he would state whether in the Labour Bureaux preference would be given to British workmen who want employment over alien workmen?
  Mr. BUXTON: It would clearly be impracticable for Labour Exchanges to make detailed enquiries into the nationality of every applicant to whom a vacancy is notified, but it is open to any employer in notifying a vacancy to express a preference for British labour, and the manager of the Exchange would endeavour to respect his wishes.
  Captain FABER: If one man is an alien and another a Britisher, will the Britisher be preferred to the alien?
  Mr. BUXTON: It depends on the employer.
  Mr. BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the four thousand German Labour Exchanges preference is given to the German or British workmen?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Labour Exchanges give jobs at all?
  Mr. BUXTON: Labour Exchanges were intended to notify the vacancies, but not necessarily to supply them.
  Captain FABER: Is it not the British labourer who is paying the taxes for these Exchanges?
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether a similar preference should not be given to Welsh workmen?
  Mr. REESasked in what towns in Wales Labour Exchanges will be established, and when they will be opened?
  Mr. BUXTON: Labour Exchanges have already been opened in Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport. It is hoped that it will be possible in the near future to open other Exchanges at Pontypridd, Merthyr Tydvil, Barry, Bute Docks, and Carnarvon.

  Chinamen in Mercantile Marine.
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of Chinamen engaged as crews of British foreign-going ships at each of the mercantile marine offices in London, and the number who presented themselves for engagement but failed to pass the language test during the year 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: The numbers of Chinese seamen engaged for British foreign-going ships through the mercantile marine offices in London during the year 1909 are: Dock Street, 196; Victoria Docks, 211; Poplar, 1,624. No Chinese were engaged through the Tilbury mercantile marine office. No record was kept at the Dock Street office of men who presented themselves for engagement but failed to pass the language test during the first six months of the year. The number for the second half-year was thirty-six. The numbers of men who failed at Victoria Docks and Poplar were sixteen and 167 respectively.

  Employment of Seamen.
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of seamen who failed to join British foreign-going ships in the United Kingdom, and the number of continuous discharge books suspended during the quarters ended 31st December, 1908, and 31st December, 1909, respectively?
  Mr. BUXTON: The number of seamen who failed to join British foreign-going ships in the United Kingdom in the final quarter of 1909 was 1,884; the number of discharge books suspended was 216. The corresponding figures for the final quarter of the previous year were 2,180 failures, and 56 suspensions.

  Price of Foreign Wheat (London and Paris).
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price of foreign wheat, respectively, in London and Paris for the year 1909; and whether he could say what proportion of the Paris price represents the extra cost of carriage of foreign wheat from the seaboard to Paris, and what proportion represented the import duty of 12s. 2d. a quarter?
  Mr. BUXTON: In the official returns of wheat prices at Paris, as published by the French Ministry of Agriculture, no distinction is made between native and foreign wheat. The proportion of foreign to home-grown wheat is, as the hon. Member is aware, insignificant. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the comparative prices of foreign or home grown?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

  Railway Working Agreements.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been called to the proposed schemes of amalgamation or of working agreement of the South-Eastern and Chatham and London, Brighton, and South Coast Railways, and of the London and South-Western and Great Western Railways; and whether, having regard to the importance of such amalgamation or working agreement and in order to assist Members of this House to form a correct judgment on this policy, he would endeavour to persuade the companies in question to lay upon the Table of this House copies of the agreements in question?
  Mr. BUXTON: Negotiations between the companies mentioned are, I understand, not yet completed, but when matters have reached a more definite shape I shall be glad to consider whether anything can be done to meet the hon. Member's wishes.

  British Cotton-growing Association.
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn to the statement recently made by the chairman of the British Cotton-growing Association that no further expenditure could be incurred by
  844
  the association for the purposes of experimenting in any new part of the British Empire unless special assistance be rendered by the Government for this purpose; and whether, in view of the importance of this question to Lancashire, the Government would render such assistance as may be necessary?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether he is aware of the growing danger to the Lancashire cotton industry caused by the fact that the United States of America require for their own use an ever-increasing proportion of the American cotton crop; and whether, in these circumstances, the Government would appoint a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the best means of developing by State aid the areas within the British Empire where it had been demonstrated that long staple cotton, suitable for the Lancashire industry, could be grown?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the facts stated. I am glad to say that the Treasury have recently sanctioned a grant of £10,000 a year for three years to the British Cotton Growing Association in order to assist that body in continuing its experiments in certain portions of the British Empire. Pending the prosecution of these experiments, there seems no occasion for the appointment of such a Parliamentary Committee as the hon. Member suggests.

  Port of London (Schedule of Rates).
  Mr. PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware that the proposed schedule of rates for the Port of London did not observe the assurances given by the Government in the House of Commons as to the insignificant scale contemplated by the Bill, in the aggregate 2s. on the £100 value, and on the contrary that heavy duties were proposed amounting in certain cases to 1 per cent. of the value of the goods; and would he undertake that, before this schedule was approved by the Board of Trade, it should conform in specific items in reasonable degree to the limitations in the Bill as to aggregate value?
  Mr. BUXTON: An inquiry is now being held by Lord St. Aldwyn on behalf of the Board of Trade as to the schedule of maximum rates proposed by the Port Authority. Until I have received and considered the report of that inquiry I shall not be in a position to come to any decision on the matter. The schedule

  845
  now under consideration refers solely to maximum powers of charge on any given commodity and not to actual rates. But I may point out to my hon. Friend that nothing therein can affect the specific limitation of aggregate revenue from rates on goods which is imposed by Section 13 (3) of the Port of London Act.
  Mr. PEARCE: May I ask whether the fact that there is an inquiry does not override the statutory powers of the Board of Trade, or, to put it another way, does the fact that there is an inquiry override the statutory powers of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: Certainly not, The inquiry is to arrive at the facts and the suggestions made. In no case can it possibly override the statutory provisions of the Act in regard to maximum rates generally.

  Sheffield and Proposed French Tariff.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the effects, amounting to prohibition, which would be caused to the trade in high-grade steels and engineers' tools from Sheffield to France by the proposed new French tariff; and, if so, what steps he was taking to bring his influence to bear on the French Government, with a view to the rejection or modification of the proposals?
  Mr. BUXTON: When the Tariff proposals of the Customs Committee of the French Chamber of Deputies were first made public, the attention of the Board of Trade was drawn inter alia to the serious effect which the proposed duties on high grade steels and engineers' tools would have on the trade between this country and France. The views of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce were brought to the notice of the French Government. The Customs Tariff Bill, as passed by the Chamber of Deputies, made modifications, on the whole, of a favourable character, in the original proposals of the Customs Committee, but I am aware that the modified duties still give rise to apprehensions, and the views of those concerned have again been brought before the French Government. The Tariff Bill has yet to be considered by the French Senate.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with a view to being in a position to negotiate in cases of this kind, he is considering the advisability of establishing a tariff in this country?
  Mr. BUXTON: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the export trade in plated goods is also very seriously menaced, and, further, whether he can suggest any means of persuading the French Government to vary these duties besides that suggested by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. BUXTON: This matter is under the consideration of the French Government. Representations have been made to them, and I feel confident they will desire to meet us in as favourable a way as they can.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there any means of enforcing those representations?

  Somaliland.
  Mr. ARBUTHNOT (on behalf of Sir Clement Hill)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he would lay upon the Table Papers relating to Sir F. Wingate's visit to Somaliland and the present military position of affairs in that Protectorate?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): The question of laying Papers will be considered at a later date. A Supplementary Estimate for Somaliland will be brought before the House to-morrow and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, will then make a statement as to the present position of affairs and the policy of His Majesty's Government.

  County Rates.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked what were the average county rates in England and Wales (excluding London) for each financial year from 1901–2 to 1909–10?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member will find information as to the average rates in the £ in counties in Part II. of the Local Taxation Returns. I will send him a table showing the figures from the year 1901–2 to the year 1907–8, the latest year for which complete figures are yet available.

  President of Local Government Board (Salary).
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he would state whether the President of the Local Government Board was to have his emolument increased to £5,000 a year, as in the case of the President of the Board of Trade?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My own personal opinion is that, now that the President of the Board of Trade is in receipt of a higher salary, it would be an invidious thing that the President of the Local Government Board should not be in the same position, and that my right hon. Friend should be released from the self-denying covenant into which, with the late President of the Board of Trade, he entered last year. But the matter is one for general assent.
  Captain FABER: Would it not be a matter of general assent if the Prime Minister inquired as to the brilliant manner in which the right hon. Gentleman answered the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) just now?

  Voters in Army and Navy (Proxies).
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if, in the case of officers and men entitled to votes in the Army and Navy, he could introduce a Bill to allow such men when sent abroad to record their votes by proxy or any other means deemed advisable?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that I understand the precise meaning of the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion; but, in any case, it does not fall within the category of legislation to which, as I have before stated, the Government are already confined.

  Wales (Secretary of State).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether it was the intention of the Government to create a separate administrative Department for Wales, with a Secretary of State responsible to Parliament, modelled on the lines which had proved so successful in Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that there is a strong feeling among men of all parties in Wales in support of the hon. Member's suggestion. It is obviously one that could not be given effect to without legislation, which, for reasons already given, the Government are not in a position this year at any rate to propose.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May we assume that the Government are favourable to the suggestion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have a sympathetic mind.

  House of Lords (Submission of Question to Electors).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether it was the intention of the Government to propose that the question of altering the constitution and powers of the House of Lords should be submitted to the electors by any method other than that of a General Election?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member's question is of a hypothetical character, and is at any rate one upon which it would be premature at present to express an opinion.

  Charge of Conspiracy (Riverstown).
  Captain COOPERasked whether the Government proposed to take any action against the persons who were charged with conspiracy at Riverstown, county Sligo?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The accused in the case referred to were tried last May before the Lord Chief Justice and a county Dublin jury. In the result, the jury disagreed, and it is not proposed to send the case to a second trial.

  School Rate (South Uist).
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Lord Advocate if he was aware that, owing to exceptional expenditure in providing new schools in the parish of South Uist, a sum was required from the rates this year which would necessitate a school rate of 11s. in the pound; was he aware that any attempt to levy a rate of anything like this amount would result in hardship and distress, indeed, in the bankruptcy of most of the inhabitants, and that the parish council had refused to impose it; and would he say how he proposed to deal with this most exceptional case.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The rate per £ mentioned is a nominal rate which gives an exaggerated impression of the real burden imposed. So far as that portion of it which is borne by proprietors is concerned, it is levied on sixty per cent. only of the receivable rental, and as regards occupiers, on three-eighths only of that reduced rental. So far as occupiers are concerned the actual payment to be made by the great majority of individual ratepayers is of a small amount, and cannot be correctly described as leading to hardship and distress, to say nothing of "the bankruptcy of most of the inhabitants." The action of the Parish Council is at present sub judice of the Court of

  849
  Session, and any statement of further action on the part of the Government must be deferred pending the decision of the Courts.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Did I understand the Lord Advocate to say that the rate paid by the small ratepayers is only three-eighths of the rental? Does not that refer only to agricultural occupiers? Are not shopkeepers, ministers, teachers and others who are not agricultural subjects, liable to a rate of 11s. in the £?
  Mr. URE: As far as my information goes, all occupiers in the parish who have these rates levied upon them are assessed upon that artificially diminished rental.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Is it not the case that in England when the Education Rate reaches 1s. 6d. in the £, there is a special grant by the Treasury to meet the extra expenditure?

  Procurator-Fiscals.
  Mr. DUNCAN (on behalf of Mr. Wilkie)asked upon what principle procurator-fiscals are appointed in Scotland?
  Mr. URE: Fitness for the performance of the duties of the office.
  Mr. DUNCAN (on behalf of Mr. Wilkie)asked the Lord Advocate, in reference to the procurator-fiscalship for Forfarshire, Dundee district, was there no member of the legal profession in Dundee able and qualified for the position, or had he any difficulty in making a Dundee appointment, seeing that he had appointed an outsider?
  Mr. URE: There were several members of the legal profession in Dundee able and qualified for the position of procurator-fiscal. The new procurator-fiscal is not, as is suggested in the question, "an outsider." He is an able and thoroughly qualified member of the legal profession, who has resided and practised for many years in the district of Forfarshire over which his duties as procurator-fiscal extend?
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that on both sides political consideration enters very largely into these appointments?
  Mr. URE: That is so.

  London Post Offices (Supervision).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Postmaster-General whether he was in a position to state that the inquiries which were being
  850
  made into the alleged inequalities existing in the supervision of London sub-district offices were now completed; and, if not yet complete, would he take steps, having regard to the length of time the inquiry had occupied, to hasten a settlement of the question?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Large and difficult questions of organisation are involved in this matter. The inquiries are not yet completed, but are actively proceeding, and every effort will be made to bring them to a conclusion at an early date.

  Postmen's Wages (Randalstown).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that the wages rate in Randalstown district for postmen appointed after this date had been reduced from 22s. to 21s. per week; and, seeing that in the adjoining districts of Antrim and Muckamore, where the cost of living was no higher than in Randalstown, the rate of wages had been raised, whether he would reconsider the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of living is not the only factor to be taken into account in the classification of offices. Careful consideration was given to all the circumstances before the classification of Randalstown was decided upon, and I regret that it is not possible to place that office upon the same scale as Antrim and Muckamore.

  Secondary Teachers in Wales (Salaries, etc.).
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked what is the scale of salaries, promotion, and pension given to secondary teachers in Welsh schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): There is no fixed scale of salaries for teachers in secondary schools in Wales, nor is their promotion governed by any established rules. There is not, so far as the Board are aware, any general scale of pensions in operation in these schools.

  Welsh Church Commission.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked when the complete Report of the Welsh Church Commission would be published?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Secretary of the Commission that one or two of the Commissioners are

  851
  preparing separate memoranda, and cannot state when they will be ready; and that it is impossible to give a date for the completion of the Report.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will parts of the evidence be published separately?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not addressed my mind to that question since I took over the duties of a new office. I do not know of anything to lead me to believe there will be any interim publication.

  Motor Petrol (Rebate).
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state whether the rebate of 1½d. on petrol was only being granted to those hackney motors who stand or ply for hire in a public place, being duly licensed to do so; and, if so, whether garage proprietors owning one or two cars were refused the rebate?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The rebate is not allowed in respect of motor spirit used in motor cars which are kept in private garages for the purpose of being engaged for hire.
  Captain FABER: Are we to understand that there is no rebate except where the local authority gives a licence to ply for hire?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that is quite the distinction. They are endeavouring to draw a distinction between hackney carriages of the ordinary kind and private carriages.
  Captain FABER: Is it not a fact that in certain places the local authority cannot give a licence?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not like to answer that question off-hand.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the fact that different authorities take different views on the subject, in some cases allowing the rebate and in others not, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to lay down some fixed principle for the guidance of officials?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Fixed principles have been laid down, but whether or not they are satisfactory I cannot say.

  Allowances for Obsolete Machinery.
  Mr. NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in relation to the settlement of returns for Inland Revenue purposes, it is the practice of surveyors of taxes to exercise their discretion in making allowances for obsolete machinery; whether that practice is founded upon any minute or official authority, and, if so, by whom the same was issued and when; and whether, in the interest of the public and of the service, he will see that important and far-reaching questions of this kind should not be left to the unfettered discretion of an Inland Revenue official and a practice continued which has not the sanction and authority of Parliament?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This and subsequent questions, as the hon. Member is aware, were put down for Monday last, and though they were not then asked by him, the answers were printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day among the answers not given orally, and copies of the replies were sent to him.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the questions and answers are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They are already there.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Oh, that is all right.

  Home-Grown Sugar and Excise.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had finally decided to charge Excise duty upon all sugar that may be manufactured from beetroot in this country, and not to grant exemption to the company that proposed to undertake the growth of beet and the manufacture of sugar in Lincolnshire?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It will be necessary to charge Excise Duty at rates corresponding to the rates of Customs Duty on sugar manufactured from beetroot in this country, but I propose to allow a reduction from the rates of Customs Duty to compensate for the additional cost of manufacture under Excise restrictions.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why will it be necessary to impose an Excise Duty? Where does the necessity come in?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The legal necessity. I have got to administer the law.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Under what Statute is there any necessity for putting an Excise Duty on home-grown sugar?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like notice of that. I cannot for the moment give an answer. I cannot recall the Statute, but so I am informed.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if it has not, as a matter of fact, nearly crushed this industry, which it was proposed to establish in Lincolnshire—instead of protecting it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see how that can be crushed which is not in existence.
  Mr. FELL: I described it as a "proposed" industry.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: Is there any possibility of setting up the industry except through the Brussels Sugar Convention?

  Income Tax.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the surveyors of Income Tax are writing to taxpayers that a further statement or claim for Income Tax will be sent to them towards the end of March, and if it is intended by this that Income Tax will be required to be paid by traders and professional men before the end of March?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that surveyors of Income Tax are adopting the course alleged in the question.
  Mr. FELL: I personally have seen such a statement as is made in the question. Is it proposed to enforce the collection at 1s. 2d. in the £ upon all dividends paid, and not to put any pressure upon traders or professional men to pay the Income Tax due from them?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that any distinction is drawn.
  Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the directors of the Bank of England have decided to deduct it at 1s. 2d. in the £?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should have thought that that was obviously for the convenience of those who are concerned with the dividend. It certainly has got to be paid sooner or later. The declarations, both of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that whatever the decision of the electors the 1s. 2d. would be imposed.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a benefit for a man who owns money to be allowed to retain it in his money?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting very far from the question on the Paper.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will not the Prime Minister reconsider his decision not to put down the Resolution legalising Income Tax, which would avoid all this?

  Development Fund.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to earmark any definite proportion of the sum of at least £250,000, part of the Development Fund, promised for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom, for such purposes in Great Britain; and whether it is proposed to apply any, and, if so, what, part of the above sum towards the development of agriculture, as distinct from forestry?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not proposed definitely to earmark to the different parts of the United Kingdom that portion of the Development Fund which may be allotted to purposes of agriculture or forestry. I have every confidence that the personnel of the Commission, when appointed, will be such as to guarantee that the Fund will be equitably distributed between the component parts of the Kingdom.

  Flight of Dalai Lama from Tibet.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State can give the House any further information regarding the circumstances in which the Dalai Lama has sought refuge in British-Indian territory?
  Mr. GILBERT PARKERalso asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement concerning the flight of the Dalai Lama from Tibet; whether this Government has made inquiries of the Chinese Government as to the invasion of Lhasa; and what is the result of its inquiries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Hon. Members have been able to follow the course of events in the daily newspapers, and it is unnecessary for me to recapitulate the main facts. I will, however, read from a telegram which was received from the Viceroy last night: "It appears that Tibetans sent considerable force to face Chinese troops near Chiamdo in order to

  855
  intimidate them, but with orders not to fight. They accordingly retreated as Chinese troops advanced, and meanwhile Amban at Lhasa promised Dalai Lama that only 1,000 Chinese troops would be brought to Lhasa. Forty Chinese mounted infantry arrived suddenly in Lhasa and fired on several Tibetans, including two high officials, as these latter were leaving Potala peaceably, wounding one in leg and hitting pony of other. Dalai Lama also ascertained that Chinese had broken their promise to bring only 1,000 soldiers to Lhasa. He accordingly decided to fly to India, though against advice of Council and National Assembly. There appears to have been no fighting, except at Chaksam, where several Chinese were killed, the number of killed being variously estimated at from 40 to 80. Dalai Lama complained that Emperor of China promised him in Pekin that he, Dalai Lama, would have the same power as before in governing Tibet, but that Chinese in Tibet have broken this promise. Above information is from reliable Tibetan source. Dalai Lama arrives at Darjiling to-day."
  His Majesty's Government have communicated with the Chinese Government with regard to the unexpected situation thus created, and in reply have received assurances upon the details of which it would be premature to make a statement.
  Captain FABER: What is the meaning of "Amban"?

  New Duty on Beer Imported into India.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to counterbalance the new duty on beer imported into India by an equivalent Excise duty on native-brewed beer?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir. The Indian financial proposals include provisions for raising the present duty on beer brewed in India after European methods, so as to correspond with the new duty on imported beers.

