Sitting of 3 March 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Northern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

WINES IMPORTED.
Return ordered "showing the alcoholic strength, degree by degree, of wines imported to this country during the year 1910 in cask from the various countries of Europe, Madeira, Australia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 91, of Session 1910)."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[ME. EMMOTT IN THE CHAIR.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS: SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CLASS II.).
  1. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,200, 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, 1911, for the salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
  Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. I hope to get from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote a short review, and from other quarters a certain amount of criticism upon the conduct of those who control the Civil Service Commission. I speak under correction, but I think it is many years—
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I understand that the ruling of the Chairman has always been that on Supplementary Estimates no question of general policy or
  714
  principle can be raised unless the Supplementary Estimate provides for a new service or unless the policy represented by the original Vote is departed from. I submit that all that can be discussed on this Estimate is the reason why we have come at this time for a sum of £4,200 in addition to the original Estimate.
  The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the policy of the original Estimate does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate. I do not know what the hon. Member was going to say, but it seemed to me he was about to introduce a question that would be out of Order.
  Lord BALCARRES: Cannot we discuss the policy raised by the money which the Treasury asks to be added?
  The CHAIRMAN: So far as it is a new policy it may be discussed. I understand, however, that this money is asked for because of the larger number of examinees.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Would it not be possible on this Supplementary Estimate to raise the whole principle on which the appointments are made?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not; that is the policy of the original Estimate.
  Mr. SHERWELL: If this is a Supplementary Estimate does it not necessarily carry with it a review of the policy of examination.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it carries that with it at all.
  Mr. MALCOLM: It was not my intention to raise the whole question or to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an extended reply. I will postpone the general question of policy till a later day, but I would like to point out in regard to this Civil Service Commission that there is no expert in this House in charge of its conduct so far as the House of Commons is concerned. The Secretary of the Treasury is in a sense responsible, but there is no expert control as in the case of the Charity Commission or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which bodies have a representative in this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I put it merely as a matter of courtesy.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have questions of courtesy for this simple reason, that if I allow such questions to be put and replied to it would be very unfair to refuse the same privilege to other Members who might wish to put similar questions.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to move a reduction on the whole Vote, although I am chiefly concerned with item B. My chief complaint regarding that item is as to the increased amount set apart for assistant examiners. I want to know the reason for this unforeseen increase in the salaries of the assistant examiners. I notice that in the Estimate for 1909 only £869 was asked for, and in the Estimates for 1910–11 only £919: now the figure is £18,685.
  It is a very large increase and requires some answer from those responsible for putting down the estimates. I do not understand why we should have this startling increase in the number of examiners, especially at a time when there is a notable change coming over the public mind in respect to competitive examinations. A great many people are now wondering very seriously whether this cramming for competitive examinations and the results of it really provide for the State the best people for its service. A number of very learned persons are urging that these cramming methods, which are purely utilitarian in their preparation, are not always satisfactory in result, and that by means of them you risk depriving the State of a very valuable asset, namely, the personality of candidates. There are, it is said, candidates with great and good personalities, although they cannot stand the test of competitive examination, who could be very valuable servants to the State. Of course we could urge the Chinese example as a reductio ad absurdum where the people are examined—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again travelling beyond the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I am really very sorry Sir, and I will try to keep myself in Order. It is really very difficult in the case of a large question to unravel from it this question of assistant examiners which seemed to me to open up the question of competitive examination. I do not understand why there should be these extra examiners when competitive examination seems, from the Government point
  716
  of view, to be going rather out of fashion as quite recently the Government, as shown by their present Estimates, have appointed a very large number of people by patronage in regard to the Labour Exchanges, and also a large number to deal with the land surveyors' business. Instead, however, of the examiners decreasing they are, I understand, being increased. The Admiralty since the year 1904 in the case of 200 clerks, who used to be examined clerks, I think in the Second Division, have substituted clerks and assistant clerks by patronage. I perhaps must not pursue the matter further on this occasion, but the whole question of Civil Service examinations and the examiners must be raised on the general Estimates. I should like, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell us, why it is that this very large Supplementary Estimate is put before the House and on what ground he thinks it necessary in these later days when competitive examinations are going out of fashion to ask for this large sum.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I venture to submit to you, Sir, that on this Vote it would not be out of Order to ask who are these examiners for whom this large sum is demanded, who appoints them, who do they examine, for what purposes and who is responsible for the conduct of the examinations? The Civil Service Commissioners as a body exercise a very wide and far-reaching effect upon the country. I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, sir, and I do not wish to go into the general question, but the point of who is responsible for the acts of the Commissioners arises directly on this Vote by which we are asked for £4,000 extra. I think we are entitled to ask who is responsible for dealing with that sum?
  The CHAIRMAN: That clearly must depend upon whether the hon. Member is really going back to the policy of the original Estimate. I should guess that is his intention, and if that is so he is clearly out of Order. He can ask whether these extra examiners were necessary and why they have been appointed.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On the point of Order. Everybody on this side wishes to keep in order and to obey your ruling and may I ask whether it would be permissible to discuss how it is that these additional examiners have come to be appointed? Of course, I quite submit to your ruling, that the original question as

  717
  to appointing examiners is not before the Committee, but somebody must have erred or this additional sum would not be required. I venture to submit, most humbly, that it is in order to discuss and ask how this Estimate has been exceeded and who is responsible?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly in Order. The hon. Member must know that if hon. Members wish to go on from that to who appoints all examiners and why they are all appointed that is a question of the policy of the original Estimate.
  Sir W. ANSON: I do not wish to go into the general question of the value of competition and of examinations for special services, but I wish to ask whether I may not inquire upon this Vote who is responsible for the administration of the money, and there are some details which I find in the report of the Civil Service Commission as to who is responsible for the administration of the money, I should like to inquire about. The Vote does not describe in what branches of the Civil Service these examiners are wanted. It may be in the higher branches or in regard to boy clerks or any one of the officials of different sorts. The reason why I was anxious to know who is responsible for the administration of this grant arises from a correspondence in the last report of the Civil Service Commissioners, who addressed the Treasury and say that they think sufficient importance is not attached to Latin and Greek verse and prose composition as compared with English composition.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Although not in the least anxious to cut the discussion short, I do submit to you, Sir, that if the hon. Baronet opposite is allowed to put this question to me I am bound to answer him, and then a discussion, as you wisely pointed out, becomes general. I venture to submit not on account of this Vote, but on account of the general principle in discussing Supplementary Estimates, that that is not in Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Baronet can show that this £4,000 is required owing to some change of policy with regard to this particular point, it is clear it is a matter of general policy arising on the original Estimate, and not on the Supplementary Estimate.
  Sir W. ANSON: The point I was putting is this. It is very difficult to say what Department is concerned in the Civil
  718
  Service Commission. We are asked for &a large sum of money for examinations. Are we not entitled to ask what are these examinations and who is responsible for their conduct? If not, I can hardly see what function this Committee has in dealing with Supplementary Estimates.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Supplementary Estimate is for an extra sum owing to more examiners being required. The Minister in charge of the Estimates assures me that it does not indicate any change of policy, and is not in regard to any change of policy. The question which the hon. Baronet is raising, or desires to raise, is obviously one which should be raised on the Estimates for next year, and then it will be perfectly in Order.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am not raising any question of policy. I am merely asking who is responsible for the administration of the money. I have before me in the report of the Civil Service Commission a letter addressed to the Lords of the Treasury by the Civil Service Commissioners asking whether they will consent to an alteration in the adjustment of marks.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have assured the Chairman, and I assure the House, that no such question as the hon. Baronet wishes to raise on the report of the Commissioners arises on the Vote, and I submit, therefore, that it cannot be discussed.
  Sir W. ANSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state my case I will stop in a moment if the Chairman says it is out of Order. Here is a question as to the relative value of certain subjects of examinations referred to the Lords of the Treasury. Their Lordships agree to a readjustment of certain marks. I want to know who are their Lordships—who is it who deals with this question of examination?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon Baronet has put to me a question on a point of Order. The point he desires to raise cannot come on these Supplementary Estimates. It must come on the original Estimates for next year.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Would it not add greatly to the convenience of the Committee if Ministers in moving a Supplementary Estimate would just favour the Committee with some explanation of the grounds on which the Estimate is asked?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which must be left to the discretion of the Minister.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit that it will be in order to ask how the increase arises and to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain the system which has accounted for this increase.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly in Order to ask how the increase arises.
  Sir W. ANSON: Am I to understand that it is out of Order to ask who is responsible for the administration of this slum which the Committee is asked to recommend?
  The CHAIRMAN: If in this£3,535 there is a charge indicating a change in administrative policy, I think the question of administration does arise, but I understand no such charge is included in this £3,535, and it is quite clear to me that the point the hon. Baronet desires to raise does not arise at this stage. I think the hon. Baronet could not show me how he can distinguish between this and the general question of policy which can be raised on the original Estimate.
  Sir W. ANSON: May I endeavour to show how my point would arise. I want to know who are responsible for the conduct of these examinations to this House? Is it the Secretary to the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Sir W. ANSON: Then are we to understand that the Lords of the Treasury go into these questions of examination of themselves, or is it simply a request from the Civil Service Commissioners, handed on without further explanation to the House by the Secretary to the Treasury?
  The CHAIRMAN: I perfectly understand the hon. Baronet's question, and I have already replied to it. It is a question which can only be raised on the original Estimates.
  Mr. MALCOLM: On a point of Order As I am responsible for starting, I think it is most regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I told about a week ago I was going to raise the point—I mean the Minister for Education—did not let the Civil Service Commissioners know, but waited till this morning to tell us it was out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will now explain why this extra money is required. It will then be perfectly clear what topics are in order and what are not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am very willing to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have risen before but I understood the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) wanted to raise some point, and I waited till he had made it. Then arose all these subsequent points of Order for which I was not responsible. I was getting up, when I saw the hon. Baronet had a desire to speak, and I waited for him. The hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) has asked why there has been such a very large increase in the Estimate. The answer is very simple, and I hope it will be satisfactory not from the point of view of the Treasury, but from the general point of view of these examinations. There has been an enormous increase in the number of candidates who have come forward for examination during the last twelve months. I think this is the first occasion for a great number of years that the Civil Service Commissioners have been sufficiently out in their reckoning as to the probable number of candidates for examination as to require a Supplementary Estimate. But this year there has been an actual increase in the number of candidates amounting to 45 per cent. The candidates last year who came up for various examinations amounted to 25,000. This year, 1910–11, they have already amounted to 37,000 odd—not merely an unprecedented but a wholly unanticipated increase. Of course there has been with that a very great increase in the amount of fees which have been returned by the candidates to-the Treasury. These fees cannot be brought to account in this Estimate and cannot be discussed on it because they must be treated under the regulations of the Public Accounts Committee as Revenue and not Appropriations-in-Aid. Take the case of the second division clerks. There has been an increase of no less than 500 in the number of candidates for second division clerkships, there has been a very great increase in the number of women and girls who come up for examination, either as abstractors or for clerkships for the Post Office. There has been in particular a very extensive examination of examiners in the Patent Office and there have been