  Damming of the River Erne (County Cavan).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that owing to the damming of the River Erne near Belturbet, in county Cavan, by an eel weir, the lands on the shores of Lough Gowna and the confluents thereof are perennially flooded, causing damage
  856
  to the farmers' crops along the river course; and whether any action will be taken by the Board of Works to compel the owners of this eel fishery to provide such sluices and other drainage apparatus as will prevent the continued flooding of this district?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Board of Works have no power to act in such cases except in default of action by a drainage authority, and the particulars given in the question are not sufficient to enable the Board to form an opinion whether any drainage authority has a duty or a power to act in this case. If the complainants' land lies within the boundaries of the Lough Oughter and River Erne Drainage District their best course would probably be to make their complaint to the drainage board of that district.

  Swine Fever Order (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in consequence of the Swine Fever Order difficulty is experienced in removing pigs from one part of the country to another; whether vendors have to go to the local police barracks for licences, which may or may not be granted, according to the views of the local policeman; and whether, as no swine fever now exists in Ireland, he will direct that the present restrictions be withdrawn?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member presumably refers not to any order made by an Irish Department but to the regulations governing the movement of store swine from Ireland to Great Britain under an order of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I would suggest that he should address his inquiries to that Department. I may add that, unfortunately, swine fever has not ceased to exist in Ireland.

  Douglas Estate (County Longford).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any inspection has yet been made of the Douglas estate in the townlands of Baun, Kilnashee, Cloonmacort, and Clonaugh, forty-nine tenants in which townlands have signed a protest against carrying out this sale, in consequence of the landlord having broken his agreement with them and deprived them thereby of their bog; and whether the undertaking which he

  857
  gave to have a full inquiry into this transaction by an inspector before passing the estate will be given effect to or, in the alternative, that the tenants who have been deprived of their bog will be restored to the portion they occupied before the sale as regards the bog of which they were deprived?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements for the sale of this estate were not lodged until October, 1908. It will be inspected in order of priority, but its turn has not yet come. Due inquiry will be made by the inspector when on the lands as to the allotment of the turbary.

  Secondary Teachers in Irish Schools.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY (for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the scale of salaries, promotion, and pension provided for secondary teachers in Irish schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The salaries and pensions of teachers in secondary schools in Ireland are not defrayed from public funds, and I have therefore no information on the subject.

  Teaching of Irish.
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state what money in the last financial year was placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of National Education for the teaching of Irish in Irish national schools; if he was aware that the inspector to the Commissioners has reported that in the standards above the second the teaching is more or less of a sham; and if the Government will reduce or withdraw the grant in this subject, or apportion it equally between French and German studies?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The amount available for the teaching of Irish in national schools in the financial year 1908–9 was £14,400. An inspector has reported that the teaching of Irish as an optional subject only in standards above the second is more or less of a sham. There are, however, no fees paid for such teaching. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the waste of public money in teaching this senseless subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think that Irish well taught is an admirable subject.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to whom it is of the least utility?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is difficult to say who benefits by any education. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bear it like a, man."]
  Mr. LONSDALE: Would this money not be better used for cleaning and heating the schools?

  Salaries of Teachers.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have decided that the salaries of teachers shall be paid in future monthly instead of quarterly, as heretofore; and, if so, when the new system will come into operation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Government have been in communication with the Treasury in reference to this matter. A large cost is involved, and there has not been time to consider the matter maturely in connection with the Estimates for the coming financial year. The question whether arrangements can be made to effect the change as regards the year 1911–12 will be fully considered before next year.

  Arterial Drainage (Ireland).
  Captain O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary if any of the fund at the disposal of the Development Commissioners is available for carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Arterial Drainage (Ireland) of 1905?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This is a matter in the first instance for the consideration of the Development Commissioners.

  Boycotting Notices (Publication in Newspapers).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now able to state what action is to be taken to punish the proprietors or conductors of Irish newspapers who have published boycotting notices and resolutions in defiance of official warnings, and to prevent the publication of such notices in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This matter is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making these gentlemen Privy Councillors of Ireland?

  Teaching of Irish (Cost).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the total cost to the State of teaching the Irish language in national schools in the years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909 respectively?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I could not, without considerably more time for inquiry, state the total cost to the State of the teaching of Irish in the several years mentioned. All I can say is that the amount expended in fees was £13,843 in 1906 and £11,766 in 1908.

  Heating and Cleansing National Schools (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the cost, approximately, to the State of heating and cleansing the national schools in Ireland on the basis of one moiety being charged on Imperial funds and one moiety being found by the local managers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Assuming that the work is limited to procuring fuel, whitewashing, and cleaning out of the out-offices, the estimated cost to the State on the basis defined in the question would be £21,000 a year.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask, knowing the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic attitude towards this matter, whether he will make an earnest endeavour to get it carried out this year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I assure the hon. Member there is nobody in this House more anxious than I am to bring this matter to a conclusion very much upon the basis of his question, but I cannot say more.

  Police-sergeant Charged with Assault (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now inform the House regarding the case heard at Newtownbutler on 21st October, 1909, in which Sergeant Carroll, R.I.C., was charged with assault at Maguiresbridge; whether the assault was committed in an attempt to prevent the hoisting of a Union Jack upon private grounds; whether the sergeant stated that he had acted under authority, but refused to produce his authority to the court without the consent of the Government; and whether he will state on what grounds the sergeant was authorised to interfere with persons who were hoisting the flag of their country on private grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Sergeant Carroll's appeal in this case has not yet been heard. The case is therefore sub judice, and I cannot discuss it.
  Captain CRAIG: Is there any appeal possible from the county court judge in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General may answer that question. I understand from him there is an appeal in such a case.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the Attorney-General whether in a case of this sort the Sergeant is allowed to go on in the same manner as he has been conducting himself ever since this serious case occurred pending the appeal being heard?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): There is no change in the position of the Sergeant pending the hearing of the appeal.
  Captain CRAIG: When will the case come on?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: At the approaching assizes?

  Payment of Jurors (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the hardships which jurors suffer in Ireland by being taken away from their work at the busiest seasons of the year and being forced to remain away from home for lengthy periods; and if he is prepared to introduce a Bill this Session providing for the payment of jurors?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not see my way, during the present Session at all events, to bring in a Bill to make so serious a change in the law.

  Flax-water Prosecutions (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary if he has received representations from Irish farmers regarding flax-water prosecutions; and what steps he proposes to take in order to protect the farmers from these vexatious and expensive prosecutions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture have received such representations from farmers, but no steps have as yet been taken in the matter pending the result of the investigations of the Departmental Committee on the Irish Flax Industry. The Committee will sit in public at an early date to take evidence.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether a circular has been issued by the Local Government Board to district councils who have improvement schemes in hand informing them that they can make no further advances under the Labourers Act of 1906; will he state how much of the £4,250,000 provided by Section 16 of that Act has been expended since it Game into operation; what are the causes which have produced the present stoppage of funds; and, seeing that the sum provided for under the Act is far from exhausted, and that delay in the building of cottages and disappointment to the labouring population must ensue from the action of the Local Government Board, will he see that the financial provisions of the Act of 1906 are enforced, that the money therein guaranteed shall be immediately forthcoming, and that public bodies shall not be asked to float loans in the open market to the public loss and the injury of the interests of the labouring classes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Circular referred to has been addressed by the Local Government Board to Rural District Councils who propose making further improvement schemes under the Labourers Acts, and intimates to them that having regard to the amount of loans already sanctioned and the sum estimated to be required for schemes already in hand it is impossible to guarantee that any portion of the fund of £4,250,000 provided by Section 16 of the Labourers Act of 1906 will be available for schemes which are only now being initiated. The total amount of loans sanctioned under the 1906 Act is £3,936,631, and the balance, namely, £313,369, is earmarked for improvement schemes already in progress. The hon. Member will therefore see that the Board's action involves no suspension of financial operations under the Act of 1906, and is merely intended to prevent disappointment to the labouring population through the formulation of new schemes which could not be financed out of the present fund.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  Right Hon. Joseph A. Pease, for the County of York (Southern part of the West Riding, Rotherham Division), after acceptance of office as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the room of Sir William Holland, Bart. (resigned).
  Mr. W. Wedgwood Benn, for the Tower Hamlets (St. George's Division), on re-election, after acceptance of office under the Crown as a Lord of the Treasury.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
  The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
  Mr. BEALE—Post Office (Lotteries and Obscene Matter)—Bill to confer on the Postmaster-General further powers to prevent the use of the Post for the conduct of Lotteries or traffic in Obscene Matter. (To be read a second time upon 5th April.)
  Mr. LANE-FOX—Small Holdings Acts Amendment—Bill to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907. (To be read a second time upon 22nd March.)

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) BILL.
Mr. J. F. REMNANTasked for leave to introduce a Bill to provide the members of the constabulary with one day's rest off duty in every seven. I desire to ask the permission of the House to introduce the Police (Weekly Rest-day) Bill, a measure which I am sure will command sympathy of every hon. Member of this House. The Bill seeks to secure for all members of the constabulary forces of the country one day's rest off duty in every seven. During the last two years a Select Committee, appointed by this House, has sat to inquire into this matter, and last year it reported unanimously in favour of granting, as a first step, this boon to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force. If hon. Members could spare the time to look at the proceedings before that Committee and examine their Report, they would find plenty of evidence in support of this measure; in fact, the unanimous opinion of the Committee was not only that this was a matter demanding immediate attention, but that it was also one upon which the efficiency of the force very largely depended. The Report of the Committee called attention to the increasing strain which is imposed upon the members of the police force by the service and by the responsibilities which are now placed upon it and which tend very seriously to increase.
The Report goes on to say that a certain number of years spent under present conditions tends to exhaust the vital energy,

863
both physical and mental, of its members, and:
"That some relief is absolutely essential and that without delay; and are of opinion that the provision of one day's rest in seven would he the best way of affording this relief."
They end up by saying:—
"Your Committee are convinced that, although, of course, an important element in the matter the figure of cost is not the one of primary importance."
To say that we all admire the force and are greatly indebted to it is only repeating a mere platitude. As we watch them carrying out their work under the difficult circumstances they are now in I think we may well describe them as:—
"Commanding, aiding, animating all,
Where foe appeared to press, or friend to fall."
If there is one Service more than another which demands greater nerve, endurance, and self-control it is the Police Force. It is in order to obtain the conditions necessary for carrying on the work that everybody must admit it is very necessary for the members of the force to be freed, as far as possible, from fatigue in order to carry out their duties. The tendency of recent days has not only been to take away Sunday, but efforts have been made to take away Saturday as well; and there is no doubt that if the police forces of this country had been allowed to organise they would have done so long before this, and would have called public attention to this question of a proper weekly rest-day. Under the conditions of their service they are unable to organise, and naturally they trust to us to see that their interests are safeguarded. Hon. Members of this House may have forgotten that the members of the Police Force get no Saturday half-holidays, and they very rarely get a Sunday to themselves, although they have a very irregular day off every now and then. They have no Bank Holidays, and they do not have holidays on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Boxing Day, and the least we can do is to see that every member of these Police Forces get at least one day's rest in every week.
Every hon. Member who sat upon the Select Committee will bear me out when I say it was hoped and believed that when public attention had been called to this great want by the Report of the Committee all the local authorities throughout the country would have followed the example set by the Committee, and would have given the members of their Police
864
Force one day's rest in every seven as they have full power to do. If they had done that there would have been no necessity to bring forward another Bill, but unfortunately they have in some instances specifically refused to give the members of their force one day off in seven. For this reason I believe every hon. Member of this House will agree that the Bill which I am introducing is one which ought to be passed without any delay. I should like to say how glad I am that the new Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) has been able to inaugurate his term of office by granting this boon to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force. However much we may differ in politics from the right hon. Gentleman, at all events he possesses the great characteristic of courage. Many a time has the right hon. Gentleman expressed his sympathy with the workers of this country, and he has declared that his only desire is to have the opportunity to show it. The Prime Minister has said that no social legislation is to be undertaken this Session which can be called controversial, but this Bill affords the Home Secretary an opportunity of gripping this question and assisting to ameliorate the condition of the police force by helping in every possible way to secure that this Bill shall be passed into law. I am sure nobody disagrees with this proposal. The Home Secretary, and those who sit with him on the Front Ministerial Bench, can give us facilities if they like for passing this measure into law. If the right hon. Gentleman does this he will be able to say that he has been instrumental in giving this great boon to thousands of loyal and deserving citizens in this country, and this will enable the police to have more of the pleasures of home life, which, after all, is the joy of every British subject, as well as his right. By taking this course the Government will assist in giving a measure of justice to these men which has already been too long delayed.
Leave given; Bill presented accordingly and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 7th March.)

TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
4.0 P.M.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should just like to put one matter right. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) asked me a question which was not strictly relevant to this Bill, but perhaps I had better put the matter right now, although it is really more relevant to the second Bill. It may, however, facilitate matters if I give the actual figures now. We have bought more War Loans during the current year than in the previous year. I will give the House the actual figures. In 1907–8 we bought £6,041,000, in 1908–9 £2,620,000, and last year only £339,000, making a total of £9,000,000, the reason being that assigned by me yesterday, that you cannot purchase War Loan now at the figure at which you can purchase Consols. As a matter of fact, it makes a difference of about 4s. 6d. per cent. We purchased War Loan at a very considerable rate up to December, 1908, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, if you purchase at a considerable rate you send up the price. The result was we drove up the War Loan to something like par. Then we discovered in December, 1908, three or four months before the Budget, that we could not purchase War Loan at the figure we could purchase Consols. As a matter of fact, we were 4s. 6d. per cent. to the bad. Then three months before the Budget we applied the whole of our money to the purchase of Consols instead of War Loan. The change of policy came then. Since we have been able to purchase a very considerable quantity of War Loan on fairly reasonable terms, but on the whole, as the hon. Baronet knows very well, now we are approaching the day for redemption, it is quite impossible for us to purchase at any figure which would make it worth our while investing. I thought it worth while to give that to the House, inasmuch as I gave yesterday figures which were not strictly accurate.
Sir F. BANBURY: I should not have said anything upon the second reading of the Bill if it had not been for the mistaken idea, which I am sorry to say my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) shares, which was given to the House yesterday, and also to a certain portion of the Press, because I see that in its leading article "The Times" stated it was absurd—it did not use those words,
866
but it led us to suppose that it was absurd—to pay off debt when you were at the same time borrowing. That is a platitude of the very worst description. It all depends upon the circumstances of the case. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether, if he happened to owe money on which he was paying interest at the rate of 5 per cent., and somebody offered to lend him it at 4 per cent., he would not accept the offer, and whether he would not thus be borrowing at the same time that he was paying off debt? I think that is a statement that nobody can deny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told us that, instead of buying £1,500,000 of War Loan, he only bought £300,000, and that, instead of having bought in the previous year £400,000 or £500,000, he bought,£2,600,000. The reason he gave for that was that he was able to buy Consols at 4s. 6d. per cent. cheaper than he could have bought War Loan. The Treasury Loan Bill, the second reading of which we are discussing, enables the right hon. Gentleman to borrow for seven months. I believe he has been borrowing on six months' Treasury bills at the rate of 2¼ per cent.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Some of it considerably lower than that.
Sir F. BANBURY: That makes my case all the stronger, but I am content to rest it on 2¼ per cent. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman, instead of reducing the whole of the Sinking Fund, had kept the balance of the Sinking Fund by deducting £3,500,000 and by borrowing the difference for six months, he could have bought Consols, which he told us yesterday or the day before would return £3 1s. 2d., and he would have obtained the money to buy them at £2 5s. He would, therefore, have made the difference between £2 5s. and £3 1s. 2d., and I say that is not a bad operation. The right hon. Gentleman may say to me, "Yes, that is true, but what is going to happen at the end of the six months?" That is the reason I moved my Amendment at £3,500,000. It was not because I approve of it. The right hon. Gentleman made his Budget on the assumption that he was going to take £3,500,000 from the Sinking Fund in order to meet the expenditure of the year, and he only provided sufficient taxes to meet the expenditure of the year, less £3,500,000. I took that £3,500,000 off because I am quite certain no House of Commons will if we have a Budget for 1909–10–and I hope we shall—increase the taxes. That ought

867
to have been done before, but, not having done it, they will not do it now. Therefore, that £3,500,000 had to be found. The balance which the right hon. Gentleman is taking from the Sinking Fund he is only taking until the revenue is collected, and when the revenue is collected, which, I presume, will be sooner or later, and at any rate before September, he will have the money to repay the Bill.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I interrupt the hon. Baronet? I do not want to enter into an argument with false premises. I think I pointed out yesterday that you cannot guarantee to get these taxes. The stamps you cannot get at all. You get no stamps for this year; they only accrue after the passage of the Budget.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I presume the right hon. Gentleman refers to the new Stamp Duties?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I mean the new Stamp Duties. Of course, you will have the old Stamp Duties. The ordinary Stamp Duties are producing well. Then, in addition to that, you have got one or two other duties. You cannot get the Land Taxes this year, and no one can tell how much I am going to lose on the Income Tax. I should not like to guarantee to the House of Commons that we collect the whole of that amount or anything approximating to the whole of that amount. The Super-tax is another. One hon. Member, I think the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) or the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), said we could not possibly get the Super-tax this year.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles).
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, a great financial authority. At any rate, I think there is a great deal in it. I have no money to meet this £2,800,000 in that time, and I must go on borrowing.
Sir F. BANBURY: Now I understand the real reason the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to practically suspend the whole of the Sinking Fund. He does not believe his Budget is going to realise what he thought it was going to realise. I do not doubt that.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must put that right. The hon. Baronet is not quite fair
868
in that respect. It is not that it will not realise what I anticipated. What I anticipated it would realise was on the assumption that it would pass in its ordinary course. It has not passed in its ordinary course, and that is the reason why I cannot collect these taxes and why I am not able to guarantee to the House that I will be able to find this £2,800,000.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to go into past history, but I could point out that there is no reason why we should not be discussing the Budget now, and, if we were, this necessity would not arise. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Land Taxes. They only yield a net return of £37,000, and the sum we are discussing is £2,800,000.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Thirty-seven thousand pounds!
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, after paying for valuation and dividing it with the local authorities the net result is £37,000, so really that is not worth discussing. We now understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe his Budget is going to bring in what he thought by £2,800,000. That, of course, is the real reason why the Sinking Fund is being suspended. Perhaps I may point out to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) the danger of doing this. What is really going to take place is that the public will not know what the deficiency on the Budget of 1909–10 is. My right hon. Friend will know, because he will add, beyond what is taken from the Sinking Fund, what has been received, and, having deducted the expenditure, he will know the deficit. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) will say, "Our Budget brings in so much; our expenditure is so much, and the difference is the surplus." He will leave out the fact that they have taken away the whole of the Sinking Fund, and the vast majority of the people will not remember that the Sinking Fund has been taken. The result will be that the country will be under a delusion as to its finances and the result of the Budget. I wanted to put that right. Though, no doubt, it is not wise to pay off debt if you have to pay a higher rate of interest, it is wise if you save money by so doing. You cannot lay down a hard and fast line that you must not pay off debt with one hand and borrow with the other. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and his predecessors when they were responsible for the finances of the country

869
borrowed large sums for naval and military expenditure, whilst at the same time paying off debt, so that my right hon. Friend borrowed with one hand whilst paying off with the other. I want to ask one question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Does he remember what he said on 23rd July, 1909?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): No.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then I will tell him.
"The price of Consols was kept up even to the low level at which it stands to-day, by constant purchases in the open market by the National Debt Commissioners. If these purchases were to stop the price of Consols would drop very much at once."
Does he still hold that opinion? The result of the policy of the Government is not only to place our finances in inextricable muddle, but to depress the price of Consols, and I would remind my hon. Friends below the Gangway that if Consols fall Irish Land Stock will fall too. They are, therefore, supporting the Government in a policy which will tend to depress Consols and Irish Land Stock at the same time. That is all I want to say, and I should be surprised to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend can prove that what I have said is in any way inaccurate.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should just like to take up that one point which the hon. Baronet has just dealt with. I think it is of interest not only to this House, but to people outside to know exactly what is going to happen in respect of the so-called suspension of the Sinking Fund with which this Bill deals. The provision for the interest and reduction of the fixed debt charge is £28,000,000, as fixed by the Act of 1905. Interest and management, including the interest on' terminable annuities, absorbs £18,200,000; and terminable annuities, capital charge, £2,500,000 The new Sinking Fund is £7,300,000, and out of the £28,000,000, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see there is a deadweight charge of £9,800,000. But you have to add to that sum various items, such as the China indemnity, Land Tax Redemption, Stamp Duty Composition, drawn Suez Canal shares—a further sum of £700,000, the existence of which has been entirely overlooked by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. Of this amount, therefore, there will be used in reduction of debt—terminable annuities, capital, £2,500,000; what are called lottery bonds,
870
for which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire was responsible, £1,000,000; and for the China indemnity, etc., £700,000. And in this year, arising from the operations of the fixed debt charge, there will be available for the reduction of debt, and this is a fact which the hon. Baronet opposite entirely overlooked, £4,200,000. But there is a further sum available for the reduction of permanent debt beyond that. It is a sum which arises from the remanet money available for the new Sinking Fund in the previous year. The complaint of the hon. Baronet was that the Sinking Fund was to be entirely suspended during this year. The provision for this year will amount to £4,200,000, but there will be a further available sum, the remanet of last year. Perhaps I had better repeat these rather complicated figures. In addition to the sum of £4,200,000, there will be available the remanet of last year (£7,600,000), less £2,100,000, leaving available from last year £5,566,000.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How is the £2,000,000 made up?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: By the repayment of deficiency advances £1,500,000, and buying up the Savings Bank deficiency of Account, £600,000. The sum, as I have said, will be £5,566,000, and if you add to this the £4,200,000, less the £1,000,000 for lottery bonds, there will be available £8,766,000 altogether.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We find considerable trouble in following the figures. There is a sum of £2,500,000 capital charge for the redemption of annuities, £1,000,000 for lottery bonds, £700,000 China indemnity, etc., making in all £4,200,000. There is the remanet of last year, £7,600,000, less £2,100,000, making £5,500,000, which, added to the £4,200,000, gives a total of £9,700,000.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Quite true. The sum available for the reduction of National Debt are £1,000,000 lottery bonds, £2,500,000 terminable annuities, and £700,000 China indemnity—total, £4,200,000, in addition to the remanet of £5,566,000. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, however, that these lottery bonds are not paid off until 18th April, which is just outside the financial year, and, therefore, that £1,000,000 does not come in. It is not lost, but it is gone before. It leaves, therefore, as the sum available for this year, £8,766,000. I only enumerate these very

871
difficult and complicated figures because there seems to be some doubt, a reasonable one, in the minds of the House as to the amount really available for the reduction of debt during the current year. If I may give two or three more simple figures I will point out that they leave us in this position. On 1st April, in the just concluding financial year, our deadweight debt amounted to £702,688,000. We apply towards the reduction of that debt £8,766,000, which, allowing for the price of Consols, will reduce the debt by about £9,500,000, so that when the operations for this year are complete, as they will be in the course of three weeks, we shall have got our deadweight debt down to £693,188,000–a not unsatisfactory record in a year, which, after all, had been one of very great financial difficulty.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate at all. Indeed I was not here when the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the discussion, and I am sorry I did not hear his speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary have both pointedly referred to me, and, therefore, although I did not wish to embark upon this discussion, I feel compelled to do so. My hon. Friend's contention was, I think, mainly as to the effect which our operation was going to have on the price of Consols. He suggested it would stop the purchase of Consols. The Financial Secretary, in reply to that, has shown how much money is available for the reduction of debt. But the whole of what he is calculating upon is not available for the reduction of Consols. The amount available for the reduction of debt—available at the Government's choice, and not specifically cither lottery bonds or annuities—would be about £6,200,000. But that sum, I presume, has, in the main, been already expended, and not much of it is available at the present moment. If my recollection serves me right, the Government are obliged to apply Sinking Fund money within a specified period, and cannot wait indefinitely for the prospects of the market which may be better for them, because it is worse for the holders of the stock. I think, therefore, the whole of the remanent of last year must be spent already, and it is not consequently available for the purchase of Consols. I imagine there is not much dispute between the Financial Secretary and myself
872
on the point that there is very little money now available for the specific purpose of purchasing Consols or supporting the market. I confess I was more interested in and surprised at the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Just bear in mind what occurred last year. Just before the introduction of the Budget it was rumoured that the Government brokers were active purchasers of Consols. We observed, and it seemed to justify the rumour, that the Government had carried over a very large amount of Sinking Fund money which, under ordinary circumstances, they would have applied at an earlier date—no less a sum than £6,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very hotly, and, I will admit, very naturally, resented the suggestion that he or any officials coming within his control were in any way manipulating the Sinking Fund in order to support Consols or to use them to support his Budget. He said that the reason why he had carried forward the very large sum of £6,000,000 was because he wished to purchase the War Loan. That War Loan was an expiring debt, and the nearer the date of the expiry the more the premium must wear down. He therefore desired to wait and get better terms on which to purchase, so that the price might approximate par more nearly. He, or the National Debt Commissioners, who, no doubt, acted in consultation with him—[Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE shook his head]—well, in my time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to be consulted in these matters, and I have no doubt he is now. But, at any rate, this money was held over in order to purchase the War Loan on more favourable terms. This occurred within a month or three weeks of the introduction of the Budget. If that be challenged, I have no doubt I can find it in Hansard. Questions were put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I myself took part in the interrogations. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman rebuked me hotly for giving any credit to the suggestion that he was operating on the Consol market in any unusual way. He added that he was not then prepared to give me the information for which I asked, as if he were to state exactly what he was doing that might prejudice his operations. He promised to do so, however, at a later stage, and, indeed, he did at a very much later stage, when we were far in advance with the Finance Bill, give me the explanation which I have repeated to the House, in re-

873
gard to his desire to purchase the War Loan. I accepted that to be a perfectly reasonable and natural explanation, and it seems to me that it would be so now if only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the National Debt Commissioners had pursued that course. I supposed they would, therefore, have bought £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of War Loan, but yesterday the Chancellor of tie Exchequer told me that was not so, and they had only bought £1,500,000, but much more than they did in the year before. I understand that now he has corrected those figures, and the actual facts are that he has bought only £300,000 War Loan, that being not more, but much less, than they had done in the previous year, when they had purchased £2,000,000. They did not hold over £6,000,000 in order to purchase £300,000; and what is the explanation of their course in holding over this very large sum, and of the discrepancy between their action as now revealed by the Chancellor and their intention as explained by him in the last Session of the last Parliament? It is a past business; it is not a matter which we can alter now if we could, and I do not desire to suggest that, if we got to the root of the matter, it would not be found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the National Debt Commissioners have really taken a course which is in the best interests of the country, although it is not the course which the Chancellor told us they were going to take, and which he equally explained at that time was in the best interest of the country. It now appears that, so far from having bought more War Loan than had been the case in the previous year, they had bought very much less; and therefore, so far from having bought less Consols during the time of which we are speaking and at which this question was put, they had bought more Consols, and the £6,000,000 was employed in purchasing Consols, and not in purchasing War Loan.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only speak by the leave of the House. I have no recollection of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman refers to, but I know he is very accurate in these matters, and his memory is only too good. Therefore I am not prepared to challenge his statement if he has a clear recollection of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures which I had before me and he had been responsible for the purchase he would have come to exactly the same conclusion as the National Debt Commissioners. It is purely a question of buying
874
in the best interests of the country. If you can buy Consols in such a way as to save an extra two or three shillings in interest, whereas if you buy War Loan you pay two or three shillings more, it is obviously in the interests of the country to buy Consols, all things being equal. It is a difference of a saving of 4s. 6d. per cent. We thought that by buying War Loan we were sending up the price, and undoubtedly there was a feeling in the City that it was the policy of the Government to buy War Loan. That is undoubtedly one of the disadvantages of discussing these questions across the floor of the House, as the information given is soon known in the City. The Government are asked questions as to their policy, and if they say, "To buy Consols," they advance Consols in the market. If I announce that their policy is to buy War Loan the price of War Loan goes up, and that is one of the disadvantages of discussing these matters in this way.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to interrupt him, may I say he is doing himself an injustice. He did not consent to discuss the War Loan, and it is only when he came to the Sinking Fund clause of his Budget that he made the statement that he would buy more.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The question is had the statement been made that it was more or less the policy of the Government to buy War Loan. We bought steadily from 29th April until 31st December, 1908, with the inevitable result that War Loan went up to par. It was clear at that date that you could buy Consols at a price which would be infinitely more beneficial to the Exchequer than the War Loan price was, so we dropped the policy of purchasing War Loan in favour of the policy of buying Consols, much to the interest of the Exchequer. Then I was under the impression that the War Loan might conceivably come down, once we had abandoned the policy of buying it, and it may be, but I do not recollect, that I gave the answer referred to, which led to the impression that we might, later on in the course of the year, be able to buy War Loan at a better figure. We were under the necessity of reducing the War Loan to a lower figure if we could, and here we are later bringing in a Bill to borrow. Having accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT what took place on 6th May,

875
1909, when the right hon. Gentleman questioned me:—
"Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind the effect of these Government purchases when congratulating himself that the effect of his Budget was to send up the price of Consols?
"Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is making a suggestion for which he has no warrant. If I may say to him, as one who has been in the Treasury, he is the last man in the House who ought to make such a suggestion. The Commissioners of National Debt are purchasing and have been purchasing because they have got money available for the reduction of debt, but there have been no exceptional transactions either before or after the Budget.
"Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman did not state to the House that he had refrained from expending on the redemption of debt the sum of £7,000,000 which was available for that purpose last year, and that he had this money to spend now; and whether it has not been so applied since his Budget statement?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I still say I am not buying in any exceptional form. The right hon. Gentleman is making a suggestion for which he has absolutely no warrant in fact. It was being applied steadily long before the Budget, and we have not increased The amount of purchases since."
That is all that passed, and there I did not say a word about the War Loan, but that accurately represents the real state of things when I answered the right hon. Gentleman. We were before the Budget steadily purchasing Consols, and if he looks at this White Paper he will see that also in December, 1908, which was four months before the Budget, we had then dropped purchasing War Loan because we found it was not profitable, and we went on buying Consols because the operation was more profitable. That is the real explanation, and if the right hon. Gentleman says that at any time I stated that it was our intention to revert to the practice of clearing off the War Loan, I cannot find anything there of that character.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No: it was later.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then it means that at that time we had some hope that the War Loan would go down to some figure which would enable us to buy on advantageous terms. The real answer is that if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the price of the War Loan at the time we bought Consols he will come to the conclusion that it was in the public interest to go on buying Consols. I am very much obliged to the House for listening to me.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I do not propose to follow the Socratic discussion between the two Front Benches, which tends to reduce the position of a private Member to that of a passive and extremely bored nonentity. I rise, with the indulgence of
876
the House, for a few moments to say this, that I for one will not retain my seat and see this Bill quietly go through when it is introduced for the purpose of giving effect to that grotesque system of finance which consists of borrowing from your own debtors, and also of placing a premium upon the avoidance by the public of their moral obligations to the State. If it be right and fair that the Government should permit the taxpayer who has not paid his taxes this year to retain the money in his pocket, and if it be right and fair that the Government should go even further and offer to borrow the money from him on interest, surely by every principle of justice and fair play the Government ought to grant a rebate by way of interest to those more public-spirited citizens who have paid all their taxes without waiting for legislation. Incidentally, also, may I just remind the House how the much-maligned brewer and distiller comes so splendidly out of this ordeal? He has paid up his taxes, it is the more reputable members of the community who are waiting until a more legal document is presented to them. For the life of me—perhaps I lack the business intelligence of some hon. Members—I cannot understand where we are and why it is we are here. Why cannot we face the simple fact? I am the last man in the world to care two pins about Parliamentary debating points—we are not a young men's debating society—and there is this indisputable fact: We had a General Election on two main issues—the position of the House of Lords and the Budget. On one the Government has had a victory; on the other it has had a defeat, and because the Government is not now in a position to pass the Budget through this House any more than it will be in a position to pass many other of us show measures of the last Parliament—because it cannot pass its Budget, is it not its paramount duty to act the statesman and put all questions of personal dignity and pride on one side and do that which can be done, and done easily, to prevent the absolute deadlock in the working of the financial machinery of the country?
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason why we do not at once proceed to the collection of the Income Tax, and to the collection of it by means of the legalisation of the collection of it? I speak subject to correction, but we have only to pass the Resolution in Committee of this House, and from that moment the tax becomes legally collectable, and if it be a question of the dignity of the

877
Government that is how they can save their dignity. I am dealing with the present position. The Government can save its dignity by adopting that course, because, unlike this particular Bill, that Resolution need not be sent to another place for its sanction. Here is a Government protesting that it will have no truck, negotiation, or dealing with the other House on the matter of finance, and yet we are asked to-day to assent to the second reading of a Bill which must go up to the other House for sanction. Why cannot we pass our Resolution? It can be done with two days' notice, and the tax will be collected next day. I say it is fatuity on the part of the Government. They may call it dignity, or what they like, but the man in the street calls it pique and folly. I press again for some definite simply-worded explanation of why the House cannot go into Committee on Monday next and legalise the collection of Income Tax?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers adopting another course. Authority was quoted by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the other day, going back some years, against the system of borrowing unless as a last resource. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in his Budget statement in the last Parliament, said he would not resort to what he called the vicious expedient of borrowing. That was his own phrase. And yet he reverts to it now out of sheer perversity, under no compulsion and under no necessity, and I re-echo what has been said as to the danger of annexing the whole of your available Sinking Fund and leaving yourself unable to cope with any sudden condition in the market for Consols. The Chancellor says "we will take the money from the Sinking Fund, we will not collect what is waiting for us, we prefer the vicious expedient of borrowing." No business Government, or business man would adopt such a course for two moments. I conclude, being one of those who are in favour of speaking for a short time and saying something during that time which has some plain meaning for the man in the street, by saying that this system of borrowing money from people who owe you money and refusing to ask them to pay you that which they owe, and offering them interest on their own money, is a ludicrous negation of every sound principle of finance and is the apotheosis of business ineptitude.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member has used arguments which sound unanswer-
878
able and assuredly have not yet been answered in any previous contribution which the Government have made to the discussion. It is perfectly easy to propose an Income Tax Resolution which would certainly be uncontroversial. I do not think the Irish Members, or any party in the House, have ever protested against the increased Income Tax. The matter could be done with the briefest possible Debate, if any at all. They have nothing to do but to put down an Income Tax Resolution for to-morrow, and if they like to make security abundantly secured they can also suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. There would not be the smallest difficulty in the whole matter. Silly as is their doctrine about the dignity of the House and going to the House of Lords and all the rest of it, it is not involved because it is done by Resolution in this House and there is no reference to the House of Lords at all. As a matter of fact, we do refer it to them by sending it in a legislative form instead of passing an Income Tax Resolution. It is the business of the Executive Government to conduct the country's affairs in a statesmanlike way. The House of Lords may have been right or wrong, but they were unquestionably exercising their legal powers, and the situation which has arisen has therefore arisen in the course of law, and the Government business is to do the best they can in the circumstances and not in a spirit of merely idiotic temper to refuse to spend five minutes of the House's time in securing a regular Resolution which would make the levying of Income Tax legal. I think the Government owe an explanation to the House and an apology to all reasonable men, and I am quite certain that if they persist in their action the country at large will know what to think of them and will set them down as party intriguers who are masquerading as statesmen.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a full explanation, and as he has already spoken twice he has asked me now to repeat the explanation given yesterday. The Noble Lord and the hon. Member have laid down as facts certain propositions which are by no means so indisputable as they would have the House to think. They say, "Introduce a Resolution in Committee of this House and immediately you legalise the collection of the Income Tax and you save the public from this terrible iniquity of having to borrow money from their debtors." The legal case is not quite what the hon. Member and

879
the Noble Lord believe. The mere introduction of a Resolution in Committee of this House would not legalise the collection of a penny of the Income Tax.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Am I wrong in thinking that the courts have held that a Resolution of this House does legalise the collection of any tax provided that subsequently, before the termination of the Session, it is embodied in an Act?
Mr. McKENNA: Even with the proviso which, with the acuteness we should expect of my hon. Friend, he added, the statement is not quite right. The introduction of a Resolution in this House would not legalise the collection of one pennyworth of Income Tax—neither the passing of the Resolution nor the Report of a Resolution. I will explain what the practice is—not what the law is, because that is very difficult to state. It has been generally recognised that when a Resolution has been introduced in Committee of Ways and Means with the intention of founding a Finance Bill upon that Resolution, the taxes imposed on the strength of the Resolution have been for a long period of time collected, and though the collection has not been resisted, and therefore the question in its naked form has not been tried, it has been assumed that the collection should be enforced, because the expected Act of Parliament is retrospective in its effect, and hence the legality of the collection of the tax from the date of the passing of the Resolution, and not from the date of the passing of the Act. A bare Resolution introduced in Committee of this House would only have the customary effect of financial Resolutions if it were to be the foundation of a future Act of Parliament legalising the taxes in the same Session. The Government are confronted with the fact that they are bound to proceed with certain necessary business in Supply, and they have only a very limited time before Easter during which that business must be concluded. It is perfectly true that a simple Resolution introduced in Committee of this House might be carried through with the consent of the whole House in a single evening, but that would not be enough. It would be necessary in following out the custom, which is the sole basis really for the enforcement of the tax, at the same time that you introduce your Resolution to lay before the Committee the whole financial scheme of the
880
Bill of which the Resolution forms the basis. There is no case in which a financial Resolution has been introduced in this House except upon the statement of a coming Bill. The coming Bill in this case would have to be the Finance Bill for the year 1909–10. Does the hon. Gentleman opposite assume that if the Government were to introduce this Resolution and at the same time were to lay down their financial plan for the year 1910, which would be the Budget which was fought for six months last year, hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept that Budget sub silentio? They would not. Now the Noble Lord tells us what his plan is. He says: "Have a series of financial Bills, one for Income Tax, one for the Land Tax, and one for the Super-tax." Whatever course this Government pursues they will not follow the course laid down by the House of Lords.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman misapprehends me. I do not suggest that he should bring in a number of Bills, but when we are dealing with the legal or customary effect of a Resolution, it is not necessary to look beyond the Resolution. No one knows whether the Government mean to bring in one Bill or another Bill. The effect of the Resolution is the same so long as some legislative effect is given to it.
Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is a great constitutional expert, but on this occasion I am quite unable to agree with him. The Resolution which is to be the foundation of a Bill is of no value at all.
Lord HUGH CECIL: It would be the foundation of the Bill.
Mr. McKENNA: Of what Bill? Whether the Noble Lord likes it or not, let him understand once for all that the only Bill of which the Resolution would be a foundation is the Budget. If the Noble Lord believes that that would be acceptable in this House without discussion, so that we could get it through and get the time to carry our necessary Supply before Easter, I can assure him that he is mistaken. A mere barren Resolution by itself would legalise nothing. The Resolution, if it has to be construed in the, law courts, would be construed as a Resolution forming the foundation of a Bill. The only Bill which we would introduce a Resolution to form the foundation of would be the Budget of last year, and we cannot assume that such a Bill as that could possibly pass before Easter in the present House of Commons.
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable assumption in supposing that the entire Budget of last year would not be passed without discussion on this side of the House, but how can it be more illegal to collect under another Resolution of this House the Income Tax still un paid—
Mr. McKENNA: Voluntarily.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Does that matter when you have got it?
Mr. McKENNA: It is not legal or illegal—it is quite voluntary.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There has been a large amount of Income Tax collected, and what objection can there be to the Government sending their demands for the uncollected part?
Mr. McKENNA: On the faith of what?
5.0 P.M.
Mr. PRETYMAN: On the faith of the Resolution of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that a Resolution must be the foundation of a Bill, and I think he will admit that all that is necessary is that it should be understood that the Resolution will be the foundation of a Bill which will include the actual provision covered by the Resolution.
Mr. McKENNA: That is the Budget.
Mr PRETYMAN: Not at all. Omne majus continet minus. You will have a Resolution limited in its scope, and so long as the Bill subsequently passed covers that Resolution, it is immaterial how much more the Bill contains. I presume that we shall not be engaged for two years in passing the Budget Bill through this House and into law.
Mr. McKENNA: It depends on the House of Lords.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It depends on the Government. Both the House of Lords and the Opposition are waiting for the Government to introduce it. There is no reluctance to discuss the Budget on this side of the House, and I presume that if a Resolution is passed here by the consent of both parties legalising the imposition of the Income Tax, it may be taken as an absolute certainty that whatever Government is in office—well, I do not wish to say the words, but my meaning is perfectly clear. It has been hitherto held that a Resolution legalises the imposition
882
of a tax. I will put it no higher than that. At any rate, Income Tax has been collected on such a Resolution for years, and such a Resolution can again be passed. It must follow that if a Resolution is passed without opposition, and with the consent of both parties, whatever patty brings in the subsequent Budget for the year 1910–11 will legalise that Resolution. It is obvious that that must be so. It is mere sophistry to play with words and to pretend that this cannot be done. The right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot say that if the Government really desire to do so they could not bring in this Resolution, that it would not result in the payment of the bulk or practically the whole of the Income Tax, and that there would not be an immense saving to the country. It would be an advantage to every business man concerned in the matter, and the names are legion and the interests at stake are very considerable. I cannot see on what ground except mere pettiness the Government will not do their best in this matter. The Government are making no effort of any kind to use the forms of the House to enable them to collect the Income Tax. Instead of that they are raising and making difficulties.
Mr. McKENNA: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest?
Mr. PRETYMAN: If they really wish to pass a Resolution they could find better reasons for doing it than for not doing it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a Resolution. If he does so, I do not think he will find that the consequences will be at all serious to the Government. It is not for us on this side of the House to support the credit of the Government in the country, but I say that they will lose a great deal of credit in the country if they do not bring in a Resolution to enable the Income Tax to be collected. The country will understand that they could do this if they liked, and that for party interests they are sacrificing the whole finance of the country.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I happened to be a Member of the last Parliament and I remember the speeches which were delivered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite declaring the absolute absurdity of our scheme, and asserting that a Resolution of this House gave us no right whatever to impose taxation. I listened to these speeches for about six months, and now the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) comes and informs us that all the speeches