  721
  similar unforeseen necessities of the Civil Service Commission. The whole of this money has been expended in the payment of the assistant examiners and the incidental expenses of these examinations. The examinations have been conducted on exactly the same lines as they always have been and if there had not been these increases in the number of candidates there would have been no necessity to come to the House for this Vote which is practically met, from the financial point of view, by the increased fees.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that the conditions under which the candidates increased has been changed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have expressly said not.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the enormous increase? Is it that there has been more places open this year, because it seems to me an extraordinary thing that we should require no less than £3,535 for the examiners in one year beyond anticipation. There must be some further explanation besides that given. Then again, have the earnings of the examiners been increased? It seems altogether extraordinary that the Government, knowing more or less of the average cost of these examiners, should find themselves so much out that they actually have come here for £3,000 extra. We have heard a good deal about sloppiness lately. It seems to me there has been a good deal of sloppy finance in the preparation of these Estimates. The Committee will certainly expect a little further information as to the causes which have led so suddenly and unexpectedly to this great increase in the number of candidates.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is at all satisfactory. I think the Committee will agree with me it is not an explanation at all. It is merely a statement of a fact which was already in possession of the Committee, namely, that there were certain unforeseen circumstances. The Committee were quite aware that even this Government would not come down for a Supplementary Estimate if there were no unforeseen circumstances. Therefore we did not need the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that. He says there have been more candidates. Of course
  722
  there must have been more candidates or there would have been no necessity for more examiners. Even such a stupid person as a reactionary Tory would be aware of that. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was a mere waste of time. He referred to the increase in the number of candidates and stated that this is the first time for many years that a Supplementary Estimate has been necessary for the Civil Service examinations. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not know what the explanation was or he thought it wiser not to say anything, or perhaps there is something which he does not desire the Committee to know. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions. Why were there unforeseen circumstances? We pay the right hon. Gentleman a considerable sum of money to see that there are no unforeseen circumstances, and when he puts Estimates before the House which do not correspond with the sums to be divided I want to know why the mistake has arisen. He said that there was no change of policy, but that, owing to certain circumstances, it was necessary to have more examiners. There was not a single word said to enable hon. Members on either side of the House to know why these examiners were necessary or how these unforeseen circumstances arose. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 37,000 candidates this year, as against 25,000 in the previous-year. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to do with these candidates? How was it that when the original Estimates were brought in it was supposed that the ordinary number of candidates would come forward? How was it that they were increased to 37,000? We want to know whether that is a change in policy.
  Mr HOBHOUSE: I really must interrupt. I do not expect the hon. Baronet to pay any attention—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes I always pay every attention.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I told the hon. Baronet expressly that there had been no change in policy.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cause of this increase was? It is no use getting up and saying that there is no change in policy. There may be two opinions as to what is a change in policy. Are the Government valuers increased? I do not think that the Government valuers ought to be included.

  723
  If the right hon. Gentleman does not know I must say that I do not think the Government valuers ought to be included in this. I presume they are included. My recollection is that they were not included in the original estimate, and therefore, if that is so, this is a change of policy. I will sit down in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining. [The hon. Baronet temporarily resumed his seat.] If the right hon. Gentleman will not answer, I conclude that the Government valuers are included in the estimate and that it is a change of policy. It opens a very wide field, and it is entirely the fault of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government valuers are to be included I should like to know why this particular policy of the Government has been altered. It was originally intended that these valuers should do certain things, and in many cases the valuations had been stopped. Therefore this supplementary estimate will not be necessary. I move that you, Mr. Chairman, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not understand what the hon. Baronet wants. This is the examination of persons who come forward as candidates for the Civil Service. It has nothing to do with the valuers under the Finance Act.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Government appointed certain valuers for land valuations. Are these valuers examined or not?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet moved to report progress, or whether he suggested that he would move.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did move, but I do not want to move it if the right hon. Gentleman answers the question.
  The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Baronet has not moved.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have answered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether the valuers appointed have to pass an examination, and whether that has necessitated an increase in the cost of the examinations.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: These examinations are the ordinary Civil Service examinations. They differ in no respect from
  724
  previous examinations. There has been an increase in the number of candidates as compared with preceding years, and that could not possibly have been foreseen by the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: How could the hon. Baronet with all his perspicacity say how many candidates will come up for examination in succeeding years? Whether the Civil Service has become more attractive under the Liberal regime of course I cannot say. There is no departure from the course which has been followed in previous years in regard to these examinations.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Even now the right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Government valuers are examined or not.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have said No, twice already.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I really cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply. We know perfectly well, because there has been correspondence in the papers about it, that these land valuers are examined. Some of them have written details of their examinations. Is that examination under the Civil Service or not? If the right hon. Gentleman says definitely that it is not under the Civil Service then it will not be in order to discuss it any further. If it is not under the Civil Service examinations, is it under arbitrary rules framed by some department? I really think it must be under some authority from the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not think a Government Department would take upon itself to set on foot an arbitrary examination for which it had no authority. There is acknowledged to be a large increase in the number of candidates. How is it accounted for? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that there has been no change of policy? It must be due either to offering greater inducements to candidates to come forward, in which case there must have been a change of policy, or there must be a greater number of places. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a greater number of candidates for the same number of places or for a greater number of places? If a greater number of places has been thrown open, that again means that there has been a change of policy. Which of those two explanations is the right one? We are entitled to know. The right hon. Gentleman might have made some sort of statement at the beginning giving the information

  725
  that is now being extracted with difficulty and reluctance. In reference to the item, "fees of assistant examiners on account of increased number of candidates," I would like to know on what principle these examiners are paid? Are they paid a minimum salary whatever the number of candidates, or are they paid per head on the number of candidates coming up for examination? I presume they are paid at a minimum rate, otherwise the examiner in a subject in which there are not many candidates coming up for examination, such as Russian for the Foreign Office, would be at a great disadvantage. If the payment is per head, I take it it will affect the work done, but only up to a certain point, because the fact of being an examiner at all and having to get up the subjects does entitle the examiner to have something assigned to him from the first, apart from the number of persons who may come up. The next question is, why is it necessary to hire examination rooms? Surely the country ought to have examination rooms of its own. The University of Oxford is by no means as rich as the State, yet it provides those splendid examination rooms which are the glory of everyone concerned. It is a little unworthy of this country to have to go about hiring examination rooms for the purpose of Civil Service examinations. My fifth question is what are these receipts from fee stamps? Are they levied in consequence of the last Finance Act, or not? In what form are they paid? Are they paid on the paper that admits the candidate to the examination hall or not? How is it they have amounted to this large sum? Is it due to the increase in the number of candidates or due to the fact that the stamp on the fees has been raised? I think the Committee are entitled to an answer to this question before they decide this Vote.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I also would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer one or two questions. He indicated very briefly that one of the candidates who sat in these examinations was an examiner in the Patent Office.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. For what is called an examinership in the Patent Office.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is what I thought. He indicated that it is a very expensive examination.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: According to my information.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what that examination cost, and whether the candidate had to pay heavy fees for the purpose of sitting at the examination. Then there was an increase due to extra receipts from the fee stamps. I assume those are fees paid by candidates for examination?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The increase is £4,000, so that this examination is a paying thing?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We cannot discuss the extra receipts. They are not Appropriations-in-Aid. They are not included in this Estimate, and I submit we cannot discuss them.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the question of the fee stamps, but I never object to questions being asked regarding anything of the kind, or even as to an Appropriation-in-Aid, but we cannot discuss them. What we are discussing now is how we spent the money. We have nothing to do with where we get that money from.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to discuss it, only I do not want to start my argument on a wrong basis. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell whether these are, in fact, fees paid by candidates for the examination, that is the only question I want to ask.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am sorry I did not make that clear. I thought I said so before, that as a set-off against this extra expenditure we had a very large revenue from fees, which are, of course, paid by candidates for the privilege of sitting at examinations, and that those fees had increased by £4,000, which is more than a set-off against this Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I thought that that was so. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed me. Then it appears that these examinations have been carried out for £3,990 extra, and that there were extra fees of £4,000, so that the State got a profit of £10 when the fees are brought into account. It becomes a more important thing to ascertain whether the State is making a profit by advertising, for example, vacancies in the Post Office for women.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Estimate.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was an increase in the candidates of 45 per cent., and second division clerks 500, and others were applications from women for Post Office appointments.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, that is so.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If is important to inquire how that large increase came about, because the State is actually making a profit out of the candidates coming up for examinations, and it is important that people should not be asked to go in for these examinations unless there was a reasonable prospect of appointments being open for them from the time they become qualified.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of what is being done under the Post Office arises on the Post Office Estimates, but not here. This money has not been spent on some new methods of examination. The question which the hon. Member desires to raise does not arise here.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If that is out of order, I will pass to the examination of those candidates that we are now asked to pay for, and confine myself to the general question, and ask why these inquiries for candidates have taken place, and whether there has been any advertisement issued by the Government for candidates. I wish to know whether any new appointments have been thrown open to these candidates, or why, otherwise, some intimation was not given in order to prevent this excess of candidates, some of whom, at any rate, are drawn from a class which can ill afford to pay fees for examinations unless there is reasonable prospect of an appointment following upon the examinations. With regard to the appointment of assistant examiners in the Patent Office, that is an expensive matter, and we should like to know whether the candidates have had to contribute to the total extra cost of those assistant examiners. For example, if the examinations cost £4,000, and you receive £4,200, then the State is taking £200 from other people who have sat as candidates for these appointments. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some details of the expenditure in regard to this particular examination.
  Sir W. ANSON: I presume that the examinations for the Patent Office would be
  728
  expensive, inasmuch as they involve examinations into subjects which we all know cost money. I want to know who was responsible for setting the subjects for examination.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Minister to tell me about the Civil Service Commission, and whether they or the Patent Office are responsible.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The course in all these examinations is exactly the same. The Civil Service Commission are informed of the time when vacancies will occur, and that is done on lines already determined. Unless the office is a new office, they hold the examination on lines already determined. They advertise the vacancy on lines already established, and the responsibility of holding these examinations is that of the Civil Service Commission.
  The CHAIRMAN: On that explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the matter raised by the hon. Baronet does not arise on these estimates.
  Sir W. ANSON: I was about to refer to the cost and character of the examinations. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Patent Office informs the Civil Service Commission that a vacancy will arise, that they must provide for an examination of the candidates, and that the whole responsibility as to the cost and character of the examinations rest with the Civil Service Commission.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was very careful to say "on lines already established." That being so, the Treasury is not concerned. If the office were a new one, then the Treasury would be consulted.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is extremely difficult to know who is responsible for the conduct of the examinations, which have a very wide effect on education as well as on finance. The answer I have received I admit is not satisfactory, but I also admit that it is all the right hon. Gentleman is able to give.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it not the case that the cost of the examiners in the Patent Office is almost entirely covered by the payments by the candidates for the post, and that no cost is imposed on examinees under other examinations?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is the fact.
  Mr. FELL: I have listened carefully to the Debate, and I am more in the fog than I was at the beginning. A large number of additional candidates were examined, and the extra cost was £4,200. We are asked to vote £4,200. There is a note that the extra fees amounted to £4,000, and we had better have some explanation as to the other £200.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have had considerable experience as regards examinations, and I have not got the same complete confidence in their result as a means of testing—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I pointed out that the question of general policy does not arise on these Estimates. These are merely Supplementary Estimates, and a discussion on a question of general policy arises on the original Estimates and not on these Supplementary Estimates.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I quite see the point. But there was another question which I wished to raise. I see there is a sum of between three and four thousand pounds in the Estimate. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what rates are paid for the performance of these duties by the examiners. I do not know whether this is a question of general policy, or whether we can discuss it on this item. If these examiners are to perform very important work it ought not to be carried out on sweating wages. I have information with
  regard to what is paid. I have here an invitation to the Civil Service Commissioners to set six or seven subjects for the examination of 550 candidates, and the payment for that is £13, the work to be done in twelve days. The examination of each paper takes at least a quarter of an hour, for the man's future may depend upon the care with which the examination is made.
  The CHAIRMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman point to the item on which be raises that question?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot tell.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member cannot tell me, then it is out of Order.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I have good reason to suppose it is not.
  The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Gentleman knows the item is in this Supplementary Estimate it is not in Order, because it is a question of general policy.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Will there be no other opportunity to raise the question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSErose in his place and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 50.