883
delivered by his friends during that period were absolutely absurd, and now, as a matter of fact, what the House is asked to do is to pass a Resolution at once. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that a Resolution has no consequence whatever unless it is the basis of a Bill immediately to follow. Consequently, what the Noble Lord and his Friends propose would mean that we would be no further forward until the Resolution was followed up by a Bill to be placed before the House of Lords legalising the collection of the tax. It seems to me that that would be to admit the right of the House of Lords to interfere in the matter of finance, and to carry out the suggestion which has been made would be to place us in an utterly ridiculous position. We have no intention to do so. Let it be observed that we passed a Resolution imposing this Income Tax, and it includes a Super-tax in respect of incomes over a certain amount. We debated that Resolution for three nights before we got it passed, and it is included in the Finance Bill. We gave that part of the Legislature which is at the absolute disposal of the Noble Lord and his friends an opportunity of legalising the tax, and they objected to it. It is they who have made the trouble. It is they who have caused all this financial confusion. It is they who have caused all this loss, and on their shoulders must rest the responsibility.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I would like to say one word in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite calls the legal or constitutional side of the Question. I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward) because he has seized the occasion for raising the constitutional question, but this does not seem to me to be the proper time to go into a question of that kind. The matter stands in this way. I think it has been clearly shown that on business grounds it would be an advantage to the national finance that the Income Tax should be levied in the ordinary way. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the First Lord of the Admiralty who spoke on the Front Bench suggested for a moment that it is a satisfactory way of dealing with the finance to borrow from debtors instead of making them perform their duty by paying their taxes directly. The question involved is whether or not there is any technical difficulty in passing an Income Tax Resolution and putting the payment of Income Tax on a proper legal basis. Let me say,
884
in reference to that, that I cannot agree with the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Both as a matter of law and a matter of custom—I believe custom without any breach—Income Tax has been levied and paid on Resolutions passed in this House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the matter has never been tried in the courts, and so far as I know that is so, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell me if it is so. I do not think that there has been any necessity to try it in the courts. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in this that when a Resolution is passed it is contemplated at some time or other in the future that a Bill should be passed carrying everything that is proposed in the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the Income Tax will have to be levied under a Bill passed under the present conditions of the Constitution or under some conditions. I do not want to argue that point one way or another, but the Income Tax will certainly have to be levied under a Bill properly sanctioned in order that the finance of the country may be put in a proper position. After the passing of a Resolution by the House at this time, the Income Tax could be levied, as it always has been levied, and it would be practically impossible that any question should be raised.
Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I challenge him to show that that is not so. A Bill would be required to legalise ultimately what was in the Resolution. I want to separate the technical side of this question from matters of substance. No one can propose a Resolution of this kind except the Government. That is provided for by the Standing Orders, and, of course, if the Government do not propose a Resolution, other Members have no power in a matter of this sort. If the Government were to propose a Resolution and the subsequent steps necessary were carried out, then the Income Tax would be paid exactly as it has been for centuries in the past.
Mr. McKENNA: Centuries?
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: Well, I will not say centuries, but for fifty years. That will be sufficient for my argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the Bill?"] I do not want to raise a controversial

885
question at present. A Bill must be passed in some form or another. There is no question about that. I say that a Bill is bound to be passed, because the finance of the country cannot go on without one. We are agreed upon that point. That being so, I say without any hesitation that any Resolution passed in this House under these conditions with the sanction of the Government would give the legal right to levy the Income Tax in the same way as it has been raised for a large number of years, and no question could be effectively raised at all. Under those circumstances, instead of getting our debts paid you increase the indebtedness of the country and go upon the most expensive possible lines as regards national finance. I am quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me that as a matter of prudent finance the Income Tax ought to be regularised. I say that as a matter of constitutional practice and law there is not the least difficulty in the Government introducing a Resolution which will bring about that result. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite there seems to be fear that if action of this kind is taken, what was done by the House of Lords will be in some way condoned and recognised. I do not admit that that is so at all, and if that is not so, what is the reason for refusing to introduce a Resolution? I know of no financial or business reason of any sort or kind why this should not be done, and if a Resolution of that kind were adopted, then, under these circumstances, the Income Tax would be raised legally and in accordance with the recognised practice. I say legally, and I believe legally. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only say with humility that I disagree with him on this point. It can be raised legally, as it has always been raised, without any question. There is no greater difficulty in raising the rest of the Income Tax than in raising the portion that has been already paid. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt what would be the ordinary course, and what is admittedly a proper financial expedient, and not on any outside grounds to be led away into what is an extraordinary experiment, and an unfortunate experiment, namely, raising money by adding to your debts, when, if you collect your debts, you would be able to meet the requirements of national finance.
Colonel WILLIAMS: I would wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it
886
not the case that formerly every tax was passed under a Bill of its own, and that it is therefore perfectly easy if the Income Tax was passed—
Mr. DILLON: Which would leave the House of Lords master of the whole situation.
Colonel WILLIAMS: Is not this a fact, that Budgets are a modern invention, and that formerly every tax had its own Bill? I know something about the feeling of business men in the City, and I am quite certain that the party in the House which is going to gain most in the eyes of the people is that which consults the convenience of the business people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who threw out the Budget?"] I have kept out of the question of the Budget. I was rather appealing to the Government for once to—
Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Question before the House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Williams) has exceeded the question which he first proposed to ask when he got up, and has given his views of what the Government ought to do, according to the Opposition, about the finances of the year. It is a historic fact that in the old days every tax had its own Bill. It was a mischievous rule, and it was on account of the mischief caused by a rule of that kind that it was determined, some fifty or sixty years ago, that the Budget ought to be one financial Bill for the whole year. No doubt the hon. Member and the party which he supports would be very glad indeed to have all the taxes in separate Bills so that another place might deal with them quite freely, and might accept such taxes as they liked, and reject those which they did not like. The hon. Member opposite (Sir A. Cripps) used the word legalised several times with regard to the Income Tax. I do not want to say anything that would preclude any decision by the courts that a Resolution of the House of Commons is sufficient for the collection of the tax, but I entirely join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says that the passing of a Resolution in the House of Commons legalises, as the law now stands, the payment of any tax at all. I do not say that the courts might not decide that the Resolution of the House of Commons would be enough. I should be

887
very glad if they did so decide, but they certainly never have so decided up to now. Who are the Gentlemen who ask that this course of passing a Resolution should be adopted, and who want to dictate to the Government the arrangement of the business in this House?
When was it that the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) took an interest in the commercial interests of the country, and when was it that the party to which he has now been added thought first of all of the interests of commerce and of the people? I will tell my hon. and learned Friend opposite that by reason of the conduct of his Friends in another place there is not a penny of Income Tax which has already been paid which might not have to be re turned if an action or a petition of right were brought. The view of the hon. and learned Gentleman is this, that unless the Resolution of the House of Commons legalised it the collection of the tax would be illegal. Why then render absolutely illegal the levying of all the millions of taxes—Income Tax, Tea Duties, and those in the same category last year—to suit these Gentlemen now, because they want to arrange the business of the Government which the Government prefer to arrange for themselves? They want two or three weeks to pass a Resolution which might be tested in a court of law. There is not a single person who could be compelled on that Resolution, without having re course to the courts of law, to pay Income Tax. They pay it voluntarily. The business community are sensible in this country, and they paid it voluntarily last year, and they paid it voluntarily since the defeat of the Budget in the House of Lords, and they will go on paying if voluntarily—
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman assert that if the Resolution as to Income Tax were passed, and it were collected on that Resolution with a view to a Bill being subsequently introduced, the courts would order the refund of the tax?
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have not said so. I carefully said that the matter had not been decided by the courts. What I did say was that the question might be raised, that anybody might refuse to pay that Income Tax unless he were willing to pay it voluntarily, and that on that question being raised it would have to be decided by the courts. And all this is
888
to be done in order, apparently to put the Government in what is thought by the other side, and quite erroneously thought, a difficulty, in disarranging the business of the Government up to Easter in accordance with the course that has been planned by the Government and laid before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. They may argue as much as they like upon this question. As my right hon. Friends have said, the time between this and Easter is fully allocated, and we are prohibited from embarking on the discussion of any such Resolution; it cannot be done now. Is there anyone who says that such a Resolution would be passed before Easter? Is there anybody who, speaking with responsibility for the side opposite, will give some pledge that if a Resolution were put forward now it would go on without being discussed? But whether that be so or not it is for the Government of the day to decide what is to be done.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The Government have no right to ignore the public interests.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Noble Lord really assumes too much to himself in assuming that the Government of the day have no regard to the public interest. The public interest is their main consideration. What is the public interest in passing such a Resolution now unless it have a legal binding effect? I have already said that it has never been decided. I should be very glad if it were so decided. One thing is made perfectly clear by the discussion which we have had on this matter—whether the courts of law decide the legality of such a Resolution as is suggested or not, it only shows how absolutely important it is that the arranging of the finances of the country should be in the hands of one Assembly. Never before has there been any difficulty upon this matter, because it has always been assumed that what has passed this House would pass the other. These difficulties have been created entirely by the Noble Lord's Friends.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir S. Evans) asks who can assure him that if a Resolution for the payment of the Income Tax is introduced it would pass through without opposition on this side of the House. I think I may speak for every Member of the party which whom I have the honour to be associated in saying that such a

889
Resolution would certainly have their most cordial support. There might be opposition, but it would proceed from the Friends and allies of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would not be in the public interest. It would be purely for the purposes of party intrigue. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Unionist party are responsible for the confusion which has been occasioned in the finances of the country and the loss which the taxpayers suffer. You are responsible. You wore told that there was aboslute readiness on this side of the House among the Unionists, here and elsewhere, to concur in any measures necessary for regularising the collection of revenue. Upon a childish point of honour you decline to avail of this offer, and rather than have it said of you that you accept any suggestion, however reasonable, coming from a quarter that you dislike, you have preferred to throw the whole finances of the country into disorder and to occasion very great loss to the taxpayer. I think that the conduct of Gentlemen on that bench will undergo the judgment of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "The two elections yesterday."] We say that the Treasury Bench are engaged in promoting measures for the purpose of borrowing money, and they decline to take any measure for the purpose of ensuring payment of the moneys which ought to be recovered by the Government. Was there ever a more extravagant system of finance created than all these borrowings at interest of money which you will not take any steps for the purpose of recovering? For what purpose are such tactics being resorted to? Is it in the public interest? Is it not upon a pitiable and miserable point of honour as to whether or not you are to have your whole Budget at once?
The hon. and learned Member says that the practice has been to introduce all the taxes in one Budget. That has been the practice since the year 1861, and it was introduced for reasons which are familiar probably to most Members of the House; but will anyone tell me that, on a legal pedantry of this kind, you are going on borrowing money instead of raising it, as you know perfectly well you can, by regularising the payment under legal statute. You decline to do it for no valid reason, and we do put it to the House that it is simply monstrous that the Government should be borrowing money when they might pass a Resolution, bring in a Bill, and have the payment of the Income Tax legalised. I have really listened with
890
amazement to the observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to this matter. The whole responsibility for this waste of public money rests with him and his Friends.
Mr. DILLON: The plea for financial purity which has to-day come from right hon. and hon. Members above the Gangway is amazing. After long constitutional experience the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University spoke deliberately of the change that was made in the financial system of this country as a pitiable point. That change was made by Mr. Gladstone.
Sir R. FINLAY: I never said anything of the kind. I never said a word against that principle. I said it was ridiculous to insist on adhering to it rigorously under all the circumstances, when it is perfectly clear that a great loss is being occasioned to the taxpayer of the country by adhering to it.
Mr. DILLON: I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said:—
"It is a pitiable point of order that you should insist upon having the whole of your Budget at once."
Is it a pitiable point of Order that this House should go back to the condition of things from which the financial policy of Mr. Gladstone rescued us? We had the whole inner meaning of this party trickery, as hon. Members above the Gangway call it—though we call their proceedings party trickery—revealed by those who put the question to the Solicitor-General, "Why not recur to the principle of passing several Finance Bills"? That would practically enable the House of Lords to dictate what were to be the taxes of this country—a practice which was put a stop to by Mr. Gladstone more than half a century ago, when he established the supremacy of this House on questions of finance. You are invited now, in order to get clear of the financial muddle which hon. Members above the Gangway alone have made, to rescue them from the indignation of the business people of this country. You are invited, as I say, to bow your necks under the yoke of the House of Lords, and you are invited to recur to that system of passing half a dozen Finance Bills, so that the House of Lords can pick and choose and reject certain taxes without throwing the whole finances of the country into confusion. No; in vain is the net spread in sight of any bird. The Liberal party, I trust, will never be fools enough to be caught by such chaff as that. The House of Lords has created this financial confusion.

891
I do not wonder that hon. Members above the Gangway are pitiably anxious that something should be done to clear up this financial situation. They are extremely uneasy about the state of finances for which they are responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: "You would have had the Budget if it were not for yourselves."] Are you going to support the Budget? Answer me that question. You are calling for the Budget to be produced, are you going to support it? Answer me, and I will answer you. The point at issue at this moment is whether the House of Commons, on the invitation of the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, is going to recur to the old British principle of having half a dozen Finance Bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly not."] I rather think the House of Commons has made up its mind to adopt a very different course indeed. It is not going to go back, and I hope and trust it is going to go forward.
There is great anxiety among hon. Members above the Gangway to hear what the party to which I belong will do about the Budget, but we on the Irish Benches are anxious to know what they will do. There is another House of Parliament. Who will tell us what they have to say about the Budget? Supposing we were to pass the Budget to-morrow, what man living could give this House security that it will not get another slap in the face? Who can speak for the House of Lords? Lord Lansdowne cannot speak for the House of Lords. I remember more than one case where Lord Lansdowne was opposed, I suppose by "the wild men of the woods." Hon. Members above the Gangway are very eloquent on the question of the indignation of the business community, but I ask them why they did not go to St. George's-in-the-East, where there was a bye-election?
Mr. F. E. SMITH: There was a Cork bye-election.
Mr. DILLON: Is Cork, inhabited by a business community, in the great majority?
Mr. F. E. SMITH: It is inhabited by business men.
Mr. DILLON: I was speaking about the business community of Great Britain, and, for myself, I see no sign of the rising indignation of business men, though I think there is a great deal of indignation against the House of Lords, for they, and they alone, are responsible.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I rise with some trepidation in this tremendous conflict between the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, and the most learned First Lord of the Admiralty. I believe much of their law not to be quite sound, and as to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I am afraid his history is at fault. It is not half a century ago that the Budget was first put into one Bill. No, Sir, it was first put into one Bill, first called a Finance Bill, and first made an omnibus Bill, in the year 1894. So little is it true, that even since then the whole finance of the year has not been put into one Bill. We have the War Loans Bill before us now. Ten years ago that was a separate Bill, yet it was passed as a part of the finance of the year, and a very important part. Therefore the hon. Member opposite will recognise that I am telling him the facts of history, but whether the learned Gentleman who has just spoken will agree with what I believe to be the law, I do not know. But we have had from the opposite benches an engaging exhibition to-day. They are not full of enmity or hatred; on the contrary, they are very friendly, very caressing, and they offer us all sorts of presents if we agree to the course they are pleased to suggest. There is an old Latin tag, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, which for the benefit of Members representing universities I will translate. It means: I fear the Greeks even when they are bearing presents." Those are my feelings with regard to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Noble Lord says that if the Resolution were introduced it would not meet with any opposition. Does the Noble Lord speak for his Leader in this House? He has endeavoured on many occasions to explain to an admiring world what his Leader intended to mean, and every time the action of his Leader has disappointed and falsified his expectation. I do not think he has any quality to make such a promise on behalf of his Leader, and still less any quality to make a promise on behalf of the House of Lords. But even with such a promise that the Resolution would be passed, as the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out, without some undertaking that the Bill to be founded upon it would be passed, the Resolution would be idle. May I come to what I conceive to be the effect of these Resolutions. I do not agree with the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Resolution with regard to Income Tax only takes effect from the date when it has passed this House. Does he adhere to that statement?
Mr. McKENNA: The Resolution usually states the date, but the date is not the same date as that of the passing of the Act. The Act dates back retrospectively.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Quite so. The First Lord of the Admiralty will recollect that last year the Resolution was not passed by this House until the 29th of May, but it was retroactive hack to the 5th April, which is the Income Tax day. There is always some difficulty as to the interval between the 5th April and the 29th May. I do not see how this is to be bridged over. With regard to the Resolutions, therefore, although I do not know what the courts of law might hold, certainly the practice, the very long and unbroken practice is this—and this long and unbroken practice I conceive to amount to a usage, which becomes part of the common law, which could be enforced in the courts—the practice has been this: That you pass the Resolution in order to avoid inconvenience, months of palpable inconvenience, that will arise to the revenue from giving people time to rush in goods—you tax and you immediately begin to levy duties; that is because you anticipate with certainty that the Act imposing the duty will be passed, and be passed soon. The Resolution is made active for a month or two, which is taken up in the passing of the Act, but it has never been considered, and will not, I believe, be considered possible to keep the virtue of the Resolution during nine, ten, or eleven months; therefore, even if the Finance Bill had not been rejected, I should have very great doubt as to the virtue of the Resolutions passed in the last Parliament. The House will know from the speech I made the day before yesterday that I am strongly impressed with the necessity of doing something, and at once, in order to legalise the taxes that have been levied. The Income Tax Commissioners came to me with a bludgeon and extorted from me the Income Tax, telling me that they acted by virtue of an Act of Parliament. It was not true, but I believed it. These Commissioners ought to be protected against the evil fate which befell Empson and Dudley for doing exactly the same thing. They ought to have some indemnity for their conduct. I have no doubt they acted, poor things, for the best, but that they acted under the order of the Treasury I presume is almost certain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not deny it, I believe. I think, first of all, it is very important that their action should be legalised, and, secondly, that
894
this £25,000,000 of money which is waiting us should be collected, and the difficulty removed. I have been, and am still, anxious to see this carried out, as I do think it is the most pressing and instant thing that this House has to deal with, or that His Majesty's? Government have to deal with. I do think, and I know, that the country at large is looking with the gravest anxiety for some settlement of this question of taxes paid and of taxes unpaid. It is not so simple as the Noble Lord thinks, but I will assume for the moment that the Noble Lord's Leader will follow him, which is a large assumption. However, I assume it for the moment, and I assume that the Resolution passes this House quickly. I am not sure that it would, but I will assume it—and then what about the Bill? Can the Noble Lord give us any undertaking about the Bill, because, as the First Lord of the Admiralty has said, the Resolution is not effective, and can never really and fairly be acted upon, and would never be enforced by the courts, only in view of the probability—or the certainty, indeed—that you meant to found a Bill upon it. What will the Noble Lord say about the Bill? Will he promise the Bill? No, I am afraid he will not. That really leaves us in the same difficulty, that here we pass a Resolution without founding a Bill upon it.
I had hoped that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might have thought it worth his while to be present on an occasion of this sort, although it may not, perhaps, be possible, to give us some assurance. I should then feel very differently about the matter, convinced as I am of the instant necessity for levying the taxes, and persuaded as I am that the Resolution would be passed without probably any great difficulty in this House. It must be a Resolution dealing with a Bill, and there must be a Bill passed through all its stages in this House, and so far I have received no assurance or anything like an assurance that the whole of the party opposite would join in facilitating the Resolution and in passing the Bill. And, if they would, what about the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. I observed that when the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was asked whether they would agree to passing the Budget or pass this part of it, instead of replying like an Irishman he asked another question like a Scotsman. Therefore I am still in doubt about this course, which I should very much like to see adopted. I should wish to see the course adopted that is now so strongly

895
recommended by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I foresee difficulties, and, above all, I can see no adequate assurance that either the Resolution would be carried without opposition or that the Bill founded upon it would not be stopped either in this place or in another place.
Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: I have been wondering during this discussion what is the real reason why the Government object to bringing forward their Resolution. I take it that the real reason is that if they brought forward and passed that Resolution they would have to bring in a Bill subsequently founded upon that Resolution and pass it through this House. There are only two alternatives. One is to bring in a Bill dealing with the Income Tax alone, which, for some mysterious party reason, founded, I presume, upon some party tactics, they have the strongest possible objection to do. The other alternative is to bring in the Budget Bill at the earliest possible opportunity, but that is the last thing they want to do. When this House met, apparently the Budget Bill was to be introduced at an early stage, or, at any rate, pushed forward as far as the House will allow it to go; but under the pressure from these benches that desire to bring forward the Budget Bill has faded and faded away until it appears to me that the last Bill which the Government—this great Government, with its majority of 124–want to produce is the people's Budget, and put it before the judgment of the House. Have they got tired of the people's Budget already? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer ashamed of this people's Budget of which we heard so much during the election and before it, and, if not, why cannot we see it, why can it not be brought forward and submitted either for acceptance or rejection at the hands of this House?
Surely the time has come when these discreditable party tactics might be abandoned? Let the Government have the courage of their convictions. Are you going to pass the Budget at all, are you even going to bring it forward before this House. If I had been asked that question on the first Monday the House met, and having listened to the Prime Minister on that day, I should say of course we should see the Budget. He told us we should not only see it but pass it through this House before the spring recess. When I listened to the Prime Minister last Monday my mind was a complete blank and confusion.
896
It was, and I do not mind saying so, and anyone listening to the Prime Minister on that occasion would be in a similar state. When I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it seemed to me exceedingly doubtful whether we shall ever see that people's Budget in this House, and still more doubtful whether that people's Budget will be ever submitted to the judgment of the people. Let me appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let him put aside these tactics, let him come to business, let him produce his Resolutions, let him produce his Budget Bill as soon after it as he can, and if you are beaten as you probably will be take your beating like men. And the country will respect you far more than if the Government of this country is to be carried on by a system of cabal, of intrigue, and of surrender.
Mr. LINCOLN: I rise to give expression to my utter amazement and boundless bewilderment at the arguments used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. They seem to me over anxious to pass the Budget which they denounced in the country. We are told that they have submitted the Budget to the judgment of the people, and we have been told by the Leader of the Opposition that the judgment of the people is against the Budget. Why, then, should hon. and right hon. Gentlemen be so anxious to pass a Budget of which they disapprove?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the point we have been discussing during the last two or three hours. The general discussion upon which he is now entering forms no part of the discussion hitherto.
Mr. LINCOLN: I beg to apologise. The Government wants to borrow money because they cannot introduce the Budget, and they cannot introduce the Budget first of all because there is no time, and hence we must proceed by way of borrowing to pay the necessary monies to carry on the Government of the country. I was amazed to hear the profuse professions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the business interests of the country. They said why are you going to borrow money, as it is against the business interests of the country. That was certainly a question to be considered last year when they threw out the Budget. It is too late to consider the business interests of the country now. Furthermore, how in the name of reason could we even if we had the time to introduce the Budget, send it up

897
to the same House which rejected it once before? It would be quite illogical, and we cannot send up the Budget to the other House before we have taken away the power from that House to reject it once more. That is an additional reason why the Government should raise money not by a Finance Bill, but by borrowing. If any serious financial crisis will result from that it is only hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches who will be blamed for it. I am quite sure that we are not afraid of an election or the judgment of the people. We are quite willing to submit our procedure to the judgment of the people, and we shall ask them who is to blame that the Government, for the first time perhaps in British history, has been refused supplies for the year, and that we have to borrow large sums of money for which we have to pay. Who is to blame for that, and for the fact that we have no Budget for 1909–1910? Surely it is too late in the day to blame us for this. It is the other House and the Opposition who are responsible for this deadlock in the financial situation of the country. I am quite certain that the wrath and indignation of the people will pass judgment on the Opposition. I heartily support raising the money by borrowing and keeping back the Budget until the power is taken away from the other House of refusing it once more.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. R. A. COOPER: My position as a new Member in this House is very analogous to that of the medical student when he attempts his first lecture in the operating room, and for this reason, that it is very patent, at any rate to myself as a new Member, what the interests of the country are in this matter that is before the House, i.e., the question as to whether it is wise for the Government to have the opportunity of borrowing or to put into force the alternative scheme of raising money by such Resolutions as have been referred to and the levying at once of the Income Tax. The reasons, I have learned from hon. Members, particularly on the other side, as to why they are borrowing in preference to any attempt to immediately raise the Income Tax for this year, is, first, the fear as to what will be the fate such a Resolution would meet with when it got to the other House. I do not believe that there can be any Members in this House who have the slightest doubt that if such a Resolution were passed in
898
this House that, in the interests of the ratepayers, it would meet with no opposition from the other House. Is it not a fact that these very Bills we are discussing this afternoon, the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Bill and the War Loan (Redemption) Bill, have themselves got to go before the House of Lords? The second reason why I understand it is urged that the Income Tax should not be at once levied is because hon. Members on the other side of the House regard it as breaking financial precedents since the year 1861 of levying the taxes of the country in one whole Budget instead of in separate Bills, which, as they suggest with perfect correctness, do give the other House the opportunity of picking and choosing which taxes they will have and which they will refuse. But we are not at the present time discussing the financial arrangements for the whole of the year. We are in exceptional circumstances, and whilst we may all agree that as a general rule taxes should be raised in one Budget and not in parts, those special circumstances would justify, if it is the interests of the taxpayer, the putting into force at once of a Resolution levying the Income Tax. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked last night why we on these benches were so anxious to see brought before the House a Budget which we so heartily detest. There are many reasons, but one reason why I personally should like to see the Budget brought forward is that it would give an opportunity to show the country to what an extent the bartering of political principles is going on in this House between one group and another, to the detriment of the interests of the country at large.
Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.

WAR LOAN (REDEMPTION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask a question with regard to a very peculiar provision in the Schedule of this Bill. Paragraph 4 says:—
"If any person credited in pursuance of the foregoing provisions with money payable to him on the redemption of War

899
Stock does not claim his money before 31st May, 1910, the money shall be invested forthwith by the Bank in Two and a Half per cent. Consolidated Stock at the price of the day in the names of the respective stockholders."
Never in our history has a similar provision appeared in any Bill dealing with the redemption of a part of the debt of the country. The War Loan was introduced ten years ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and £30,000,000 were borrowed under its provisions. Under that Act the State guaranteed to pay on 5th April, 1910, to the holders of that stock their money in full, but instead of fulfilling its obligations the Government now say that unless before 31st May, less than two months from the date of redemption, the owners have applied to the Bank of England for it, their money will be invested in Consols. Everyone conversant with business in the City or with the investment of money knows that the ordinary investor is very careless about the different dates of payment in connection with the stock which he holds. It will not happen to people in the City; they will know exactly what has taken place, and will claim their money; but in a large number of cases the widow, the lady investor, and the small investor generally will not know what is going on. Until the time for the dividend comes round and they find they have no dividend, they will take no steps to claim their money; and then instead of getting their money, they will get a certain amount of Two and a Half per Cent. Consolidated Stock. I think I can guess the reason, but I can see no justification whatever for this proposal. People may be abroad or ill; their stock may be in the hands of three or four trustees, one or two of whom, whose signatures would be necessary, may be abroad; but without saying a word to the people the Government are going to invest their money in Consols. I believe this is the reason for the proposal. The Government have suspended the Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman told us last July that if the Sinking Fund were stopped Consols would go down. I believe he is going to take advantage of the fact that many people are not as wide-awake as they ought to be in order to use their money to support the market by buying Consols instead of paying out the cash. When the House goes into Committee on this Bill I shall move the omission of this Sub-section. I
900
do not think the Government can have considered what they are doing. It has never been the custom of this country to break faith with the people who have lent them money. I maintain that this will be breaking faith with them, because it will be taking advantage of the fact that many people are ignorant that the loan is being converted.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet has made a mountain out of a molehill. As soon as the provisions of this Schedule were known in the City I took an opportunity of inquiring what was the opinion of persons there upon this proposal, and I am led to believe that there is no feeling of dislike, resentment, or opposition to it in any part of the market. The hon. Baronet suggested that there was some such feeling.
Sir F. BANBURY: No.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Then he was speaking only for himself, and not on behalf of the City of London as a commercial community.
Sir F. BANBURY: I was speaking on behalf of the investors as a whole.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet has suggested that this is an unprecedented course. It is nothing of the sort. Lord Goschen, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had a precisely similar provision in the National Debt Redemption Act of 1889. I will read the Section, and the House will see how closely the words of the present proposal follow the words of Lord Goschen's provision. The present Bill says:—
"If any person credited in pursuance of the foregoing provisions with money payable to him on the redemption of the War Stock does not claim his money before 31st May, 1910, the money shall be invested forthwith by the Bank in Two and a Half per Cent. Consolidated Stock at the price of the day in the name of the respective stockholders."
The Section in the Act of 1889 runs as follows:—
"If any person credited in pursuance of this Act with money payable to him on the redemption of stock does not claim that money before 1st October, 1889, the Treasury shall in the prescribed manner give him in exchange for the stock an equal nominal amount of Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Consolidated Stock.…"

901
There is no difference at all. The intention in both cases is that if the stockholder for one reason or another does not claim his money from the Bank, instead of the money lying in the coffers of the Bank in an unreproductive form, it shall be invested for the owner, and that the interest on it shall accrue to his credit, so that he may not suffer—not from his negligence or carelessness, but from his ignorance of the transaction which has taken place. There is no thought at the back of the mind of the Government, as suggested by the hon. Member, of affecting the price of Consols. The suggestion was made not by us but to us, and it is for the convenience of those persons who for one reason or another may not be in a position to claim their money by the date named.
Sir F. BANBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the date when Lord Goschen issued his circular, and the date when he terminated the option?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Bill passed on 11th April, 1889, and the time of expiry was 1st October.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is six months.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Is our proposal in any way more objectionable?
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes; the longer the time, the more opportunity there is for the holders to know what is going on.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly; and the longer the time for the money to lie unreproductive. Under our proposal, at the end of two months the holder will begin getting his interest, while in the other case he would not get it for six months. The hon. Baronet will be within his rights in moving the deletion of this paragraph in Committee, but, as far as my information goes, he will obtain no backing in such a course from the community which he represents politically in this House. I trust that this explanation is satisfactory, and that the House will support the Bill in this particular.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the Debate which took place on the last Bill had entered on its more exciting stage, I was endeavouring to elicit some information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I referred to what occurred in the last Session of Parliament. I was speaking from memory, and without the opportunity at the moment of being able to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT so as to
902
read to the House the exact words of either myself or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor did not remember the circumstances exactly, but he was good enough to say that I was generally accurate in these matters, and that my memory was generally only too good. I have now got the actual passages. I would venture to point out that when they are read it will be found that the course which the Government has pursued is not only incompatible with their intention—as I suggest—but is actually at variance with statements that they made to the House. On May 20th last, in the course of the discussion on the Budget Resolutions, I said:
"I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. In his Budget statement he incidentally mentioned that he had carried forward from last year to this year something like £7,000,000 of Sinking Fund money."
I went on to say:
"I accept the passing phrase of the right hon. Gentleman in which he said that the condition of affairs (in the last year, 1908) did not make it expedient to expend money in the reduction of debt in the last half of last year. That is a statement that I am unable to understand.… Surely Consols were low enough last autumn, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have expected that he was going to drive them lower still."
Perhaps I was wrong then. In any case they are low enough now.
"Why (I asked) did he think he would have the opportunity of laying out his money this year (1909) better than in the closing months of last year? I will undertake to say that he cannot be buying Consols, on an average, cheaper after the last financial year than he could have bought them during the last financial year."
The question I sought to put to him was this:—
"What was the reason for carrying forward this very unusual sum, and what were the circumstances which rendered it inexpedient to expend the money last year?"
In the previous year the carry forward was about £1,000,000. We find last year the carry forward was £7,000,000. My request was for information why this very large sum was carried forward. Here is the Chancellor's answer:—
"The right hon. Gentleman has asked me about the retention of this money. The real reason is we were buying War Loans."
Then he went on to give the explanation to which I have already referred:—
"It is to be redeemed next year at par. We were paying 101 or 102 for what we could get at par, and what we would have to pay at par in 1910. Therefore as we get nearer 1910, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, these things drop to something nearer par because everyone knows perfectly well that they can be bought out in 1910 at par, and therefore they would not be prepared to put the same figure on it as at an earlier period. That is the real explanation."

903
That was not the real explanation, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now informed us that he had ceased to buy War Loans in December, 1908. By the published statement of the payment made of the Reduction of Debt it is to be seen that the Government never had paid more than 100 for War Loans, and that they had not in fact been paying 101 or 102. In any case they had ceased purchasing War Loans and they were purchasing Consols. We were told that was not the case, and that they did not hold the money over in order to buy War Loans, because in fact they were not buying them. Not merely had they not bought any since Christmas, but from April onwards, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to-day in correction of his figure of yesterday, they had purchased only £300,000 of War Loans in all, and the whole of the rest of the £7,000,000, or the major portion of it, I presume, went in Consols. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he very fairly accepted my recollection, seemed to doubt whether I had referred to chapter and verse. I have by these passages, I think, justified what I said, and I think the Chancellor himself must have found out after this statement was given to the House that he had been misled—had forgotten what was taking place. The House ought to have had his correction at the time, and it ought not to have been left to us to have to elicit it merely by chance so long after the mistake was made.
I make one other observation as regards the value of the purchase. The War Loan was carrying 2¾ per cent., Consols were carrying 2½ per cent. In the consideration of the price you have to take that into account. If you buy War Loans you save the higher interest. Of course, that depends upon the price you buy them, and the price is determined by that very fact that they are carried for a short period at a higher rate of interest, and that the nearer the time they are redeemed the nearer they come to par. I think I have justified the statement made earlier in the day. I cannot explain or reconcile the explanation given by the Government—given, I have no doubt, in perfectly good faith at the time it was made.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for recalling the references, but I do not think they altogether bear out the interpretation placed upon them by him. What I seem to have
904
said was that we were buying War Loans by means of the £7,000,000. That is perfectly correct. We were buying War Loans up to the end of December. But we could not have spent the whole of that sum between December and March profitably, and the right hon. Gentleman would know that. To buy large quantities of stock, whether it be War Loans or Consols, would be to simply send up the market against ourselves. Therefore we could not possibly have expended profitably that sum of money between those times. The real question is whether we have spent that money to the best advantage and for the interests of the taxpayers of this country, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman will go through the list and see our purchases he will assent that the National Debt Commissioners have spent that money undoubtedly economically, and very much to the advantage of the taxpayer. He will find that we avoided purchasing such quantities as would put up the market to our detriment. If we had spent the whole of the £7,000,000 between December and April we should have simply put up the market against ourselves, whereas by spreading it over a much larger period we were enabled to purchase at such a rate and to make the money go very much further than it would have done. That is really what happened. The right hon. Gentleman says that the higher rate of interest upon the War Loan is what the investor would look at when he was buying that War Loan, and when he was deciding whether to purchase War Loans or Consols. That is not so. They have always to take into account the nearness of the time of redemption. These are very important elements. The right hon. Gentleman emphasises one element, but a much more important element in sending up the price of War Stock he omitted—the prospect of the Government entering the market as competitors for the purpose of purchasing stock.
There are three elements, and the right hon. Gentleman has only mentioned one. We have to take all these things into account. I am certain in regard to this—it was worked out to-day by able officials—that we benefited to the extent of 4s. 6d. per cent. in changing our method of purchase in December, 1909; dropping our policy of purchasing War Loans and entering the market to purchase Consols. Really, I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would rather have commended our policy in that

905
respect, instead of standing pedantically by any kind of policy of redeeming a War Loan purely because it was coming into the market in April, 1910. We made up our minds to spend the money in the best way posible, and in a way, I am certain, that would be done under the Trustees Act by those who bought on behalf of private individuals. We have done it profitably, and in the most businesslike way, and I do not see how we could have spent it more profitably or more in the interests of the taxpayer.
Mr. JOHN WARD: The discussion between the two Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the Gentleman that I think imposed this War Loan at the first, and the Gentleman who is redeeming it by this Bill, is no doubt very interesting. But I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether it includes the possibility of referring to the circumstances that made this Loan and its redemption at the present time necessary. We are now discussing a Bill for the purpose of finding £21,000,000 for the purpose of squaring an account connected with the war, which, after all, I believe most of us, including some Members of the Opposition, are now satisfied was one of the most disgraceful occurrences—
Mr. SPEAKER: That is outside the question. It has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
Mr. JOHN WARD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know if it is possible, when discussing a measure for paying certain debts, to consider whether these debts should have been incurred?
Mr. SPEAKER: To that question I should say, certainly, no. The debt has been incurred, and the question is whether you are going to pay it or not.
Mr. JOHN WARD: If we are not able, in considering the way in which the loan should be repaid, to discuss the circum stances under which it was obtained, I think the Government would have been better employed in bringing in a Bill for fixing it pro rata upon those whose con duct made the expenditure necessary—
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.

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

SUPPLY.

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1909–10.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £689,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1910, for Additional Expenditure on the following services, namely:—

  Vote 8.—Shipbuilding, Repairs Maintenance, etc. (Section III. Contract Work)

  £830,000

  Vote 9.—Naval Armaments

  86,000

  Vote 10.—Works, Buildings, and Repairs, etc.