  Division No. 26].

  AYES.

  [1.7 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Devlin, Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Adamson, William

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Alden, Percy

  Dillon, John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, W.

  Allen, C. P. (Stroud)

  Doris, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barton, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beale, W. P

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Joyce, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Brigg, Sir John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelly, Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Glanville, H. J

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Kilbride, Denis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goldstone, Frank

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gulland, John William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Logan, John William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Macdonald, J. R (Leicester)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Delany, William

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Mathies, Richard

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Toulmin, George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Molloy, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Waring, Walter

  Munro, Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Webb, H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Dowd, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

  Whyte, A. F.

  O'Shee, James John

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughtoh)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Phillips, John (Longsord, S.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Welts)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Barnston, H.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Campion, W. R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Cassel, Felix

  Mount, William Arthur

  Malcolm and Mr. Worthington-Evans,

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £4,100 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 16V.

  Division No. 27].

  AYES.

  [1.15 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Astor, Waldorf

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craik Sir Henry

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Barnston, H.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Campion, W. R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Carllie, Edward Hildred

  Moore, William

  Cassel, Felix

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Worthington-Evans.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Adamson, William

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cameron, Robert

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Boland, John Plus

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barton, William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Clough, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Crooks, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Reddy, Michael

  Crumley, Patrict

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Delany, William

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Dillon, John

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Doneian, Captain A

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Doris, William

  Logan, John William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esslemont, Gcorge Birnie

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, Davis M. (Coventry)

  Scares, Ernest

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mathias, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Toulmin, George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Waring, Waiter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Webb, H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shee, James John

  Whyte, A. F.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Williams, Porry (Middlesbrough)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Mr. HOBHOUSEclaimed "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 57.

  Division No. 38].

  AYES.

  [1.20. p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Adamson, William

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Alden, Percy

  Crumley, Patrick

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Delany, William

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Devlin, Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barton, William

  Dillon, John

  Henry Sir Charles S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Doris, William

  Hinds, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Boland, John Plus

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Johnson, W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones Leif Stratten (Notts Rushcliffe)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Glanville, Harold James

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Joyce, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Clough, William

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Leach, Charles

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

  Soares, Ernest

  Logan, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Toulmin, George

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Price, Sir Robert J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mathias, Richard

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Webb, H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Reddy, Michael

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Moiteno, Percy Alport

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Muldoon, John

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Munro, Robert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sheehy, David

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Spear, John Ward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence

  Stewart, Gershom

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Barnston, H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Malcolm, Ian

  William's, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wllioughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Moore, William

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Fell.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

THE MINT, INCLUDIGE COINAGE.—(CLASS II.)

  POSTAGE STAMP CONTRACT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the Preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."
  Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance; that is as to what it is proposed should be done in respect to the dies and stamps. On the last Vote, Sir, you ruled
  736
  out of order the raising of certain questions of policy which had been decided when the original Vote was before the House. This matter deals with an entirely new question. There was no Vote whatever in the original Estimate for dies and stamps. The reason for this Supplementary Vote is because the Government are embarking on a great change of policy about which nothing, I think, has ever been said to the House or to the public, and which really ought to be very fully discussed. The change of policy is this: Up to the present year postage stamps, and not only postage stamps, but stamps for bills of exchange, and for revenue purposes, have been let out by private contract and made by a private firm. I forget the name of the firm that first undertook this duty fifty years ago,

  737
  but for the last thirty years the work has been done by Messrs. De la Rue. Their contract terminated in December, and the Government have taken over the work. The Government have decided—and this is where the matter arises on this particular Vote—that the stamps shall be made by the Royal Mint. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse)—not in any spirit of hostility, but because I think we should have the fullest information on the matter—certam questions in regard to the change. Firstly, why have the Government, after having followed for so many years the policy of private contracting terminated the contract, and why are they going to do the work themselves?
  Secondly, is it the intention of the Government that the cost of making the stamps shall be less? We are entitled to have some figures laid before the Committee as to the cost of making the stamps in the past by Messrs. De la Rue, and what the cost is likely to be under the new Government arrangement. Is there likely to be any saving under this head? Again, I want to know if the Government really hopes to do the work rather better? I do not think we ought to boast very much of the character of the stamps that we have had up to the present time. The designs, in many respects, have not been good. I am sure that from an artistic point of view they compare very badly with, for example, the French and Swiss stamps, and from the point of view of finish they compare very badly indeed with the stamps of the United States. In addition, I think we are all agreed that a more flimsy, wretched paper than the stamps have been made of could not be conceived. I do not know how many times Members of Parliament, who are always having to put stamps on letters—that seems to be one of our principal occupations!—tear stamps and have to stick them together, or perhaps destroy them, because of the flimsiness of their material. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that now that the making of stamps has been undertaken by a Government Department, that not only as regards the design and the character of the stamps, but in respect to the material of which they are made, there will be an improvement in the future. I am not for a single moment bringing any charge against the Government. nor am I complaining of the Government taking this important matter into their own hands. I simply want details as to
  738
  what saving there is likely to be. Granted that it is the proper course that the Government should do this work themselves, is the Mint—and this is an important question—the best place to do it? The Government had several alternatives. They could have set up a separate stamp factory, an entirely new department, and could have come and asked for a Vote for it; or they could have followed the course they actually have followed. What do the Government contemplate for the future? Up to the termination of the contract, Messrs. De la Rue have been in the habit of making stamps not only for this country but have made nearly all—certainly the greater number—of stamps for the Colonies and for India. It has been the commonest thing for our Colonies, for our Indian Dependency, and for some foreign countries to come to us for designs without having got the designs for the stamps actually made here. Are the Government going to make provision, now that they have undertaken this duty of manufacturing stamps to supply, not only the Mother Country but also the Colonies? If so I venture to say that the provision in the Estimate is altogether inadequate. Much bigger premises would be required and much more dies and plates and a great deal more in the way of machinery and in the matter of Civil Servants, and so on. We would have to contemplate not a small augmentation of the business of the Mint, but a very large augmentation. Do the Government contemplate that, and as the Mint is the Mint, in most respects, not only for the coinage of this country but for the Empire as a whole, is it also to be the stamp factory not only for this country but for the Empire as a whole. The public and the House of Commons ought to be informed on these matters, and we ought to know how far this expenditure which is placed upon the Votes is going to help us in the future. It is a much bigger question than one merely of postage stamps; there is the whole question of Excise stamps, stamps for bills, legal documents, and contract notes. Whatever reason there may have been to complain of the character of postage stamps manufactured by private contract in the past, certainly the other stamps have been very well done, and if the Government are going to undertake the whole of that, in addition to the postage stamps, the addition to the work in the Mint will be very great indeed.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extraordinary

  739
  elaboration of these business stamps. It is such that even if the smallest bit of stamp remains actually attached to a document its character can be identified. There was an extraordinary case occurred some years ago arising out of a railway accident in the neighbourhood of Peterborough, on the Northern Railway, when the mail bags were burned and many legal documents were totally or partially destroyed. From some little bits of stamps found in the charred mail bags it was possible to identify the documents to which they were attached. When stamps have to be made with that elaboration it shows the business is a very intricate and peculiar one, which the Government are undertaking in addition to the manufacture of postage stamps. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a full statement of the intentions of the Government in regard to the making of stamps, and I claim the right to do so on this occasion because in the Estimates presented last year there was no mention made of the making of stamps. It is a new departure, and the policy has been embarked on since the Estimates of last year were published, and it is only fair that we should have a full statement from the Government upon the subject.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I want to ask a few questions as to the amounts of some items in the Vote which are not intelligible on the face of them. In the first place—specimen coins and medals—are they all in connection with the new reign and the approaching Coronation, or is there any other explanation for them? There is the item in connection with the last coinage of gold. On the face of it I should have thought that might have been anticipated and provided for in the original estimate. Why are salaries, wages, and allowances greater now than was anticipated; the new reign hardly makes much difference in that connection. Then with regard to coinage, is that old coinage or new coinage in connection with the new reign? Why is there no explanation of how the £48,780 Appropriation-in-Aid was arrived at-There is usually an explanatory foot-note, but there is no indication here of how you arrive at that appropriation. Then there is the item for increased rates and freights on account of the unusually large shipments of silver coins. It is very surprising that should not have been foreseen and provided for in the original estimate.
  740
  I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how these various items arise, and why so considerable an estimate is laid upon the Table at this stage of the Session. The Government pledged themselves in times gone by to reduce Supplementary Estimates as much as possible, and it is somewhat disappointing to see Supplementary Estimates that show no reduction and great slovenliness of finance.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was necessary to have this extra coinage of £25,000,000 of gold, and in the next item in the Votes will he tell us whether the increased cost is due entirely to the cost of freight, and what freight is meant. Why should it be necessary to send these silver coins about to so very much larger a degree than in former years. If there was an increase in silver coinage there ought to be an increase of profit at the Mint.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who raised this matter put very legitimate questions to me upon the subject of our new departure in the manufacture of stamps. The fact is that about six or eight months ago the contract held by Messrs. De la Rue for many years was due to expire, and the question naturally arose whether we should renew the contract or whether we should ourselves embark upon the manufacture. After a very careful examination of the subject, it was determined it would be better upon the whole that we should ourselves embark upon the process of manufacture, and a Committee which sat and went into all the details came to the conclusion that it could be so done better and more economically. The contract with Messrs. De la Rue expired at the end of the year and we took over the process of making these stamps and dies. The Committee will be glad to know that there has been a very large saving indeed upon former contracts, which we estimate will work out at not less than £40,000 a year. I think this will explain satisfactorily to hon. Members why we allowed the old contracts to run out and why we have embarked upon this new policy. I have been asked some questions about design, finish, and material. I do not think it will be found that in any of these three respects the new work will fall short of the old. On the contrary, I think there will be a great improvement in regard to those points. The old machinery used by the contractors was of

  741
  a very old-fashioned type, and would probably have been scrapped under a new contract. I have been asked whether the size of the premises at the Mint would allow for expansion, and I think it is a very proper question to ask. I think anyone who considers the point will see that the Mint is undoubtedly the best place for this manufacture. In the course of last you, when preparing for this change, certain small alterations took place which afforded us all the room we wanted, as far as premises are concerned for the future. May I point out that the Colonies are free agents in regard to the supply of stamps. We have not at present actually entered into any undertaking for the supply of stamps to the Colonies, but I think it is very probable they will come to us for them. They have already asked us to supply them with dies, and doubtless we shall supply them with stamps.
  Mr. BOSCAWEN: Then you are making the dies now?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has asked me a question as to the loss of coinage under head H. It is very difficult to understand in an estimate for any given year what the exact requirements of the year will be. The demand for gold has been greater than the average.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that can be explained in a sentence, but it is due, to a certain extent, to the general demands of commerce. The amount of money generally in circulation is greater. It is obvious that in the manufacture of gold and turning it into coin there must be a certain amount of wastage. That is the simple explanation, and it can be wholly ascribed to the greater amount of money in circulation. The Noble Lord also asked a question about salaries and wages. There has been a certain amount of overtime work, first of all in connection with the change of manufacture in regard to dies and stamps, and on account of the increased amount of coinage. All this acts and re-acts upon the cost. I cannot take one sum and say this is due to stamps and another to gold coinage, but the general work has increased. With regard to the item of the total coinage for the United Kingdom and the Colonies a great deal of this arises on account of the Colonies, and an especially large part goes to
  742
  West Africa. West Africa is a country the coinage o£ which has altered from time to time and certain coins acceptable in one part do not pass current in the adjacent Colony or in some parts of the Colony itself. From this Colony we get very varying demands as one part goes up in prosperity and the other falls, because the coin is not interchangeable and you have to have a fresh coin. That is the reason of this increase, which I do not think is very large.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: Is it silver coinage?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid which the Noble Lord referred to I am afraid I have not got all the particulars before me. The original Estimate was £169,000, and we propose here to take the sum of £218,000, which leaves a sum, in round figures, in excess of the Appropriations of £49,000. As I am informed, this increase arises upon the general profits of coinage, but the amount is applied in the same way as the original appropriation to the reduction of the nett expenses of the Mint. There is nothing new in these appropriations. I regret that the note has not been added; that is my error, and I offer my regret to the Committee.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a satisfactory explanation for determining the contract for stamps and taking on the work themselves. I do not know whether it is proposed to improve the paper. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be an improvement in style, but he did not say whether the Government intended to use better paper as I think they ought to do. Surely when the estimate contemplates a saving of £40,000 it will allow for an extra quality of paper. As for the Mint, the desire is to keep the work closer together in order to save the cost of management. The explanation given of the exceptionally large amount of gold coinage to my mind is not quite satisfactory. I would like to know whether the unusual amount of £25,000,000 arose from an exceptional exportation of gold. Were the exports of bullion to a large extent exports of coin, as very often such exports are? It appears to me that the absorption of £25,000,000 by the general business community during the year above the ordinary average is not to be explained by the conditions of trade. It has not increased to that extent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us

  743
  whether it does not arise from a larger amount of bullion going abroad in the shape of coin.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: One of the reasons for the enormous absorption of gold has undoubtedly been that the shipments of gold to America have been greater.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is that coin gold?
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Yes, a great deal of British gold since the crisis has found its way into the provinces of America, and the banks have been very reluctant to part with it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the saving of £40,000 on stamps?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would the hon. Member mind speaking up? We cannot hear him.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long this contract with De la Rue has been in existence. He says he anticipates a saving of £40,000 a year. That seems an enormous saving, and I should like to know how long this contract has been in existence, and whether there were competitive prices sent in when the contract was made? It seems extraordinary that when a Government Department is about to take over work hitherto performed by a contractor, they should say they hope to very materially improve the work and at the same time save £40,000. That seems to me to let in a great flood of light as to the way in which some of these contracts are placed, and I should like to know how long the contract has been in existence, and whether competitive prices were sent in when it was placed?
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  2.0 P.M.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: I rise to Move to reduce this Vote by £10, in order to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter which, in my opinion and in the opinion of a large number of those who come from Wales, is one of extreme importance. I happen to have a half-crown in my pocket—although I have not yet received any instalment of my salary as a Member of Parliament, which I sincerely hope, with the Noble Lord the
  744
  Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) will be made retrospective when it does arrive—and I notice there is no emblem or recognition of Wales on the back of the coin. Although we have good reason to believe that the dies of the new coin will not be altered, I should at the same time be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman opposite could say the new dies are going to include an emblem of Wales. The coin as it is represents England, Scot land, and Ireland, but there is no emblazonment of Wales upon it. It seems to me it would be much better for the whole country that there should be some emblem of Wales on it. The point is absolutely most obvious. Great excitement has been caused in the north of Wales, and loyalty has been to an extraordinary extent aroused by the very idea of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales taking place there, and Cardiff has changed her Coat-of-Arms in order to emblaze on her escutcheon the emblem of Wales. This shows it is a matter of the greatest import ance and urgency. If the three countries are recognised surely the Red Dragon of Wales might also be—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley): Does the Noble Lord suggest that a new departure is being made in this matter?
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: It has not been made.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the Noble Lord is not in order.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. This arises on new charges, and my Noble Friend is criticising the manner in which the Government are spending the public money.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I submit it is impossible to criticise a design which, I understand, is not yet in circulation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether what the right hon. Gentleman has said just now will stop the discussion, but may I point out there is no provision in existence, and this is a new Vote. The general policy of the Vote, therefore, may be discussed.
  Mr. ESSEX: I think it was an old half-crown which the Noble Lord had.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: We do not happen to have a new half-crown.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) is not able to show me there is a new departure, then it would not be in order in advocating a change.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think you understand what is the nature of the Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] This is a Vote by which public money is being spent on coins of a particular design. Are we not entitled to criticise the design? We are criticising the way in which the Government are spending public money. They are spending public money on what my Noble Lord thinks is a bad design. Are we to be told that is not in order?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I submit the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) has not pointed out on which of these items this particular matter arises.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It arises, of course, on the coinage.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord is not everybody in this House. I appeal to the Noble Lord who raised this Motion.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I desired the Noble Lord in addressing the Committee to indicate in what way he says a new departure is being made.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: On Vote A to defray increased charges due to very heavy coinages and to new work connected with the preparation of dies, plates, and stamps, £3,600. My point is this. It is obvious this £3,600 is for this new coinage, and I want to know whether that new coinage is going to have an emblem of Wales upon it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As far as my in formation goes the sum of money asked for upon item A—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: No.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pray let the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) speak for himself. My information is that Vote A upon which the Noble Lord is raising this matter is not spent in connection with the new design of coinage, but in connection with coinage in accordance with the old design.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Then are we to understand that these dies are for the old coinage?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is my information.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Are we to understand that the new coins are going to be produced from identical dies?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord will pardon me. The item is "dies for stamps," and it is a charge for incidental expenses. According to my information it is not for new coins.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The words are expenses "connected with the preparation of dies, plates, etc., for stamps." Does that mean for the new coinage?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My information is that it is not the new coinage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Supplementary Estimate is for the salaries and expenses of the Mint, including the expenses of coinage.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: New coins from old designs 2
  Lord HUGH CECIL: This is new work connected with the preparation of dies?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have stated the facts as far as my information goes.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then how are the new coins paid for?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This Supplementary Estimate is not for new coins.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: This is a matter of general public interest. We ought to be told whether the charges for the new coinage are included in this Vote.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as my information goes it is not for that purpose.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is included in the Vote?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said as definitely as possible that this was not included.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman created on this side the impression he was not sure whether this matter was included. Is not this reducing the discussion to an absolute farce? We do not know what we are discussing.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Cardiff is in possession.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: If we are to understand that the new coinage cannot be taken as included in this