  100

  £916,100

  Less other Surpluses

  227,000

  £689,100

  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I propose to make a brief statement explanatory of the figures which have just been read from the Chair. The Committee will remember that when the Shipbuilding Vote was under discussion last July and the House then authorised the proposals of the Government to give the necessary orders for laying down early in the next financial year the four ships which have been frequently described as contingent ships, I then promised on behalf of the Government that if any part of the expenditure upon these four ships became payable in the course of the present financial year, I would introduce in this Committee a Supplementary Estimate in order to authorise the expenditure. Of the total of the present Vote the sum of £457,000 is due to expenditure on the four contingent ships. The items are made up as follows: Machinery, £60,000; hulls, £85,000; armour, £60,000; gun-mountings, £208,000, and guns, £44,000. The Committee will be interested to know the dates when the orders were given. They are as follows: Machinery and hulls, January last; armour, January; gun-mountings and guns, partly in December and partly in January.
  Mr. GIBSON-BOWLES: When did you begin? What was the first date on which you gave orders?
  Mr. McKENNA: Some time in December; I think in the first week of December, but I am not perfectly sure, but I can find out the date before this Debate is over. That is all I have to say to the Committtee upon the subject of contingent ships, which was fully debated last July, and authority given to the Government to give the necessary orders. The pledge then made was that the ships should be ordered in time to secure that they should be completed, ready for commission, before 31st March, 1912. In recent construction I am glad to say that we have been able to have ships completed, from the date of laying the keel to the time of commission, in less than twenty-four months. The "Vanguard," which was commissioned the other day, has actually taken, from the date of laying the keel, twenty-three months. Slight delay has occurred in one or two other ships, but in every case now we approximate to the period I have mentioned of twenty-four months. I have no reason to suppose that we should not be able, if we press our work, to complete our ships from the laying of the keel to the time of commission in less time than the two years I have mentioned. The Committee must understand that the period of which I now speak is the period from the laying of the keel to commissioning, and orders have to be given some time in advance of laying the keel if we are to be sure the ships will be ready in the time named. It is for these reasons that, although the keels will not be laid of any one of these four ships before 1st April that we nevertheless have been compelled to give the necessary orders for machinery and armour and gun-mounting, etc., some three or four months in advance of the time when the keels will be actually laid. With regard to the rest of the items of the Supplementary Estimate the two principal matters to which I will refer are, first, the item of £190,000 due to acceleration in the construction of the destroyers of this year's programme.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for asking a question which is intended to clear up a particular point. May the Committee take it that from the date of the preparatory order to the date of the hoisting of the pennant, ready for action the time will be not twenty-four months, but twenty-seven months. Will that be the outside limit?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would not like to put it with any certainty as low as twenty-seven. I think it will be twenty-seven, but in the case of gun-mountings it may be
  908
  twenty-eight. But, at any rate, in order to make sure, the Admiralty themselves have allowed close on twenty-eight months. But I think, if we are to judge by the case of the "Vanguard" and other ships, we probably could complete in less time. But as the Government gave a pledge, and rightly gave a pledge, that these ships should be ready at the end of March, 1912, we have taken every necessary step to secure that result.
  As regards the rest of the Estimate, the principal item of £190,000 is for the machinery of the destroyer for this year's programme. We have pushed forward the programme, and instead of, as was anticipated, twenty destroyers being ready on the month of May or June, 1911, we hope they will be ready by April, 1911, and some before that. The period of construction is eighteen months. The time in the programme for laying down was November. We have rather accelerated both the orders and the work upon the destroyers, with the result that we expect to have them ready in March and April, 1911, instead of in May and June. In consequence there has been an extra expenditure upon the machinery of the destroyers of £190,000. The other main item is a sum of £100,000, which was spent on the purchase of two destroyers, of which I have already told the House. I may say that was a bargain in which the Admiralty did not come off badly. Then the other items are fully explained upon the paper circulated to the Committee, and I do not know at this stage that I can add anything in the way of explanation.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I need hardly say that I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Supplementary Estimate or indeed of criticising the expenditure which the Government have incurred. If I may say so, I think the Opposition are very largely responsible for this Supplementary Estimate, and are quite prepared to bear the responsibility. After the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, particularly with regard to the sum of money which has just been spent on the four contingent ships, if we make any criticisms at all they would be in the nature of regret that the sum already expended on these ships was not larger. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that out of a total of nearly £1,000,000 which is provided under this Estimate for new construction, less than half a million has gone to the four contingent ships, and that the orders were, as a matter of fact, not given

  909
  in any case till the month of December. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by ordering ships in December he would be allowing ample time to build them and to complete them ready for commission by 31st March, 1912. I think his statement in regard to that seems somewhat optimistic in view of the experience of the past. He quoted it as true the case of the "Vanguard," where undoubtedly exceeding and almost unprecedented progress had been made in the construction of that ship. He gave us rather to understand that the Admiralty had been successful in the case of other ships in completing them within a period of two years from the time of what he calls the laying down of the keel.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say the Admiralty has succeeded in doing so, but I did say we have anticipation that the ships now under construction will be completed in that time.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Yes, supposing everything goes on perfectly smoothly in regard to the shipbuilding industry, but the right hon. Gentleman must not forget the experiences of the last few years. He is not making allowance for unforeseen circumstances, he is making no allowance for accidents and for strikes such as delayed the construction of the "Superb" and the "Temeraire." He seems to have made no allowance for unforeseen difficulties such as have occurred in recent years. Take the case of the last six battleships of the "Dreadnought" class laid down in the time of the present Government, and it will be found that the average time of completion from the laying of the keel to commissioning has been 26½ months, which is 2½ months beyond the period which he thinks the Admiralty may confidently count upon. I think that is a somewhat optimistic anticipation on his part, and I am sorry he did not give a little more leeway by commencing his ships before he did, seeing that the House of Commons gave its sanction for those ships as long ago as last July. One of the four contingent ships has been placed with the Thames Ironworks Company. I am extremely glad that that yard, which has been utterly neglected for a good many years past, is now to be again developed, because I think it is of the utmost importance that the whole of our national resources in shipbuilding should, as far as possible, fee developed and fostered in every reasonable way.
  910
  But that yard has not had experience of construction of this class of ships; it has been practically closed for a number of years, and the plant and the experience of the employés must be, at any rate, out of date, and I feel in that case there is considerable risk that the anticipation which the Admiralty now make so confidently cannot be realised in regard to the building of the ship allotted to that yard. I want to look at the figures contained in this Estimate more closely, particularly with regard to the £999,000 which is allotted to new construction. On the first page under the section devoted to Votes 8 and 9 there is a sum of £999,000, less certain money taken by the services, and the amount taken for new construction is practically that sum. I am delighted to hear that the large amount of £190,000 is to go to expedite the destroyer programme for the current year. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as the House knows, that we have been falling behind as compared with other Powers in a remarkable degree in regard to the completion of our destroyer programme. We not only begin them very late, long after the programme is sanctioned by the House of Commons, but our vessels have taken, in many cases, and in almost all cases, twice as long as the ships which are being constructed of a similar class by our rivals. Even now the right hon. Gentleman has only been able to speed up matters to eighteen months, and I should like to ask him why it should be beyond the resources of British shipbuilders to build in less than eighteen months when the Germans have been able to complete them, even during the past year, in a period under twelve months. We are now necessarily dealing with rather small points, but when the Navy Estimates come on ten days hence I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some accurate information with regard to this point, which is causing a great deal of disquietude to those interested in the Navy and to those interested in this vital branch of our defence.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that £100,000 of this money had been devoted to buying the two destroyers to replace the two we have lost, and he prides himself on the fact that the Admiralty have been able to get them for a sum of £100,000. I would like to know if these destroyers are of an up-to-date pattern. I understand that they are practically of the old River class, and that they are vessels of only 550 tons displacement and

  911
  7,000 horse-power, whereas the destroyers which we are now building for the present year's programme, and which we have built in past years, have been nearly 1,000 tons displacement and 15,000 horse-power. That is to say, these vessels are only half the tonnage and half the horse-power of the vessels which are now considered the proper dimension for His Majesty's Navy. I am not yet persuaded, although these vessels are undoubtedly cheap, that the nation's money has been spent to advantage upon them. I should like to know why we have gone back to a class of ship which was doubtless admirable in its day; why have the Admiralty expended this money upon these almost obsolete ships instead of adding to the ships provided for in the present year's programme, and having them built of a size which now finds favour with the naval authorities?
  I come now to the other side of the balance-sheet. I am the last person to complain of the fact that the Admiralty finds it necessary to spend this extra mil lion upon a shipbuilding Vote, but I am afraid they have reduced that total by robbing other services in the Navy Estimates, as is clearly shown by their own Supplementary Estimate. The amount hitherto voted for auxiliary machinery has been reduced by £33,000, although in the actual sum voted last Session there was a reduction of £48,000 as compared with the year before. I think that point requires some explanation. Then there is what is, in my opinion, a still more sinister reduction of £59,000 in the money voted for projectiles and ammunition. The right hon. Gentleman necessarily in this matter causes to those of us who are not familiar with all the facts considerable anxiety—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are now discussing the surpluses. I have no objection, of course, to the hon. Member asking for information about them, but we cannot alter them, and the proper time to discuss this matter is when we get before us a Resolution which authorises surpluses being devoted to this purpose; or, of course, on the Navy Estimates for next year, which will come before us later.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: As these surpluses are shown in this Estimate to reduce the total which the Government are asking the House to agree to, I thought we might be entitled to ask how it is they have been able to show these surpluses.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but we cannot make them a subject of debate, although I do not want to stop the hon. Member asking for information about them.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I think we might have a very short statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty explaining them. I think it is only due to the Committee that such an explanation should be given before this Vote passes. I have no desire to debate the amount of ammunition, but I think I am only asking for information which we ought to have before we pass away from this subject. I notice there is also the reduction of £50,000 in the payment of wages to the personnel of the Fleet. I think some explanation should be given of that, because it seems to imply that there has been some reduction in the personnel, and it is difficult to see how you can reduce the wages without reducing a number of men to whom the wages are paid. I want the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain the figures in the Supplementary Estimate, and I wish to question him upon a matter of arithmetic. If he turns to the last item on Page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate he will see that there is a surplus of £177,000 upon new works, making, according to this estimate, a revised estimate of £993,520, but the actual sum voted by the House of Commons last Session for this service was £1,204,000. If you deduct the £177,000 surplus you get a revised estimate not of £993,520, but £1,027,000. There appears to be a discrepancy of over £30,000. I have added up those figures, and I still think the Secretary to the Admiralty will find that his arithmetic is not quite accurate.
  These discussions upon a Supplementary Estimate are necessarily confined to details, and by the ruling of the Chair our discussion has been narrowed down to an extremely narrow point. But after all these figures refer only to the Estimates for 1909–10, and it would obviously be absurd to attempt to discuss the greater and wider naval policy upon the Estimates of the year which is passing away, particularly when we shall have the Estimates for the new year shortly before us. I want, however, to make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the fact that we cannot discuss any of the big questions now, I think the right hon. Gentleman should give the House of Commons the opportunity they are entitled to of considering the new Estimates by presenting them in sufficient time

  913
  before the actual discussion upon them takes place. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman is any more to blame in this respect than his predecessors have been. In past years these Estimates have rather been thrown at the House of Commons a day before being discussed, and I remember one year in which they were produced on the very day the discussion took place. I therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to let us have the Estimates in sufficient time not only to carefully consider them, but also to avoid that desecration of the Sabbath which has been forced upon us more than once during the last few years. I hope he will be able to meet us in this matter by giving the House the full opportunity to which it is entitled of having sufficient time to digest the details of this vast expenditure. I hope we shall be placed in possession of full information with regard to the surpluses in this Supplementary Estimate about which I am much more concerned than the amount of money which the Admiralty is spending.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGHmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100. I think the appeal which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made is a most reasonable one. I think we ought to get the new Navy Estimates at a much earlier date than they have been promised or than we got them last year. The First Lord of the Admiralty promised that we should have them on Thursday week, but I hope that promise will be accelerated, because the Prime Minister has announced that we are to take the discussion on the Navy Estimates on Monday week, and that will leave only two days to consider the Navy Estimates in all their complicated detail. I think if the presentation of the Navy Estimates could be accelerated it would be for the general convenience of the House. The Secretary for War has promised to furnish his Estimates next Thursday, and I cannot see why the Admiralty should not be as smart in this matter as the War Office. I have put down a very small amount in my Motion for a reduction, but I cannot proceed to move that without saying that I have not the slightest idea of embarrassing the Government in any way at the present moment. On the contrary, I would like to assist in clearing away all those slight clouds which darken their path, as I would like to see the Government come forward at the head of a strong and practical majority and work this Parliament for many years for all it is worth, and the
  914
  Prime Minister can certainly rely upon my assistance in doing that. I have risen in order to move this small and unassuming reduction of these Estimates because I think it will be agreed that even this Supplementary Estimate raises a very large question. In the first place, it is a very large Supplementary Estimate. When I used to fight the battles of the Opposition, which has been my fate during most of my Parliamentary career, I used to denounce through all the moods and tenses the Gentlemen who sat on the Government bench for bringing in Supplementary Estimates at all, and especially for bringing in very large Supplementary Estimates. Here we have one which is much larger than it appears on the Paper and on the face of it. You say £689,100 should be allowed, but the Estimate is really for more than £1,000,000. I am not going into the question of the reductions, but the reductions do mean that there is more than £1,000,000 of fresh money being voted for a purpose with which I, for one, do not sympathise at all, and that is a very large amount at this stage. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in proposing, said the House of Commons sanctioned the laying down of the four ships last autumn. In one sense yes, but in another sense no. The House of Commons did not then tie the hands of the Ministry in any way, they left it to the Ministry to do as they liked with regard to those four ships. They might have chosen to have spent less money upon them, or not to have laid them down till a later date; in fact, they might have prevented any of this expenditure coming in as a Supplementary Estimate, and have thrown the whole cost of these new ships into the programme of next year. That is what I should like to have seen done. It is a very serious Estimate, and the effect of it is to increase by 40 per cent. the very large Naval Estimates of last year, which many of us looked upon with the greatest dislike, and I think that is a matter we ought to look into.
  Then I have not been at all soothed by the explanation given of the Estimate by my right hon. Friend. He tells me that £456,000 are to be devoted to paying for the new four contingent ships, and he says another £200,000 practically—£190,000–is to be spent on the acceleration of certain other ships. This compels me to look back at the origin of these very large Naval Estimates. The House will remember the extraordinary circumstances under which they were introduced. We had little less

  915
  than a scare about our Navy a year ago when the Estimates were first laid before us, and the reason we were then told that it might be necessary to lay down some contingent ships was that another Power was accelerating its programme and hastening the completion of its ships. These statements were made with very great deliberation by the two Front Benches, and we have hardly had an opportunity of testing them up to the present moment. Only to-day I asked my right hon. Friend whether one statement he made on 16th March last was correct, namely, that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" completed by April, 1912. I have the statement of the right hon. Gentleman here, and I will give it:—
  "The German law provided for four more ships to be laid down in 1910–11. If the construction of these ships were to be accelerated. I understand that four ships of the 1909–10 programme would be completed by April 1912, and at that date Germany would have seventeen 'Dreadnoughts.'"
  I admit all the qualifications, but my right hon. Friend did go that far, and he was succeeded in the debate later by the Prime Minister, who also used words which indicate that the Government assumed that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in April, 1912. I can quote the Prime Minister's words. He said:—
  "Our estimate is that by March, 1912, the Germans will have seventeen."
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister, who is even a better authority than my right hon. Friend. There is no disrespect to my right hon. Friend in that statement I am sure. When they had finished these statements they were taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am always suspicious when I see this conspiracy between the two Front Benches. The Leader of the Opposition was present, and he produced a table of statistics which made all the Government had said pale into insignificance. He told us that in 1910, that is this year, Germany would have thirteen "Dreadnoughts" to the ten we should have. I believe the truth is that Germany has only two now, and can possibly only have five at any time this year. They were, the right hon. Gentleman said, to have seventeen in July, 1910, twenty-one in April, 1912, and twenty-five by August, 1912. Then the right hon. Gentleman, simply trembling with emotion, said he felt compelled to take a course which politicians and statesmen of this House for generations had declined to take, and this was his prelude to a
  916
  warm attack upon what I venture to think is a friendly Power of Europe, and all the time he was prompted by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), who I am glad to say is present and whom we hold responsible for all the right hon. Gentleman then said. The statement from the Front Opposition Bench was that Germany was to have twenty-one "Dreadnoughts" in April, 1912, and the Government rather favoured the idea that there might be seventeen. I can quote many statements in support of that. The Secretary to the Treasury, for instance, at Croydon frightened his audience and made their hair stand on end by alluding to the danger zone, and admitting that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. We have a little pious book, called the "Liberal Magazine," sent to us every twelve months, and in this magazine the statement appears in black and white on the authority I have already quoted. It was to meet this contingent liability on the part of Germany that these four ships were provided by the Government. They said that if this goes on we must do our duty to our country, and we must lay down the additional ships, regardless of expense.
  That is a very brief sketch of what occurred here on 16th March, 1909, a year ago. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and the question I have to ask myself constantly is this: Have the alarmist statements we heard then been justified by the facts? As a matter of fact, everyone of them has been scattered to the winds. In the first place, Germany has gone out of her way to assure us not only by the mouth of the head of the German Admiralty, but by the mouth of the Ambassador himself that the intentions of Germany have been quite misunderstood. There is nothing discourteous in that. It was at least a civil and kindly word to say, and I do not think any man should make light of assurances given in connection with a great matter of that kind. But we have gone further. I ventured to ask my right hon. Friend to-day whether the Admiralty say now there will be seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. No, he could not state that the Admiralty think so, and I think my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, if he had shown a little more disposition to meet me, he would have gone the length of saying that so far as the Admiralty had an opinion upon the subject they did not think there would be

  917
  seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. He does not make any admission on that point now, and I will only say I do not value the authority of my right hon. Friend's advisers at the Admiralty on what they have told us in the past, and their story seems to have no foundation at present. I would rather pin myself to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and that is that there are only thirteen German "Dreadnoughts" in view. The Germans have never completed a "Dreadnought" in less than thirty-six months.
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend is entirely wrong. Two German vessels of the "Dreadnought" type were laid down in August, 1907 and commissioned in October, 1909.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friend has not given me quite a complete answer, but, of course, he has much better information than I have, and I will not be led into a quarrel with him on any terms. I am going to make the best case I can for the pacific intentions of Germany, and for what is my case, namely, that there is no need for us to spill out millions. That is all my case, and I may make a slip of a fact or two. I have taken a great deal of trouble, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman my authority. There was a most interesting article published in "The Times" a few days since, and according to that article, I am still under the impression that, from the date of the first order till the commissioning of the ship, Germany has not produced any "Dreadnoughts" in less than thirty-six months; at any rate, they cannot produce them so rapidly as we can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think they cannot, although there are hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who want to run down their own country. My case is that we can do them as quick as anybody can, and quicker. That being so, we have to ask ourselves whether these stories we have heard about Germany have been true or false. As a matter of fact, the whole case of the Opposition has been exploded. There is nothing now of the twenty-five and nothing now of the twenty-one. Even the seventeen have not all appeared above the horizon. We have nothing to deal with beyond a possible thirteen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. These facts became apparent to the Government in the autumn of last year, and yet, notwithstanding this certain knowledge which came to them, they have put on full steam
  918
  and have brought in this Estimate for another £1,000,000, in addition to the large Estimates they had at the beginning of the year.
  A great deal was made by my right hon. Friend in his speech of 16th March and by the wretched pamphlets which have been scattered over the country of the huge preparations which have been made, especially at Krupp's works, for producing the ships with great secrecy and speed. We have had an answer on this point. We have had the number of employés at these works, and we have found no increase whatever. We heard there had been an increase of 28,000 men in Krupp's works, but we found there are only a few more than 28,000 men altogether employed there. I mention these things to show that, whatever case was made about acceleration or the number of ships, has been blown to the winds. Yet we are pressing on; we are spending every penny and accelerating the ships, and bringing in these huge and inflated Estimates. I say that under those circumstances this Committee would not do its duty to the country unless it investigated this Estimate very closely. The Estimate should reduce the Estimates for next year, but I understand that, in spite of this large sum now provided, there will be many millions more in the coming Estimates. The increases we have had to provide in this House are very substantial, and it appears to me that no case whatever has been made out for the large demand the Government has made upon us. We may be asked what course might have been taken to avoid the expenditure. Well, I think we might have gone a great deal more slowly than we did go. There has been an idea circulated lately that we had to spend so much this year, and hurry up very much faster now and spend a great deal more next year because our Navy was in a bad condition. I do not think there is a shred of foundation for that idea. I believe that during the last five or six years there has been almost a re-creation of the British Navy.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is going too far. This Vote is confined to the acceleration of the programme and items of the expenditure entailed thereby.
  Mr. LOUGH: I felt that to be so and I therefore put it interrogatively. I have no desire to go one inch outside the bounds of strict order. We always carry on our