  747
  Debate, I submit that we ought to be given some information as to the cost of the new coinage. Is it impossible on this Vote to raise the question of the inclusion of the arms of Wales? I am prepared to move to reduce the Vote by £50 in order to raise a discussion on that.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is impossible to reduce a Vote for £20 by £50.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We had a ruling from the Chair a fortnight ago that that could be done.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the Noble Lord he should move to reduce the vote by £10.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the heading of the Vote embodies the words "including the expenses of coinage."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have said the new coinage is not included. My information is that the new designs are not included.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: My colleagues in the Welsh party are particularly interested in this point. We want to know whether on the emblems or specimen coins the Welsh arms are to be put? If that is to be done, I am perfectly satisfied, but in order to draw attention to this matter I beg to remove to reduce this Vote by the sum of £10.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know why the arms of Wales should not be put on the medals or new coins. I quite sympathise with the desire of the Noble Lord in this respect.
  Mr. LANSBURY: We only want it on the coinage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The point I take is whether the arms of Wales are to be placed on these medals. What is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect? I see there is an hon. Member opposite who nods his head in an approving fashion, and therefore I presume he will support us in this demand. I am very glad to think so, because it shows that there are some questions where there is a feeling of right and wrong which rise above party considerations. I should be glad, therefore, if the Members for Wales would take the lead in this matter. This Motion for reduction is concerned with the whole Vote, and though I shall support the Noble Lord if he goes to a Division, I am also concerned with other details of the
  748
  Vote, as to which I should like to have some explanation. I understand there is a very important question on the general Vote in regard to Government trading raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to save £40,000 by making alterations in certain stamps and dies. That is a very large statement, and I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that one of two things must have happened, either the contract which was approved of before was a very bad one—
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I agree it was a very bad one.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose it was a contract which had gone on for a long time and now he has taken the opportunity of altering it. That is all to his credit, but what I want to put to him is, does he really think that he is really going to make this saving by doing the work by the Government instead of making a better and cheaper contract. My experience of Government work is that it is more expensive than work done by contract. There are many reasons which make it so. No doubt hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will not agree with me in this, but in the case of Government contracts pressure is put upon the right hon. Gentleman to pay more than is necessary for wages, and there are a variety of matters of that sort in regard to which pressure is put upon a Minister. Therefore, instead of making a saving of £40,000, I believe the right hon. Gentleman may make a loss. I do not believe in the right hon. Gentleman taking up a new business of which he knows nothing and embarking upon it. In making that statement, he was obliged to rely upon information given to him, but I think it was his duty to find out whether that information is correct. I think it is quite impossible for any control to be taken over any manufacturing department by any Government whoever they may be. I believe this is a very dangerous precedent, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it, for I cannot conceive that it is possible for any Government department to make a saving in this particular class of business. Further, I do not think it is right that the Government should engage in that sort of trading. I have always been against all sorts of trading by the authorities, because I believe the result is that the particular business costs more, is worse done, and the taxpayers are losers by it. I think the numerous projects which are now in the

  749
  hands of the Government in attempting to go into business of this kind, instead of being the result of good policy are the result of a very serious error, and one which ought not to be committed. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is right for him at the present moment to go into a big business, and, if he can, get the work done better and cheaper, to do so, by making a proper contract in a proper manner.
  Sir FRANCIS EDWARDS: I appreciate the feeling of the Noble Lord in moving the reduction of this Vote, but I should have appreciated it better had I not known that he is a colleague of the Leader of the Opposition in the opinion that Wales and everything relating to Wales may be summarised in the expression de minimus non. I should have been obliged to the Noble Lord if at the previous Coronation he had lent the weight of his authority to the alteration of the coinage. Personally, I am anxious that there should be such a coinage as he suggested, but I do not see how this question arises on the Vote before us. My right hon. Friend has disclaimed that it has any connection with this Vote. In regard to adding the Welsh arms, I think any Welshman would be in accordance with the opinion of the hon. Member for Cardiff, but on this occasion I do not see that the matter arises, although I hope the result of his raising the question will be that my right hon. Friend will see that something is done in the matter of quartering the arms on the coinage. I think it is a good thing that his attention should have been drawn to the matter, and I hope he will use his influence to see that something is done.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to point out what has not been pointed out before, and that is the insufficiency of the right hon. Gentleman's answer as to the question of stamps which is before the Committee. That, I venture to submit, is the worst type of Government trading. Let us take the figures which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. He comes down and the only sum he asks for is a Supplementary Estimate of £3,400. That is for the plant practically for commencing a new business, and then he talks airily about making a saving of £40,000 a year, but he has not given us the figures for the original contract with De la Rue or any of the figures connected with the existing state of affairs. Surely the Committee ought to have those figures before it passes this Vote. He tells us in addition to that that
  750
  we are making a saving at the present time, but I should like to know the result of the work which is being done. It is very easy to talk, but this is a business of a most complicated measure. De la Rue's have been doing not only the adhesive stamps but the very important embossed stamps. That is an exceedingly difficult business, as it concerns a matter which requires great skill. Anybody who has been connected with cases of forgery must remember the extreme difficulty of dealing with such cases in regard to these embossed stamps. The marks on the stamps by means of which a forger is caught are very intricate and the enamelling and colouring of the stamps is a very difficult and important matter, which you will find will not be well carried out except it is done by people who have worked at it before. This is a highly specialised subject, and ought to be dealt with by people of experience, and by people who are doing the work at the present time. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman will read like a company prospectus, in that it will show a most prosperous state of things in the future, because he says in order to save £40,000 a year the Government only ask £3,400 for plant and that is all they ask for. I think the Committee should know more in detail the way in which this tremendous £40,000 is going to be saved. The right hon. Gentleman let out one little bit about the business management of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) asked about the question of contracts. De la Rue's had the contract for England and for the Colonies as well, and business people. of course, know how much more cheaply you can undertake big businesses of that kind than small ones, and it is exceedingly important to know whether the Government have the contract for Colonial stamps or for stamps for the United Kingdom only. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite fairly, that the Colonies had not given contracts for their stamps, and I understood that applied to India as well. That is a straightforward answer. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, and I could not help smiling, "We have all the dies ready for them in case they want them." Can you imagine any business conducted on business principles solemnly going to the expense which we are voting to-day?
  Mr. BOOTH: All businesses would.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Gentleman has experience in prospectuses and in

  751
  businesses, and I ask him, as a serious business man, first whether he would invest money on a prospectus of this kind, and, secondly, does he really say a business, except one conducted on the most speculative lines, would have the dies prepared for business which they might never get and which would result in a dead loss if they did not produce the stamps? It might be done by certain people of a very optimistic turn of mind—and people connected with the promotion of companies are of an optimistic turn of mind—but it is a class of business which I do not think a Government Department should go in for. It is not a very safe way of doing business. No doubt the hon. Member's business experience is larger than mine, but I have had larger experience in seeing a large number of businesses than he has, and if there is one thing which spells ruin in business matters it is over-confidence, and not carefully going into your figures before you undertake any particular estimate, and consequently a too reckless method of putting down your plant before you have any chance of getting your customers to deal with. The Colonies and India are a very limited number of customers, and if the die is ready and the Colonies do not come along that is dead loss, and there is no other customer who can take the stamps off your hands
  Mr. W. ROCH: I understand this Vote does not include any die for the new coin, but it includes the die for the Coronation Medal. The argument of the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) as to the coinage applies even more strongly to the Coronation Medal this year, when we are going to have the investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon, and whatever happened at the last Coronation, this is a specially suitable occasion on which to bring Wales into the Coronation Medal.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no expenses are incurred in the new coinage is very difficult to understand. I hold in my hand some of the new coins. They were made by someone. Someone was paid wages for making them
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord may hold new coins issued from the Mint yesterday. Are they in accordance with the old design or with the new design? The point raised by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) was that he wished to draw attention to the
  752
  alleged fact that the arms of Wales were not upon the new coin. The coinage which the Noble Lord has in his hands is, I imagine, struck from the old dies to which you could not, without destroying the die, add the arms of Wales It is a new coin, but not new coinage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: These are coins of George V. They are, therefore, new coins and part of the new coinage of the reign. My Noble Friend's point is that in the new new coinage of the reign there ought to be provision made for the arms of Wales. It is obvious that in making coins which are in existence salaries and wages must be concerned. It is obvious that the workmen who were paid wages must have been concerned in making the coins, and the right hon. Gentleman owes some apology to the Committee for misinforming them. It is an exceedingly grave matter to make a statement of that kind. We are absolutely dependent on the sense of honour of Ministers in telling us the facts. The right hon. Gentleman, after being repeatedly pressed, said no expense had been incurred on the new coinage of the new realm. That cannot possibly be true. I really think the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in a very serious position. He would have no right to complain at all if we gave notice of a personal vote of censure on him for being guilty of conduct unworthy of a Minister.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) reflecting upon the loyalty of the people of Wales by saying we took no interest at all in the form of the Royal Arms, or as to whether there was or was not some recognition of the Principality upon the standard or upon the coinage of the realm.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not for a moment venture to say what was the feeling in Wales. I said I did not know whether they did or not. I am very glad to hear that they do.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I did not hear the hon. Baronet say anything of the kind, but, of course, I accept at once his statement as the statement of his intention. He has always been, as I know from many years' experience, interested in the affairs of Wales, and I thought he might possibly have heard something of the movement which has been made in Wales for the recognition of the claims of the Principality to have their arms upon the Royal Standard and upon the coinage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have not heard it.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That only makes me the more surprised at the fact that the hon. Baronet should have made the statement to-day. But I did not rise with any political intention against the hon. Baronet. I wished him to be correctly informed. What I really rose to say was that I am very grateful to the Noble Lord for raising this point. I do not quite see the relevance of the objection taken as to the point. We are not dealing now with the new coinage, we are dealing, I understand, with certain expenses incurred by the Government in regard to past coinage. Speaking as a Welsh Member, I am inclined to agree with the Noble Lord, and I do not want to pay for coinage that has not a representation of the Principality upon it. I do not know what my right hon. Friend is gonig to say, but I am certain, after the protest of the Noble Lord and after what he has heard in this Debate, it will be entirely sympathetic. I hope the action of the Government will not confine itself to sympathetic words, but will be followed by sympathetic deeds,
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: At a very recent date there was a report of the Privy Council, dated 12th December, 1910, which dealt with this question of the representation of Wales upon the national coinage. The report was rather that the present usage of emblazoning the arms of Wales upon the coinage should not be departed from, but that the arms should contain a recognition of the fact that Wales was a country in which His Majesty was especially interested, and therefore that it should play a prominent part in the British Arms. I will take care that the representations which have been made by my hon. Friends shall be made known in the proper quarter, and that their wishes, and those of the Noble Lord opposite, shall have due weight and consideration. [An HON. MEMBER: "AS to the Coronation Medal as well."] Of course. The hon. Member opposite rather suggested that we were embarking on a hazardous and unknown experiment. The difficulty which results from not dealing fully with all these questions at ony one given moment is that if you do not get up and answer the first criticism made, one is apt to have a somewhat tardy reply. On the other hand, if you wait until the end of the discussion, you have not afforded that opportunity of information which hon. Gentlemen desire, and which I frankly admit they are fully entitled to have. I pointed out the contract
  754
  which the hon. Baronet said was a very bad contract has come to an end. I agree with him that it was a very bad contract, but it was entered into ten years ago, when the hon. Baronet's Friends were in office. No competition was asked for when that contract was entered into. I do not know whether, for one reason or another, it was found impossible to obtain competition, or whether it was thought better to dispense with it. I do not know what motives animated the hon. Baronet's Friends.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was not on the Front Bench, and I had no means of knowing.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I suppose the contract was entered into by hon. Gentlemen who were his friends. The consequence was that a very bad contract was entered into which, so far as our calculations go, must have cost the country between £40,000 and £50,000 a year. We have not given the whole of that work to the Mint as the hon. and learned Member thought we had done. We have given them the duty of preparing the dies, plates, and stamps; but the work of preparing the adhesive stamps has been left to a firm of contractors. The old contract for that work was £97,000 a year, but under the new contract it will be £50,000 a year, showing an actual saving of £47,000 a year. When from that saving has been deducted that part of the cost which is borne by the Mint, there will be a saving of £300,000 or £400,000. Therefore, the estimated saving, which we have put at £40,000 a year, will be an actual saving of £42,000 a year. This is no experimental undertaking. It is an actual cash saving on this contract of about £40,000. I did not wish to state these figures, or to say who was responsible for the former bad contract. The information has been dragged out of me by' the desire for information on the part of the hon. Baronet opposite. As to what fell from the hon. Member for Oxford University, I wish to say, not only for myself, but for anybody who stands here representing this or any future Government, that a discussion on Estimates must be a discussion strictly in order, and in accordance with the rules of the House. Sometimes that may be to the advantage of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I pointed out that there was a way by which this discussion could be raised, and it has been so raised. I have pleasure in promising that I will represent in the proper quarter the views which have been expressed by

  755
  hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion.
  Mr. ESSEX: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any further information regarding the metals to be used for the coins and medals, and particularly whether there is any probability of bringing about a supersession of bronze by using nickel. We seem to be adhering in this country in the slowest fashion to the use of bronze.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The only provision made at present is for the use of gold, silver, and bronze.
  Lord BALCARRES: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is going to make inquiries, will he postpone the Report stage of this Vote until those inquiries have been made, and he is in a position to give further information to the House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the Noble Lord would look into the Report on this matter he will see that His Majesty, having taken the Report into consideration, has been pleased, on the advice of the Privy Council, to approve thereof.
  Lord BALCARRES: Does that carry with it a decision on the part of the authorities to instruct that the arms on the new coins and medals shall include the arms of the Principality of Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make further inquiry, I want to know whether he will postpone the Report stage of this Vote for three or four days until he can make a definite announcement to the House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot give any undertaking of that sort, for these Supplementary Estimates are necessary for the service of the country. The representations which I have undertaken to make on behalf of hon. Members will not be necessarily dependent upon this Vote. I think the Vote should go forward in the usual way.
  Mr. FELL: I would like to ask a question as to the loss on the coinage of gold. The original estimate of loss was £5,000, the revised estimate is £10,250, which is more than double. I take it that that shows an actual change of policy by the Government in the matter of gold coinage made in the course of the year, the explanation given on the next page is that it is to defray the loss on an exceptionally large amount of gold coinage, £25,000,000.
  756
  I believe we have not coined so much as that for a great many years past. I have got out the figures for the past ten or twelve years. They vary from two, five, seven, nine, and twelve, until 1907, then we get £20,000,000, nearly double what it has been in any previous year. In 1908 it was £13,000,000, in 1909 £14,000,000, and now it is £25,000,000 gold coinage in the past year. In the past four years the coinage was £72,000,000. In the previous four years it was £40,000,000. So that it would be about double now what it has been in recent years. This enormous increase of coinage last year is a matter which probably affects us. A great many people consider it will mean an increase in the price of articles in this country. In America the economists all consider that in the past few years the great increase of gold has materially raised—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr FELL: We are asked to vote £5,000 for increased coinage of gold, which is about double what it usually costs in this country, and I would just point out that that has a great influence in the country. Why was there about twice as much gold coined last year as was estimated for at the beginning of the year? The gold coinage nearly pays for itself, and we have to pay £5,000 more because the Government coined this excessive amount. In answer to some inquiries last year I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who replied that some gold was absorbed, that there was a very large outlet. I would like to have some explanation of how it has been absorbed, and why coinage of gold has been doubled.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I would like to refer to the Welsh question. I understand that he has promised to make inquiries, but that we are to have no further opportunities of making representations on the subject. Is it definitely settled that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the arms or emblem of Wales are included in the new coinage? I would also like some information in reference to the Royal Standard—what is to be included? It is a question of great importance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take action before he consults the Heralds College, and that he will see that Wales is properly represented in the new coinage.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: In reference to the question of Wales and the Royal Standard, I am perfectly ready to admit that there were very good reasons against the suggestion as the flag would have had to be altered everywhere at great expense. That does not apply to the coinage or the Coronation medals. There is no additional expense there. It is purely a matter of design, or of technique, and I really think that the right hon. Gentleman might hold out a little more hope than he does.
  Mr. CROFT: In reference to the contract that has been mentioned, may I ask whether it is a British contract, and whether the Government asked tenders from foreign countries as is usual with them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is a British contract, and has gone to a firm on the outskirts of London. In reference to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Noble Lord who sits for Lancashire (Lord Balcarres) I have to refer to an earlier statement I made. I have been able to refresh my memory since I addressed the Committee on the subject. There is no money in this Supplementary Estimate for the new coinage, not a one penny piece. Therefore, on the strict technical law of Parliament, there is no opportunity on this Vote, even if it were held over, for further discussion on this subject. With reference to the question of the medal, I have promised that representations shall be made, and I trust it will be understood that such promises are always made in good faith, and on this as on every other occasion, will be carried out as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has referred to a question of the cost of gold coinage. Had he been in the House earlier he would have heard the whole point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and the explanation, so I think I need not detain the House upon that subject now.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank the hon. Member for the very full way he answered my question. He gave an absolutely different impression to those on this side of the House from that which they had previously held. We always understood that the manufacture of stamps would be done at the Mint. I want to get the two things absolutely clear, first that the £3,400 which the right hon. Gentleman is deducting from what he says is the savings on contracts,
  758
  is to be the whole amount of the extra expense. If it is, it is very peculiar, because this contract has been on for a short time, and this £3,400 is wanted for three months, and are you not likely to want more for the year? Does it include all expenses? Is there to be no other expense? Superintendence at the Mint and so forth will require a very much larger sum than the £3,400 a year, taken from the alleged savings on the contract. In reference to the £97,000 a year, with the exception of the cost thrown on the Mint is it perfectly clear that the new contractors who have entered into the contract of £50,000 a year have to do the entire work, for £50,000 which the £97,000 involved.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly. In round figures there is a saving of over £40,000.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The point has been made that this contract was a bad one, entered into by the late Conservative Government ten years ago. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was only the continuation of an existing contract which was made for the first time as far back as 188L I wish to be quite frank about the matter; I may be right, or I may be wrong; but was it in 1881 or 1891 that the contract was made? From the business point of view I wish to have some information on the point.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no objection. I should be very glad to show the hon. and learned Gentleman the contract itself, and he will see that everything that was done under the old contract is done under the new one, plus this Vote, which is included in the total that I have named. The expense next year will be no greater than it is this year, proportionately of course. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is only a quarter's expense. There will be no greater expense next year than this year, the sum being £50,000, plus £4,300. In reply to the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me, our information goes to show that Messrs. De la Rue, on the contract for £97,000, were making something between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. profit upon it. That is now we have been able to cut down this eaormous sum. Having given a full explanation to the Committee I trust that we will now be allowed to get the Vote.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I only wish to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so enthusiastically in favour of the contract system, that I do not wonder at their

  759
  devotion to it in view of the explanation we have had from the right hon. Gentleman that the firm who had this contract made more than 80 per cent. upon it in the year. It has been stated on the question of giving contracts to private firms to which hon. Members opposite are so devoted, that the Government have not the necessary information, nor have they the necessary means of knowing how to get the best kind of men, with the best kind of experience, for their purposes. I would point out to the hon. Member who made that statement, that Governments and municipalities can do exactly what joint-stock companies do—that is, they can buy in the open market all the available experience and all the men necessary to carry out any particular piece of work.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY rose.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this to develop into a discussion on the general principle.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite aware of that, Sir. I am only anxious to say that this particular contract was entered into by the Radical Government in 1881. It was confirmed, very foolishly, in 1891, by the Conservative Government. It only shows how a Conservative Government should never confirm anything done by a Radical Government. In regard to the other point, there is no one sitting on this side of the House who desires that excessive profits should be made by private contractors. But in this instance these excessive profits were entered into by a Radical Government. If we had known it on this side we should have stopped it.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Is it the fact that the contract in 1891, to which reference has been made, was not a competitive contract?
  Mr. ESSEX: Yes.
  Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the tender was on a lump sum or whether it was on schedule
  prices? If the tender was based on schedule prices, I should like to ask him whether we could not see the original schedule of prices and the present one upon which the Government themselves are working, so that we may compare the two.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member asks whether the contract was on schedule prices. Yes, it was.
  Mr. LOGAN: The original contract?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The 1881 contract. What happened with regard to the 1881 contract was that there was a competition, if my memory serves me rightly, amongst three would-be contractors, and the contract was eventually allotted to Messrs. De la Rue. Ten years ago it was renewed, but without competition. There was no competition upon the tender ten years ago; it was simply said that Messrs. De la Rue were to do this work at proper prices. It was thought there were no competitors in the trade. Last June or July we inquired whether we could possibly get competition. We have got competition, and we have saved £40,000. I do not want to make a political matter of this; it was dragged out of me; I leave it, and I trust that we may now be allowed to get the Vote.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the contract to which he refers on the Table?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think I must be allowed to consider that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: You have quoted from it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I know that the hon. Baronet has too great a knowledge of Parliamentary procedure to make that mistake.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £10 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 29.]