  919
  Debates best if we keep within the compass of the ruling of the Chair. I was only trying to make out that the circumstances were such that there was no need to have spent all this money at this time, and, if it is not still out of order, I would like to say how glad I would have been to have seen some courteous response to the explanations which we are told have been given to us by Germany.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises. The right hon. Gentleman is travelling beyond the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. LOUGH: I will leave it there. I think I have explained my point. The Supplementary Estimate is very large. It surely cannot be out of order to say that. It has added a greatly increased expenditure, and I think no reason has been given to this House by the Government or any of their allies for plunging into this outlay. As a means of expressing my opinion, and expressing it in a manner which will not imperil the safety of the Government, because they have so many supporters on all matters of extravagance, especially connected with the Navy, I will move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Mr. DILLON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we are not entitled on this Vote to debate the necessity for the four contingent "Dreadnoughts"?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have looked into that matter very carefully, and, having regard to previous rulings on Supplementary Estimates, I think that question was settle in Debate on 26th July. The point in order here is as to the acceleration of the programme, and the reason why we are spending extra money in this year for "Dreadnoughts." The general Debate must take place on the Estimates for next year.
  Mr. DILLON: But are we not entitled to debate the reasons why the programme has been accelerated?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that comes in.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It will be very difficult for me, so full of naval information as I am, to confine myself within the rules of order with regard to this Supplementary Estimate, but there are one or two questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington which I think I can answer.
  920
  The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the reason for this Estimate. My reply is that the reasons are to be found in the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who started the scare—perhaps I ought not to say the scare—I do not agree that that is a proper word. They told us the truth last March, that this country had arrived at a crisis in its history on naval procedure in connection with the shipbuilding being carried on by a neighbouring country. In speaking of that neighbouring country, I think it would be well for us all, no matter to what party we belong, to refer to it with dignity and not to say anything of an irritating character, for, after all, that country is only doing what it has a perfect right to do, however many "Dreadnoughts" it may build. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself has been guilty of using language towards that country which was very likely to create irritation there.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is now going outside the subject of the Supplementary Estimate.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Following the tack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, I will endeavour to keep within order, and I will undertake to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will allow me, on another occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington has complained that this Vote shows a 40 per cent. increase over the Estimate of last year.
  Mr. LOUGH: Forty per cent. increase on the increase of the Estimate of last year.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The increase of last year over the year before?
  Mr. LOUGH: Yes.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Very well, but what will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government produce their Estimates for this next year, Estimates brought about by the statements made on the Treasury Bench, corroborated by statements on these benches, and by men like myself. Although we are dubbed "scaremongers" and "panicmongers," I am sure hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for saying what we think in the interest of the defence of the country. There surely is nobody below the Gangway—I may not be quite sure about my own countrymen—

  921
  but there can be nobody who wants to see the old flag come down, although we go different ways to work in order to keep it up. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Islington, asked how it was we had been dragged into this expenditure. I will tell him exactly how it was. It was the advertisement with regard to the "Dreadnought" and nothing else. Is that out of Order?
  The CHAIRMAN: These questions of Order are always difficult to answer. I think it is out of Order because we decided last July that we were to have four more "Dreadnoughts" built. That settled practically the type of ship, and the Government have not departed from that type of ship. I, therefore, consider the matter settled. The Supplementary Estimate simply asks for money owing to the acceleration of the programme.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Would it be wrong for me to point out why it is that this Supplementary Estimate is necessary?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be in Order.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: When the "Dreadnought" was built there was no advertisement of her, but, after she had been built, there was an advertisement held up to all the nations of the world, and particularly to Germany, saying that the new ship could sink the whole of their fleets. It is that advertisement which has run us into this enormous expenditure of money—an expenditure which will go up to £60,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it?"] I am not going into personalities. It was said by people connected with the Admiralty, and nobody on the Front Bench will deny that it was said, and the result of these very arrogant statements is that this country will have to pay £60,000,000 extra, and we shall not get out of it any cheaper.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord. He is really discussing the question whether the "Dreadnought" is the best type of ship, whereas he should discuss the narrower question of the acceleration of the programme.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I understood you to say, Mr. Chairman, that the question of ordering the four extra "Dreadnoughts" was settled last July. I regret I was not then in the House. That was a
  922
  matter beyond my control. But I believe I am right in saying that no Estimate was taken for the four "Dreadnoughts," and that being so, I submit that this is the original Estimate, and, while on the Supplementary Estimate, it is not allowable to deal with the principle of the Vote, This, I submit, is, in effect, an original Vote, and, therefore, we are entitled to deal with the whole principle involved.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the ordinary rule, but in this particular case there was a Debate on this particular question last July, and I consider that that settles the principle.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: But if there was no Estimate, then I submit that this must be treated as the original Estimate on which the question of principle can be raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point I have decided. I have considered the matter carefully, and I rule that it has been settled. I admit the circumstances are unusual.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I hope I shall be in Order in referring to a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in which he said that he calculated that Germany would only have a certain number of "Dreadnoughts" at a particular time. I think he was totally incorrect. If we turn to what was said in the very alarming speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs it was there calculated that Germany could, by acceleration, have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" by 1913–14, and this speech to which I am referring produced so much anxiety that the very next day our Colonies telegraphed over to say that they would help us in any way they could, because the crisis was so apparent from the speeches made by responsible Ministers of the Crown. The fact that Germany, according to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, can have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" by 1913–14 answers the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington.
  Mr. LOUGH: On that I can form my own judgment.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It may be a very good judgment, but it may not be correct. I agree with the hon. Member for the Fareham Division of Hampshire that the only fault we can find with this Supplementary Estimate is that it is not nearly enough. In view of the fact

  923
  that what the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said last March was correct, I con tend that the Estimate is not nearly enough for the crisis then pointed out. I quite understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for economy—I perfectly sympathise with that desire—but I want the country de fended first. What has happened is this: The Empire has really been forced into its present condition by respect for authority. It does believe in authority, and it believes also that that authority has been telling us matters of fact for the last four years. When a man like myself or those who think with him gets up and tells the truth, it is the tendency of public opinion to believe that authority is correct; but how can the statements that are made now be regarded as true after those made last March, which gave rise to all the anxiety and started the scare in this country? It must be borne in mind that our side did not start the scare—it was the Government who did so—and how can the Government come down to this House, as the Prime Minister did the other day, and say, although the circum stances are precisely the same, the Fleet is now unassailable, and will be so in the future? And how, on top of that, are you going to justify the producing of Estimates for £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 more expenditure? How are hon. Members opposite going to swallow those two statements? That is what we want to know when the Estimates come forward, and we really can discuss them. How can it be said that, while you were in a crisis last March and you were perfectly safe on the eve of the election, and it is now necessary to bring forward this extra sum for the House to vote in three or four weeks—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the Navy Estimates. This is only a Supplementary Estimate, and he must make his remarks upon that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am very sorry that I have transgressed again, Sir, but I am so keen on this subject. I will go on to deal with the question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked about these torpedo-boat destroyers. Can he inform us whether it will be possible to turn out our destroyers as quickly as Germany does? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Germans turn out their destroyers in about eight or nine months, and our average is about nineteen. And
  924
  what they can do we can do. In their case, directly the money is voted in Germany, they begin work at once; but we have an extraordinary system of putting down the money and commencing next year. For instance, the twenty boats that were voted last year have only just been laid down, and some of them have not been laid down. Some of them were laid down in December and some in January. But out of twenty boats some of them are not laid down yet. Why cannot we commence as soon as we get the money, as the Germans do?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is quite wrong on that point.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Which point?
  Mr. McKENNA: The point that the twenty destroyers of this year's programme have not been laid down. They have all been laid down.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: When?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were ordered from the contractors last September or October for delivery eighteen months from that date. They will be delivered in March of next year.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes, I am wrong in a few weeks. The money was voted last March, and the right hon. Gentleman says that they were not laid down till October—that is my point.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, that is not the Noble Lord's point.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes, it was.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord within the hearing of this Committee said that the destroyers in this year's programme were not yet laid down. It was on that point that I rose to contradict him, and I beg that the Noble Lord will strictly confine himself to the actual statements that were made.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: My point was this: Although I may have been incorrect in saying that they were not yet laid down—the right hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do—my point was this—and I am sorry that I did not put it clearer—we take our money in March, and we do not begin till October or November, and we go sometimes up to the following March before we lay down our vessels. Is not that so?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sometimes.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has not improved matters, but I will put it to him that I do not think it is business.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Germans do exactly the same.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No; the Germans finish their boats in eight or nine months, and we take nineteen.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Well, I will give the right hon. Gentleman a' list to-morrow. I know the boats.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Germans do exactly the same.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No, they do not do exactly the same, because they finish in eight or nine months, and we finish them in nineteen. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head; it is so. I will also inform the right hon. Gentleman of this, and I think he will agree with me that these two boats that were bought out of some of this money from the Supplementary Estimates were not a good purchase. I know there is a difference of opinion about that, but I have tried these boats over and over again. At present we have ready only thirty-two of the River class and twelve of the Tribal class which are suitable for the North Sea, but not one of the 30-knotters are suitable for the North Sea, and not one of the 27-knotters are either. I have tried them over and over again, and they are not suited for the simple reason that they are not big enough. They are only 400 tons instead of 750, or 1,000 as the new boats are which you are building. The point is this, that these boats are your great weakness, and what I complain of is that your Supplementary Estimate was not very much larger. You created the scare last March, and my complaint is that your Supplementary Estimate is not larger for that class of vessel, and that you know perfectly well.
  Mr. McKENNA: Which class of vessel?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The torpedo-boat destroyers.
  Mr. McKENNA: This is the class of vessel which the Noble Lord says is unsuited for its work, and he referred to two destroyers we have bought. What class of vessel does he believe these two destroyers belong to? I have already stated
  926
  that they are two of the new River Class, and the Noble Lord seems to assume that they are of the old 30-knotter class. They are not.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I have never said so. It is very difficult for a simple-minded seaman to get round a lawyer, but if you give him time he always manages it. I complained that there were not more of these built. The two boats built were the old River Class not the Tribal Class. My point is that looking to war, which is the only thing we never think about, when we spend all this money—looking to war you have very few vessels suitable to the North Sea, and you ought to have a great many more provided for in this Supplementary Estimate. I cannot deal further with that point now, but I will deal with it when we get into the Navy Estimates. There is, however, another point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to protest altogether against any of these new ships for which you are giving this money being actuated, or their guns or machinery actuated by electricity, and I want to give my reasons why. I will take the "Invincible"—
  Mr. McKENNA: Can I save the Noble Lord any trouble by saying that they are not going to be actuated by electricity?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: You save me a considerable amount of trouble, and from dwelling upon the extraordinary failure of the "Invincible." I am afraid, however, I am not in order again, Mr. Chairman, so I will not touch upon the question of the "Invincible," but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the right hon. Gentleman below me has asked him the same question, if this £50,000 wages involves a reduction of amount? I would also ask him as to whether recruiting has been stopped? I gather that it has not, but he will remember that it was stopped suddenly in 1907 by order. Another point is, are the Colonial Reserves in Australia included in any reduction, or do they come in in any way?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no reduction.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me what the items of Sub-head G £59,000, and Sub-head L £11,000, consist of. They amount together to £70,000, and I should like an explanation of them, and also of the Sub-head dealing with £38,000. I should like to know why the sums are introduced into Supplementary Estimates.

  927
  There is a great deal more I should like to bring forward, but I am afraid it will not be in order, so I will wait till the Navy Estimates are before the House. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will kindly answer my questions.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I rise to say I shall give my humble support for what it is worth to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), and shall certainly vote with him if he goes to a Division on this Vote. I do so because, of the £689,000 asked for by this Vote, £457,000 of that money is in respect of the four additional "Dreadnoughts." Inasmuch as I think that that expenditure has been incurred because of statements which I believe to be untrue and unwarranted, I am not going to vote for this additional expenditure arising therefrom. The ground has been pretty well covered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in regard to the acceleration, or alleged acceleration, of the German programme. I think the scare has been utterly discredited so far as that part of the matter is concerned. So far as I can see, as a matter of fact, the German programme laid down in 1900 has been acted on since that time, except that on two occasions there have been changes in that programme consequent upon newer ideas and later facts in regard to the life time of ships. I shall say no more about that, but I want to refer to other points, as I am sure the scare last year was really on the acceleration of the German programme, and the alleged increase in the number of men employed by Messrs. Krupp, who, it was said, had been subsidised by the German Government. I remember the statement was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee) on 17th March of last year. He said his conviction—
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is proceeding to subjects which are extremely interesting, and about which I shall be glad to make a reply, but I should like to know whether the statement I made last Session as to Krupp's works would be in order on this Vote?
  The CHAIRMAN: What is in order is anything that turns upon the acceleration of the German programme affecting our own programme. Some remarks have already been made with regard to Krupp's, and I will not stop the hon. Member.
  Mr. BARNES: I gather that I am justified in referring to certain statements which were made on which our increased expenditure was partially based, and included in those statements was the one that Messrs. Krupp's were employing on the 17th of last March, or some time immediately prior to that date, 38,000 more men than they had employed the year before. That is a perfectly plain straightforward statement which is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it was on that statement very largely that we have been landed in this additional expenditure for "Dreadnoughts," and for which we are asked to pay an additional sum of £457,000. I say there is absolutely no shred of justification for any such statement. I have figures which I copied from Kuhlow's "Trade Report," issued in Berlin, and I had the figures from other sources last year. I find that in 1907 there was a total of 64,353 men employed by Messrs. Krupp's, of whom 35,475 were employed at Essen, which is the place where men are employed in the sort of work we are now discussing. On 1st January, 1909, which I suppose was the date the hon. Gentleman had in his mind when speaking, there were employed at Krupp's 63,191 men, or 1,162 fewer than the total number of men employed in 1907, and there were in Essen last year 34,917 men, or actually 558 men fewer employed in the construction of war material instead of, as has been stated, and has never yet been withdrawn, 38,000 more than there had been the year before. I want to read now a letter which, I think, fairly well clinches this particular point, which is taken from "The Times," and it contains a statement made by the chairman of Krupp's works, written on 23rd December, 1909. He says:
  "It can only confirm your supposition that there is not a word of truth in the statement that we have recently taken on 38,00ft new hands at our works at Essen. That represents about the whole number of our employés here. During the last three months there has been no addition to the staff, which remains numerically practically what it was in 1906–7."
  This is the sort of statement by which this country has been launched not into an expenditure of £457,000–that is only a little bit on account—but an expenditure of £8,000,000 of money, and I should be wanting in my duty and false to my trust to my Constituents, as well as to my class, if I sat here and allowed this Vote to go without at all events my emphatic protest. We want the money for other purposes. We have heard a good deal about old age pensions and the pauper disqualification.

  929
  Not a single man on the Front Bench has justified it. All they have said is, "We cannot afford to give the paupers this pension, we cannot afford to do many other things, because we want the money, and because we want this money for national defence." I protest against hon. Gentlemen opposite claiming any monopoly of the desire for national defence. I am as eager as any of them for national defence. I want to have our Navy sufficiently strong for all legitimate purposes, but I protest emphatically against these statements, coming from whatever source they may, and I specially emphatically protest and deplore them coming from either one of those Front Benches, which has the effect of inflating these Navy Votes, and therefore of depriving us of the opportunity of giving pensions on that generous and liberal scale that I believe nine men out of ten in this House would like to give. It is because I think there was no justification for that scare upon which this inflated Estimate was based, and because we want the money for other purposes, that I shall certainly vote with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. J. D. REES: I trust I may be forgiven for intervening amongst Admirals and Ministers, my only excuse really being that in the last Parliament I acted as Secretary for a group, which is now unfortunately scattered, which was busily occupied in combating views such as we have just heard from the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes). I understand the First Lord to say that the "Dreadnoughts" which are now being built will be ready in twenty-seven months. The Prime Minister last year confessed that the confident assurance given in April, 1908, that it would take the Germans thirty months to build a "Dreadnought," whereas we could build one in twenty-four, has been falsified by the event. But I do not know if the House is to take it that the building of a "Dreadnought" in England now takes twenty-seven months. If so, it appears to me to be a new departure, and to bear directly upon these Supplementary Estimates. Then a statement has been made in one or two quarters to the effect that there is no proof that the Germans will accelerate or may accelerate their programme. I may quote the words of General Gädke, one of the great naval authorities in Germany. He said that the sixteen capital ships can be completed by the beginning of 1912, and that the promises not to accelerate construction any further before 1912 are only acknowledgments of the fact that no more
  930
  money can be got out of the Reichstag. That seems to me to be a very material point, and when hon. Members say there is no proof that the Germans are accelerating their programme, it is relevant and legitimate to refer to the statement made by one of their own great experts, who absolutely ridicules the idea that they can be confined to any particular rate of progress or that anything in the world will affect that rate of progress except absolute inability to get more money from their Parliament to carry it on.
  Then some doubt has been thrown upon the relative position as it will be in 1912 in regard to first-class capital ships. I believe these figures have not been disputed. In March, 1911, Great Britain will have twelve "Dreadnoughts" and Germany nine—a margin of three over the strength of a single Power. In April or May we shall have twelve and Germany will have eleven—a margin of one. In July the margin will stand also at one. In November they will have sixteen to thirteen, and in March it will be either sixteen to thirteen or twenty to seventeen, leaving in either case a margin of three, and no more, above a single Power. I submit that these figures dispose of the contention that the shipbuilding programme is the outward and visible sign of a policy of aggression and of military aggrandisement on the part of the Front Bench and this Government, which I submit is the last thing that anyone would possibly accuse this Government of, especially when it is remembered that it was in the effort to meet what was supposed to be a desire showed elsewhere for the limitation of armaments that the country fell behind, so as to make it necessary to put on these extra four contingent ships and to endeavour to recover the superiority which, if we had not lost, we were, at any rate, in considerable danger of losing. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) expressed in the outset his desire to help the Government. It is possible the Government may say Non tali auxilio. But the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion said he did not think we need take thought for to-morrow in regard to battleships, which makes me extremely glad that all Privy Councillors are not consulted upon all occasions. He said that the increases last year were very much disliked. When the matter was last put to the vote there was an organisation led by the hon. Member for Falkirk Boroughs (Mr. Murray Macdonald) in favour of reduction.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing "Dreadnoughts." He should make his remarks relevant to the Supplementary Vote.
  Mr. REES: The speech of the German Ambassador did not bear the construction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington put upon it, but we were told, and equally truly, I have no doubt, that the German fleet was no more intended for aggression than ours is, but that the Germans were following the example of all great commercial nations in safeguarding their existence. I cannot see anything in that speech which would make this Supplementary Estimate superfluous or beyond the necessities of the case, and if it is regrettable to see expenditure increased in this way, surely, on the other hand, it must be remembered that, as the amount of goods to be insured increases, the amount paid for insurance must increase, that at present the total cost of the insurance of all the British capital in the world is about 3 per cent., and that as capital increases so the insurance must also increase. In every great and progressive State there must be an increase of the defences as that which has to be defended increases, and when that ceases to be the case the State is already upon the down grade.
  8.0 P.M.
  The Noble Lord opposite, I think, understated the case as put by Ministers. I understood the Foreign Secretary to state that when the German programme was complete they would have no fewer than thirty-three "Dreadnoughts," and were working up to that standard. The Noble Lord also referred to the question of the German votes for shipbuilding; but they have this enormous advantage over us, that their votes do not lapse at the end of the financial year. What is not spent is carried forward, and what in the intention of Parliament is voted for the defence of the country is never lost for that purpose. What is considered necessary in one Parliament is necessary in another. And as they work upon a programme, wisely extending over a series of years, the difficulties which result in this country, and the enormous injury to labour in the closing and reduction of establishments and dockyards—everyone on the Labour Benches objects when they affect his own constituency; they are all in favour of reductions, but individually they protest against them—are not experienced, because, though they work on a programme, their votes also are
  932
  interchangeable. They can change them from one head to another, as is required, and I regret that that is not the case here. I wish that, instead of having this Supplemental Estimate put in the manner in which it is, the Votes could be carried on and the business of the Navy managed in this country in the way it is in Germany. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) referred to the number of men engaged in Krupps works as a proof that there was no need for the addition of these ships which led to this Supplemental Vote, thereby, as I understand, trespassing upon the ruling of the Chair. Since he called in question the necessity for these ships which you have ruled cannot be discussed on this Estimate, may I say that Krupps is not the only shipbuilding firm in Germany, though it is the greatest in the world. Ships can be built there from keel to pennant in one yard, and not, as here, piecemeal in different places. It is not the case that these contingent ships were sanctioned because it was stated that there were extra men engaged in Krupps works, but because it was considered that it was absolutely necessary—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is talking of the ordering of these ships. That is not the question. The only question is the expenditure for this year. I have already warned the hon. Member, and I must warn him again, to confine his remarks to that subject.
  Mr. REES: My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division said he wanted money for social reform, and that he was eager for national defence. I heartily accept that from him, but I would point out that neither he nor I, nor any lay Member, is in a position to judge what is necessary for national defence, and that all of us should accept the conclusions on that score of the technical advisers of the Admiralty, and, as I do for the present, the representatives of the Admiralty in this House.
  Mr. LOUGH: Perhaps it would meet the general convenience if I were to say that owing to the extreme difficulties which have been placed on us by the restriction of the discussion, we do not feel that we are able to do justice to the case, as we should have done in other circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: I wish to ask a question. In regard to the four contingent "Dreadnoughts," I should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the Committee what was the actual reason why these four contingent "Dreadnoughts" were laid down. It will be remembered that the "Dreadnoughts" were promised because of the probability of four "Dreadnoughts" for Austria being laid down. I should like to know whether the four contingent "Dreadnoughts" were laid down because of the acceleration in the German programme?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will make one general comment arising out of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). Of course, we all regret having to come to the House for this large additional sum. I have no desire, and I do not suppose anybody else has any desire, to build "Dreadnoughts" for the mere morbid pleasure of building them; but we must make national security amply safe, and if there is any doubt about the matter at all, the benefit of that doubt must be on the side of national safety. Having made that general remark, I pass on to deal with the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) asked in regard to these surpluses which we are applying in mitigation of the Supplementary Vote, and they were anxious as to whether in the application of these surpluses we might not be doing less than justice to the work under taken in the original Votes. In regard to the surplus of £33,000, on Sub-head B, that is in respect of auxiliary machinery—
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: For the four ships.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has nothing to do with the four ships. It is on auxiliary machinery generally. The Estimate originally for this purpose was £170,968. Of that sum we take £33,000, making the revised Estimate £137,968. The explanation of that is that we have come to certain decisions to modify what we originally proposed in regard to alterations on auxiliary machinery for ships, and I can confidently say that in no way do these modifications of the original decisions affect the fighting efficiency of the ships. In addition to that, there has been failure on the part of contractors to earn the amount anticipated when the original Estimates were set
  934
  down. On Vote 9 G. we now anticipate £59,000 surplus. The hon. Member for Fareham and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth asked particularly as to that. Well, it is chiefly due to the progress of projectiles particularly, the trade supply being less than was anticipated. The surplus on Vote L, amounting to £11,000, is due to the fact that the shipments to and from foreign stations were not so great as originally anticipated when the Estimate was made.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there was a short supply of projectiles and that the surplus is due to failure on the part of the trade to supply the goods ordered by the Admiralty.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The progress was not so great as when the Estimate was originally prepared in regard to projectiles.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Then you are short of what you expected to have.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is another answer. The Estimate would have to be made fifteen or eighteen months before the close of the financial year to which it referred, and although the forecast might not have been closely accurate, I cannot admit for a moment that we are short of what the necessities of the case require. On page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate there is an item of £38,900 on the Works Vote, and there is an item of £177,000 surplus on the new Works Vote. These sums are largely at our disposal because of slower progress having been made than was anticipated in contract work.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly sufficiently dealt with the surplus on the Works Votes. He knows that some works have been unaccountably delayed—for instance, the works at Portsmouth—and the reason is freely stated to be that money is not forthcoming from the Admiralty.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot admit that. I have in my hand details of the work on which the surplus arises. I was really paraphrasing this detailed statement which I have had prepared when I said that this surplus was chiefly because of the slower progress being made than was anticipated on the contract work.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: My question is, who is responsible for this progress not having been made? Surely it rests mainly on the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: When the contract is signed the work proceeds, and if the contractor does not earn what we forecasted he might have earned, then we are in a position to transfer the surplus to some other Vote in the Estimates.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDmade a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Take the case of Rosyth. We offer a bonus for expedition, and we impose penalties for delay. There have been delays, of course, in respect of which neither party can take credit. It will be observed from the Supplementary Estimate that we are taking the opportunity to make a commencement with two urgent works of considerable magnitude. We are making provision for a new Destroyer dock at Plymouth, and for a suction dredger, in order to provide accommodation for a floating dock. With regard to Vote A and 1, questions were asked as to why we have been able to transfer a £50,000 surplus on that Vote. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is no reduction of personnel. The £50,000 is now at our disposal because of new schemes with various conditions of pay. These changes during the course of the year made it very difficult indeed to forecast with any degree of accuracy the expenditure for such a very large body of men. The Estimate has to be prepared fifteen months ahead of the close of the year in which the money is spent, and when I state that £50,000 is only.8 variation from the original Estimate, having regard to the number of men and the schemes in operation, it will be seen that it is not a serious variation, and in any case it does not represent a reduction of any kind whatever in personnel. With regard to destroyers, we bought two of the River class, and they are useful boats. I gathered from what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that naval opinion is divided as to their usefulness for the purpose we have in view. I do not think I need follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) into his general exposition of naval policy. The proper time it seems to me will be the week after next, when we submit to the Committee the Navy Estimates for the year 1910–11.
  I do not know that I should be in order in going into the question of the superiority of the "Dreadnought" type of battleship, on which the Noble Lord has put some views to the Committee. I only
  936
  know that so far as I am concerned, inquiring with such care as a layman can apply, that it seems to me that the "Dreadnought" was in any case inevitable; and the best test of this is that after examining the type with very great care, and for a considerable period, other countries have found it necessary to take up that type. And I believe I am right in saying that at least on one occasion the Noble Lord himself passed some eulogistic comments on the "Dreadnought" type of battleship. The Noble Lord is doubtful as to whether this Supplementary Estimate is enough.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I remember on one occasion he unfolded a programme before the London Chamber of Commerce.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I stick to it still.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They promptly told the Noble Lord that that was not enough. The Noble Lord wrote a letter to "The Times" the next day. It appears he had been criticised.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Those are the wild men.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: One of the wild men is sitting right in front of the Noble Lord.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Certainly not.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, one of these who think that we should lay down two keels to one in "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make any suggestions he likes. I have never said anything of the kind. But I am in favour of maintaining the two-Power standard in the fullest sense.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of laying down two keels to one laid down by Germany.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: If the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read any public writings of mine which have appeared during the last year on the subject he will find that I did nothing of the kind.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That was my impression. The Noble Lord prepared a programme which I gather was not considered quite enough. He said, "I do not want my countrymen to pay for some-

  937
  thing which is not visible," and he goes on to conclude in this letter to "The Times" that these figures, the cost of his programme, suggest the necessity of caution, and that they should look not to indefinite contingencies which can be provided against when they materialise, but to a definite and actually existing state of things. I venture to go the length of saying that is the basis on which the Supplementary Estimate is prepared, and therefore the Noble Lord need have no anxiety as to its not being sufficient for the work for which we are responsible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham challenged the arithmetic of the estimate. The original Estimate for Vote 10, Sub-head B, as he will see, was £1,204,420. Then we transfer to Sub-head M new suction dredger, £34,000. We appropriate in aid of Supplementary Estimate generally £177,000. Those two together make it £211,000. And if he will subtract those from the original Estimate and then add the £100 token vote, he gets £993,520, which is the figure given as the revised Estimate.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that, on the face of the Estimate, that does not appear. His Estimate should be presented to the House of Commons, who are not experts, in a form in which it can be understood. I do not pretend to understand his explanation.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very sorry for that, but they are presented in a form which makes that calculation, if the hon. Gentleman will follow us, absolutely simple.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: If you will explain it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have done my best, and cannot do any more.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Why is the £34,000 to be taken, and not the £5,000 upon similar services?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is Sub-head M and the other is Part 1 B. There are other questions which the Committee would wish to discuss, but I venture to suggest that the time for doing so is when the Estimates for 1910–11 are submitted. The hon. Gentle man asked whether I could issue the Estimate to Members a little earlier than usual so as to allow them a somewhat longer interval. I am afraid I cannot promise owing to the exigencies of printing that they shall be issued before Thursday (to-
  938
  morrow) evening week; and we must keep to the time, which will be the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the 14th, 15th, and 16th, for the discussion of the Estimates. Therefore, perhaps, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will do the best they can between the 10th and the 14th in studying the Estimate. It would be physically impossible to undertake to issue the Estimate carlier.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch asked about the second four ships. We stated on the face of the Estimates for 1909–10 the conditions as to the powers we took to collect material and the circumstances under which we could carry them out. On 26th July of last year the First Lord said, "after very anxious and careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all the necessary steps to insure that the second four ships in this year's programme should be completed by March, 1912. They propose to take all the necessary steps," and so on; and he went on to say that if we liquidated any liability incurred before 31st March we would come here as we have done now and submit an Estimate for the purpose of meeting that liability.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: My question was why these four contingent ships were laid down. We were informed by the Prime Minister, on July 26th, that the ships were going to be laid down on account of the Italian and Austrian programme of four "Dreadnoughts" each.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord said, "After very anxious and careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries," and he goes on to say that the Government have come to the conclusion that these ships should be laid down.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am not finding the least fault with laying them down. They should have been laid down last year. But the point is this: The Prime Minister gave as his reason that the four would be necessary on account of German acceleration, whereas the First Lord of the Admiralty gave as the reason that the Italians were building four last year, and that Austria was commencing four. As a matter of fact, Italy has only commenced one, and Austria has not commenced any at all. I am not finding fault with the Supplementary Estimate for building the "Dreadnought," but the

  939
  reasons given are totally contrary. What my hon. Friend wanted to know is which reason is correct. It is really because of German acceleration.
  Mr. E. KELLY: As an Irish Member I find myself as a voice crying in the wilder ness, for I look around and see nothing but empty benches. Still it occurs to me that Irish Members ought seriously to consider whether they ought not to support with might and main all increased Votes for the nation. Of course, we know that not a plank will be bought in Ireland and not a single Irishman will be employed, but still we are aware that an Irish industry is being attacked and that an Irish industry needs defence. I refer to the injury done to steam trawling, to the spawning beds off the Irish coast; and it occurs to me that when we have reached the full level of the two-Power standard, and when we have two war vessels to one of all the other countries of the world, that possibly the Admiralty will be able to spare one of those coast boats or river boats to preserve the Irish spawning beds from destruction by the steam trawlers. You would then do some thing which has not been done up to the present time on behalf of a valuable industry. Anyone strolling along the sea shore—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is introducing a question which does not concern the Supplementary Estimate. He is raising a matter of policy, which can only come on when the main Estimate is brought forward, the week after next.
  Mr. KELLY: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I will be sure to raise the question on the Naval Estimates.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.—(CLASS 4.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc."
  Mr. C. E. PRICEmoved the reduction of the Vote by £100. I do so not from any spirit of opposition, but with a view to calling attention to the system on which these grants are made. I confess frankly, as far
  940
  as Scotland is concerned, I have been heckled as to the wisdom of making those grants, and one heckler pointed out that, in view of them, he did not see much chance of getting small holdings in that district. The present grant is made on lines similar to those adopted in regard to several others. Between 1901 and 1903 no less a sum than £45,000 was voted for what was called the "Discovery" expedition. That expedition was lost, and, grave anxiety being felt, a relief expedition was organised, and before the whole thing was successfully carried through an additional sum of no less than £51,000 was voted for this purpose. Coming to the Vote, I find there is a grant of £20,000 for carrying on scientific investigations, and I understand that a further £20,000 has been promised to what is known as Captain Scott's expedition. Apart from the £20,000 to be taken in a subsequent Vote, these sums altogether amount to no less £139,000. As I said at the beginning, I do not object to this Vote, although there seems, so far as the ordinary man can see, to be very few beneficial results from these expeditions, though it is true we never know what may be the full benefit which may arise from them. My particular object is to recall the fact that similar applications have been made from Scotland for grants. Take, for instance, Dr. Bruce's expedition. From 1901 to 1904, several applications were made to the Conservative Government of that time for a similar grant to assist Dr. Bruce to carry the expedition through; but I regret to say it was refused. Since then further applications have been made for the small sum of £6,800 in order that Dr. Bruce might continue to publish the account of his voyage, and show the scientific results of it. That request for £6,800 was refused. An application was also made by Dr. Bruce, when he contemplated organising another important expedition for the year 1911, but that was refused, and he is to get no grant. I do not object to these grants being made for the expeditions organised from England, but I think it is scarcely fair that this House should lend itself to make fish of one and fowl of another. It was a very modest request that was made by Dr. Bruce for £6,800. If you take the quota contributed by Scotland towards the £139,000 it will be seen that she contributed between £15,000 and £16,000 as her share towards the cost of the other expeditions. That, I say, is not fair, and before this Vote is passed I should like to have

  941
  some assurance from the Treasury that some attention will be given to this application for a grant of £6,800. I trust we may have some assurance that when the application is made in respect of the expedition which it is anticipated we may organise in Scotland in the year 1911, some attention will also be made to that application. I am not opposing the Vote on principle, but what I do object to is that you should make a difference between your treatment of applications for expeditions organised in England, and those organised in Scotland. I beg to move.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, I can heartily assure my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh that the remarks he has made fell on very sympathetic ears, when I heard that he was putting forward a claim on behalf of Scotland, in support of which the evidence is so just and fair, and certainly demands the attention of the Treasury. I can undertake, as a representative of the Government in Scotland, to make the demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the most favourable way that I can, in supporting the claim of Scotland for a grant. I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing will be left undone on my part in laying the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in bringing forward the claim of that part of the United Kingdom of which the hon. Member and myself are among the representatives.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: With all my admiration for the Lord Advocate, I submit that in the present instance he is not exactly authorised to speak on behalf of the Committee, and I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh would have liked to have heard something more definite in answer to the question he has raised. A sum of £20,000 has been voted out of public funds for the support of scientific investigation, and I think it is agreed that the work done in scientific investigation in various departments by the Scottish National and Arctic Expedition is at least as great, if not greater, than that accomplished by the expedition led by Sir Ernest Shackleton. It is on that ground, if also on patriotic grounds, that we desire to support the demand put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to urge very strongly the request which has been put
  942
  forward. It seems strange, when so much is given to scientific discovery which is organised south of the Tweed, that nothing is ever to be done for equally valuable scientific services rendered by Scotchmen. We regret that there is no representative of the Treasury here when this item comes up for discussion. We thought at least that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary might have been here to listen to the representations of the representatives of Scotland in this matter. It is a matter on which, from obvious patriotic motives, we feel very strongly. We are, of course, glad to have the assurance that this demand will have the support of the Lord Advocate. We know how valuable his support is, and we are, of course, certain that if he put forward this demand with his usual eloquence and persuasiveness and persistence, some substantial results will accrue. We think we have also grounds for appealing on this subject to the Prime Minister, as in the recent General Election Scotland stood well by the Prime Minister. Surely it would not be inappropriate that the reward for this loyalty on the part of Scotland should take the shape of a grant towards scientific discovery. It used to be said in former days that when the North Pole was discovered a Scotchman would be the discoverer. That prophecy has not been fulfilled, but it may be reserved to a Scotchman to obtain the prize of the glorious discovery of the South Pole.
  Mr. J. P. GIBSON: I desire, as representing a Division of Edinburgh, and knowing the strong feeling in that city on this subject, and knowing of the support which it gave when this expedition went out, to emphasise and support what has been said. The modest sum which has been indicated is one which could easily pay the debt incurred in the last expedition, and I do hope that favourable consideration will be given to it by the Treasury.
  Mr. MACKINDER: An hon. Member opposite has put this matter entirely on political grounds. I would venture to urge it on scientific grounds. As one who has been connected with geographical investigation I think there can be no question that this Scottish National Expedition has done what I would venture to say is unrivalled scientific work, and that the results, which are not even yet fully published, are at any rate as valuable as the results of much larger expeditions equipped with full national resources. Therefore I would like

  943
  to support the plea put forward by hon. Members opposite, but not on the political grounds, which on a matter of this kind I am sorry to hear urged.
  Captain GILMOUR: As one who was in favour of the grants to the National Expedition, and knowing we took a national pride in Sir Ernest Shackleton's expedition, I am one of those who believe that the work done by Dr. Bruce's expedition was very excellent, and I hope that the Treasury may see fit to give some support to it.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I be permitted to say in reply to what has been said that I am very glad the hon. Member is a very warm supporter of Sir Ernest Shackleton in his work. My sole point was that, inasmuch as the Government has given a grant for all those expeditions, that we who contribute to that grant should also have our claims considered. In view of the statement which has been made by the Lord Advocate, and as we are assured that we are going to have his powerful support in approaching the Treasury, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TREASURY CHEST FUND.—(CLASS 5.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £17,052, 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, 1910, for making good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various Treasury chests abroad in the year 1908–9."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES. (CLASS 6.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for superannuation, compensation, compassionate, and additional allowances and gratuities."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—(CLASS 3.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed: "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty to
  944
  defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and other law charges, and for the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I have received several letters from persons in my division regarding the injustice which they feel they suffer in being called on to attend jury trials, two, three, four days, and sometimes even for a week without receiving any grant or assistance. That is to them a matter of very great hardship in a city like Edinburgh, where constant claims are made. I am not sure whether it would not be possible for the Lord Advocate to see whether it would be possible to make some grants to these men, on whom it is a very great sacrifice.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything in this Vote to entitle the hon. Member to raise the matter to which he refers.
  Mr. PRICE: I understood that it was for criminal proceedings.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.—(CLASS 7.)
  Motion made, and Question propsed. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,250, 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, 1910, for expenses in connection with international exhibitions."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  COLONIAL SERVICES.—(CLASS 5.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £57,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Master of Elibank]—put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday, 3rd March).

SUPPLY [1st March].—REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [1st March].—REPORT.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, IRELAND.—(CLASS II.)
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,684, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1910, for the expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid."
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS OFFICE, IRELAND.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50, 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, 1910, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, IRELAND.
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450, 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, 1910, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland.
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, IRELAND.—(CLASS 4.)
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,850, 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, 1910, for the general purposes of the Queen's University, Belfast, and the University Colleges at Cork and Galway, under Section 7 (2) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908."
  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.—(CLASS 2.)
  5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for Stationery and Books for the Public Service; for the Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for the Cost of Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE.—(CLASS 3.)
  6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to
  946
  defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."
  Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY [28th February].—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

    ROYAL PALACES.
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,400, being the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1910, be granted to His Majesty in respect of Royal Palaces."
    Resolution agreed to.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges which will come in course of payment during the year ended 31st March, 1910, for expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular buildings."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Mr. JOHN DILLONmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100. I desire an explanation with regard to the charge in connection with the transfer of the Villa Rosebery to His Majesty's Government. What is the object of the transfer, and what is the total sum paid for the villa?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I explained the whole of this matter last night; but, as the hon. Member evidently did not hear me, I may say that the so-called Villa Rosebery has been most generously presented by Lord Rosebery to the British Government for the use of the British, Ambassador in Rome during those portions of the year when Rome is not in its most healthy condition. The sum which the House is asked to vote is only that which is necessary to pay the transfer duty, which in Italy is higher than it is in this country; and the Government have naturally paid that amount on receiving this very generous gift for diplomatic purposes from Lord Rosebery.
    Mr. DILLON: I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had explained the item.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolution agreed to.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (OFFICES).
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £320, 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, 1910, for the pay-meat of the Salaries and Expenses and the offices of the House of Commons."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn. "—[Master of Elibank.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Nine o'clock.
    Mr. SPEAKER has, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House," nominated the Right Hon. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Sir Francis Charming, Sir William Collins, Mr. Patrick Joseph Power, and Mr. Charles Fenwick, to act during this Session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

  Forest Concession, British East Africa.
  Forest Concession, British East Africa.
  Officers of the Berar Commission.
  Officers of the Berar Commission.
  Turbary on the Kirwan Property.
  Turbary on the Kirwan Property.
  Rifle-buckets.
  Rifle-buckets.
  Interchange with Colonial Officers.
  Interchange with Colonial Officers.
  Home-Killed Beef.
  Home-Killed Beef.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Pointed Bullets.
  Pointed Bullets.
  Courses of Military Instruction.
  Courses of Military Instruction.
  War Office—Allowances and Concessions.
  War Office—Allowances and Concessions.
  Mobile Field Kitchens.
  Mobile Field Kitchens.
  Teachers' Pension Scheme (Scotland).
  Teachers' Pension Scheme (Scotland).
  Life Saving at Coastguard Stations.
  Life Saving at Coastguard Stations.
  Male Adults and Voters.
  Male Adults and Voters.