  AYES.

  [3.6 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clyde, James Avon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boyton, James

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Barnston, Harry

  Campion, W. R.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Croft, Henry Page

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Spear, John Ward

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mallaby-Deely, Harry

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gordon, John

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mount, William Archer

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Weimer, viscount

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Yate, Col. c. E.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Younger, George

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Ninian Crichton-Stuart and Mr.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Ormsby-Gore.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Esslemont, George Blrnie

  Mathlas, Richard

  Alden, Percy

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meehan, Patrick, A. (Queen's Co.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ffrench, Peter

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gianville, Harold James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barton, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morrell, Philip

  Beale, William Phipson

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Muldoon, John

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

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

  Munro, Robert

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brace, William

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Cameron, Robert

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Johnson, William

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts,. Stepney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Radford, G. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lansbury, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Doris, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Sheehy, David

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M-Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wadsworth, John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Webb, H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sutherland, John E.

  Wedgwood, Joslah C.

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Toulmin, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I put a number of questions to the right hon. Gentleman in no controversial spirit, and the answers I have received are, in my opinion, by no means satisfactory. It appears to me that on some of the points the right bon. Gentleman seems to be badly informed. For example, I asked him a question as to whether it was really intended to undertake the manufacture of stamps. The first answer was that they were to do so, and, subsequently, when I was out of the House, I understand the right hon. Gentleman gave a different answer, to the effect that stamps would not be manufactured but that only dies and plates would be manufactured. That makes a very great difference. When a right hon. Gentleman comes down in order to defend a complete change in public policy, the least we may expect is that we should be informed of the facts, and be able to inform the House and the country precisely what it is the Government intend to do. I feel, therefore, that we ought to try and obtain further information from the right hon. Gentleman because I assure him the whole country are absolutely in the dark, and, at the same time, very much interested in this change of policy. There are several other points upon which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to enlighten us. A great deal was said about the contract with Messrs. De la Rue. I think I was the first person to mention in the House that for over thirty years there had been a contract with Messrs. De la Rue. A great deal of discredit was thrown on this contract by several speakers, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite unable to tell us either the exact terms of the contract or when the contract was first entered into, or when it was renewed. Here we have a great change of public policy, justified by the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that a great saving would be made, and he ought to have been able to give us the details that were asked for. I also complained—and I still complain very bitterly—of the character of the
  764
  paper of which the present stamps are made. In common with most Members of this House, I spend a great deal of time ill putting stamps upon envelopes. We all have to do it. It is one of the penalties of being a Member of this honourable House. But our time is constantly wasted, as also is our money, by the fact that the present stamps are made of such indifferent material that it is very diffcult to put them on envelopes in an artistic way. Another question which I asked in no spirit of hostility, but for the advantage of the public generally, was whether under the new arrangement, whereby the Government, as I understood, were going to manufacture the stamps, the stamps would be made of better material. The right hon. Gentleman gave no answer on that point. We can see now why he did not. He at first led us to believe that the Government were going to make the stamps, whereas now we learn that they are going to put them out to contract. They are only going to make the die. I asked whether there is to be any stipulation as to the character of the paper. The right hon. Gentleman does not know, and, not knowing, he cannot say. We understand that this departure in public policy is justified on the ground that it will result in a saving of £40,000 in a year. Is that £40,000 a year to be made by the use of inferior paper to that which is used at the present time? I very much doubt whether you could find inferior paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Gum."] I doubt if you could find inferior gum. In view of the great change of public policy involved, I think the public—and especially the House of Commons—are entitled to fuller information than has yet been given.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the hon. Member has put any point that I did not deal with at considerable length in the course of the discussion when the hon. Member was out of the House. He com plains that he spends a good deal of his time—
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: In licking stamps.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In putting stamps on envelopes. The hon. Member can buy envelopes with the stamps already affixed at the post office, and by so doing he would save both his own valuable time and that of the House.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What about the character of the paper?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think I have dealt with every point that was mentioned. If there be any difficulty in separating one
  stamp from another, it is not a question of paper. It is the perforation.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: He can avoid that by buying stamps separately, at a penny apiece.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As this matter has been discussed for nearly two hours, I would ask that we might be allowed now to pass on to the next business.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 87.

  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.—(CLASS II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1911, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On this Vote I have a few questions which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, before our discussion of the Estimate, because it is almost impossible to understand, without a good many further) details, what it is we are asked to sanction. Under the headings B, D, F, H, and J there is an increased total of £27,000 required. Such diversity of items are included under these as apparently the cost of supplying the Land Valuation Offices—presumably for the printing of the amended Form IV. Amongst other things there seem to be special demands for
  768
  mourning stationery. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the com position of that £27,000, and how much is in connection with the revised Form IV.? I imagine that we shall be allowed to discuss the policy of the new Form IV. upon this Vote, seeing that it is a new item—
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): We have nothing to do with the policy of Form IV. It is merely the cost of printing.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid I did not make myself plain. It is the policy of printing the new Form IV., not the policy of the Form itself, that I desire to draw attention to. There must be in this Vote some sum which has been set aside to meet the cost of the revised Form IV. The Appropriations-in-Aid includes different classes of items, receipts from repayments, advertisements in the "London Gazette," and also from sales of waste. There is a small item which I think the Committee would be very interested to find accounted for. We know that the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture some time ago, quite by mistake, used

  769
  some official paper for which he subsequently paid. That, of course, would come into the Appropriations-in-Aid, or it may be one of those receipts which are dealt with in the Note set down in Class 2 of the Civil Service Commission. I do not know that any Note has been attached to this Estimate to the effect that it is included in the Appropriations-in-Aid. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the payment by the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture for the official paper that he used by mistake is actually included. There are other questions to which I think answers ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman before we can discuss this matter in detail, and I would ask the Financial Secretary to answer the two questions I have put to him.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I confess it is a very puzzling Estimate, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend does not fully understand it. I understand the additional sums are required to meet the cost of supply to the Land Valuation Offices, and the cost of mourning stationery. The latter is understandable. But I am quite unable to understand why the cost of supplying stationery to the Land. Valuation Office should have taken the Government more by surprise than the cost of supplying additional stationery to any other office. A great deal of stationery has been used, for instance, in my own experience, in the case of the "Welsh Church Commission, but that, no doubt, was foreseen in connection with the original Vote, and was included in it. I should have thought one of the most probable causes of expenditure would be the additional expense of the form for the new land valuation. Then we have an item of an additional £600 increase for horses, carts, and carriages. Was it that so many people had to be removed from the Land Valuation Office owing to the surprise they experienced at the late Budget? After all, I do not understand why you should want horses and carts in the business of land valuation at all. I presume that the main cost is in connection with the Valuation Form, and it is possible it was caused by the alteration in the form. If that is so we ought to be told so, and we ought to be told who is responsible for a mistake of that kind. With regard to the Appropriation-in-Aid anyone could explain why the Government is taken by surprise by the savings that have been made. Sales of waste paper, I suppose, means sales of paper put in the waste-paper basket. What are the repayment
  770
  departments? Why do they repay? and where do they get the money? These matters, I think, ought, to be explained.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think I could ex plain one item, that is with regard to horses, carts, and carriages. I think it is put down in the form in which it appears in order to mystify people, so that when hon. Members on this side of the House who are carefully watching the expenditure of the country—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Except when a contract is on the job!
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Emmott, to the remark made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. He says that hon. Members on this side of the House are very attentive to expenditure except when there is a contract on. Is that a proper expression?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not really know what the hon. Member meant; but I deprecate all these disorderly cries. There are far too many interruptions; they do not add to the order of our Debates, or in any other way facilitate business.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think this is an extremely bad case of under estimation that there should be an increase of £600 on an original item of £3,000. An increase of £600 does not in itself seem to me a very large amount, when discussing such large expenditure as is going on now, but an increase of £600 on an original vote of £3,000 is an increase of 20 per cent., which is very large. I notice in connection with these Votes something which I do not remember ever having seen in any other Estimates. There is a large increase on every single item. When you come to the item for incidental expenses, which was originally £1,200, there is an increaes of £200, or 20 per cent. Surely there might have been a little more care in connection with these Supplementary Estimates. We find evidence of great sloppiness in connection with every single one of them. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite should be a little more careful before they bring accusations of sloppiness against us.
  When we come to the item for paper to the public departments we find an increase from £225,000 to £239,000. It shows an increase of £14,000. You could buy a great deal of paper with £14,000, and it seems to me extraordinary that a proper estimate was not made for paper. The right

  771
  hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is very economic of paper when he comes to offering an explanation of these items, because he gives his explanation of them in two and a half lines. I think if he exercises so little economy as to spend an additional £14,000 upon paper he could have afforded to be a little more liberal in his explanations, and might have given an explanation under each separate head instead of lumping them together, and if he had done so it would have conduced, not only to advancing the business of the Committee, but also to a considerable saving in point of time. With regard to the item for additional cost in the Land Valuation Office, I think there is no excuse for not knowing what the land valuation was going to cost in the matter of paper. The question of land valuation was before the country for over a year, and the right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well what the requirements would be. There is no excuse whatever for this error in estimating the amount of paper. It is not a very difficult problem and ought not to have been too difficult for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out. They were not taken by surprise, it was not as if they did not know the difficulty of filling up these forms. There is no excuse whatever for coming down to the House and asking for such a large increase as £14,000. Then we come to the item for binding. What binding does it refer to? There is an increase of £7,000, from £77,000 to £84,000. That is an enormous increase for a party who pose as the party of economy, and who, as I remember, when they sat upon this side of the House, were always opposed to Supplementary Estimates. Now we come to the item Miscellaneous Small Stores, and here we find an increase of £5,200, which is by no means a small figure. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what miscellaneous stores are, and why there should be such a very large increase? In the case of Appropriations-in-Aid, the increase is not quite so large the total having risen from £130,000 to £139,000. The explanation given refers to sales of waste. I want to know what is the waste. Does it refer to some of the paper we have spent £14,000 upon? Is some of it due to the valuation forms which you were going to send to Ireland, and which consequently are now waste? Does it mean that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has interfered here and
  772
  said "You must destroy those forms so that there will be no danger of you not carrying out the bargain you have made?" This is an item upon which, I think, we are entitled to have the fullest information. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) used to exercise a very close supervision over these matters, and I never objected to the hon. Member doing so. Sometimes I thought it was a good thing that he did so, and I should be the first to do the same in the case of any party, because we require a wholesome check upon these Estimates. Because the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy sits opposite I hope his zeal is not quenched on that account, and that he is still prepared to give valuable assistance when these questions are brought before the House. I have endeavoured as shortly as possible to put a few matters before the House which seem to me to require some explanation, and I trust the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give a satisfactory explanation, or otherwise we may have to divide the Committee upon these items.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has expressed some doubt lest my zeal in favour of economy has diminisihed. If there had been any danger of that I am sure that the hon. Baronet's most eloquent speech would have revived that zeal had it shown any signs of diminishing. There are two questions which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. May I preface what I have to say by expressing the opinion that there is great room for economy in regard to this particular Vote, and particularly with regard to the publications of the Treasury and other Departments. There can be no doubt of that in face of the evidence put before the Committee appointed two years ago, which was presided over by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Toulmin), which showed that economies amounting to a saving to the National Exchequer of between £30,000 and £50,000 a year could be effected, and we are now absolutely saving this amount of money which without a shadow of doubt had been wasted before. I think that is generally admitted. The work of that Committee was interrupted by the General Election, and I do not know whether it was set up again last year. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will at once, without the slightest delay, set up that Committee again in the interests of true economy and for the general advantage of

  773
  the public service. I must press for an answer on that point, because it is some security to know that there is in existence a Committee going carefully into every item, careful to see that there is no duplication in the matter of printing. I hope we shall have a satisfactory assurance on that point.
  I am not sure whether this particular Vote comes under the cognisance of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Bury, but if not I think it ought to. That Committee is not all we might desire, but it is a Committee dealing with publications, printing, and paper in connection with the Government Departments, and I have no hesitation in saying, from evidence I have consulted recently, that a saving of £100,000 a year, and not 6d. less, could be effected upon these items. We saved £30,000 in a few months, and I believe in six months more we could save £100,000 if the Committee appointed has a wider reference. It is no good talking about economy if we do not do something to bring it about. During the last few years, although we all profess to be economists, gradually and certainly the expenses of almost every Department of the Government are going up year after year. I know it is very unpopular to talk about economy in this House, but I hope the Secretary to the Treasury, with his well-known courage and remarkable ability, will devote himself to this particular purpose; and in spite of the sneers he may get and the unpopularity he may experience with a certain section of the public, I am sure he will have the sincere gratitude of the great majority of hon. Members of this House. This matter has got to be taken in hand firmly and examined closely, and when the right hon. Gentleman sets up this Committee I hope he will give it a wider reference. We are spending £250,000 a year on paper, and I would like to know what kind of contracts are made. The paper market is a fluctuating market.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the general question of policy which can only arise upon the original Estimate. We are now concerned only with the Supplementary Estimate of £14,000.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: My point is that if the Treasury had had a running contract they would have saved this £14,000. A few years ago paper was much cheaper than it was at the present moment. I
  774
  suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give his attention to the question when we are spending such a large amount as £250,000 a year, and consider whether he should not, upon a favourable occasion, make a contract which would keep his expenditure steady and take advantage of any fluctuations in the market. If the right hon. Gentleman is buying from week to week he is simply being robbed. He might tell us whether he has got any running contracts with regard to the whole of this supply or any portion of it. I hope the Secretary for the Treasury will give us an assurance that the Committee to which I have referred is going to be set up without any further delay.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: I am glad to notice that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Dalziel) stimulated by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) on this side of the House has lifted up his voice in favour of economy. I was beginning to get anxious lest the cause of economy was being taken up only on this side of the House. We are in a minority, and our efforts in the cause of economy sincere as they are will only have a slight effect with the Government. For this reason I am grateful to the hon. Member opposite that he has risen and made some very pertinent observations and suggestions by which the Government may reduce their expenditure. The hon. Member has not confined himself to those items of general expenditure which we heard a great deal about when he was in Opposition. The hon. Member, however, has made certain practical suggestions as to the way this economy is to be carried out. I do not know whether I ought to compare small things with great or great things with small, but I may tell the right hon. Gentleman for his edification that a few years ago an inquiry was instituted into the expenditure of the London County Council upon printing and stationery at a time when there had been a very great increase upon that item. A committee was appointed, and, as a result of the criticisms of that committee, it was discovered that there was a certain amount of expenditure on paper which was totally unnecessary. I cannot help thinking that in the case of a large excess of £14,000 the right hon. Gentleman would find some gaps as well. I want to know how this over-estimate arises. I have one suggestion which I think I can make. Looking back at the speeches of hon. Members on the other side of the House, I find they very largely under-estimated the

  775
  number of owners of land. It was stated that some 10,000 people owned all the land in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; half of it."] I happen to have a quotation with me. Because of recent researches I have come across some of those speeches, and I think it may be possible that the Government were misled in this way. The mere fact that it was supposed so very small a number of people owned all the land of the country may have misled the Government and made them under-estimate the number of people with separate occupations. They may, therefore, when they framed the Estimate, have considered a far smaller amount of paper was required than was subsequently shown to be necessary. After all, was it not shown that there were in London alone no less than 35,000 separate owners?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not discussing this Estimate. I believe all that is done under this Estimate is to print the forms asked for by the Department which was responsible, and therefore the number asked for is a question which should be raised on another Estimate, and not on this.
  Mr. PEEL: It may be they were asked for by another Department, but surely we are entitled to criticise here the expenditure upon those forms and to ask how it arose. If we are told now that the expenditure is purely made on the orders of some other Department, we are hardly in a position in that case to criticise at all money spent upon stationery. These matters of small expenditure require almost more inquiring into than matters of large expenditure. The Government, after all, have shown no desire whatever to economise in large matters, and it is therefore all the more important that they should show some desire to economise in the smaller matters, so that, if they cannot have a reputation for economy in millions, they may have a more enduring reputation for taking care of the pence. I understood my hon. Friend said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Sir E. Strachey) had paid for certain paper which he had from the office. I had the opportunity during the recent election of observing some of the paper sent down to Somerset, and very interesting letters indeed were written upon it. The hon. Gentleman, in fact, took the opportunity of stating all the advantages which they enjoyed under the Board of Agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN: This matter is entirely irrelevant.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. PEEL: I gathered that possibly under the Appropriation-in-Aid there might be included this sum received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. Of course, if I am wrong, I will not pursue it further. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us some information as to the small stores. They all seem to be lumped together under one heading "J." They may be small stores, but the amount is large, amounting to no less than £68,000, which is nearly as large as Item H. for binding. Were these Appropriation-in-Aid entirely unforeseen, or is it that in order to balance this Estimate a certain amount of Appropriation-in-Aid have been taken from other Votes and transferred to this, so that the excess may not appear so large? One would like to know, not only whether the Votes themselves, but also the Appropriations-in-Aid, were matters entirely unforeseen and on which the Government were utterly unable to form an estimate at the time the Estimates were drawn up.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There are just a few points I desire to raise on this Estimate, and the chief of them is with regard to the general increase shown over the whole Estimate. It is all very well for us to come down to this House and tell the right hon. Gentleman he ought to have been more economical, but we do not get very much further; and I want to find out who has the actual spending of these amounts not estimated for. It would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what check there is upon a Department in ordering this additional stationery. Who is it in a public Department who does the ordering? Can anybody who fancies they can send in an order to His Majesty's Stationery Office for any paper they require? If so, it is not at all surprising that the Estimates show the increases they do at the present time. I should like to know, with reference to what the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) said with regard to the contracts for paper, where the paper comes from, and who are the firms which supply it. Are they selected by open tender or not? I think it is very important there should be open tenders for supplies to the Government of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is again a question of general policy. The Noble Lord must confine himself to the Supplementary Estimates.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I want to find out why there is such a large increase in a particular item, and all I am suggesting is that such inevitable increases as may occasionally occur owing to special circumstances in the year might be balanced if there was a better system of getting the paper. It would therefore be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether there is a system of open tenders for the ordering of paper.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have just ruled that question out of order.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am sorry if I have unwittingly transgressed your ruling, but I thought I had made it clear there was an excess on this Estimate. With regard to horses and carts we often see in the streets His Majesty's Stationery Office Vans going about, and it seems odd that additional vans should be required? Why should not Government offices help one another? Many Post Office mail vans have been abandoned in favour of motor traffic, and that must have left a considerable supply of horses and carts available for use. It would be interesting to know whether these horses and carts are sold by the Post Office as a mere matter of waste, or whether, when there is a deficiency in another Department they are handed over to supply that deficiency. Why could not this extra requirement for horses and carts have been met without coming to the House for this additional estimate. I fully realise that the right hon. Gentleman, although he is responsible for the estimate, cannot deal with details. But what we want to know, in order to help the House of Commons to economise, is whether any check really exists, or whether or not there are existing such economical arrangements as would exist in any business other than a Government office?
  Mr. HINDS: I wish to protest against the tendency to lump England and Wales together?
  Mr. TOULMIN: I should like to be allowed to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that there is nothing in the reference to the Publications Committee which would have enabled them to
  778
  exercise any influence on these Supplementary Estimates. The Committee is concerned entirely with publications ordered by or presented to this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London really answered himself when criticising the omission of the cost of the Land Valuation forms, for that expense was omitted because when these estimates were presented last February the Budget was not passed. It does not seem to me to be a good or proper thing for any Department of the Government to include in its Estimates for the coming year the problematical cost under an Act not yet passed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I always understood that the Government knew they had a majority to pass the Act, and that therefore it was a foregone conclusion.
  Mr. TOULMIN: I do not think the Treasury would sanction that principle at all. They would be justified in making the Estimate without taking that into consideration. Nor is it objectionable, for if they had been included last year the House would not have had this opportunity of considering this expenditure.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The point put by the hon. Member opposite is met by this, that we cannot discuss the policy of this question. Therefore I do not think his argument is a good one. May I point out that the original Estimate was £20,000, and that has increased to £34,000, so that there is an additional sum of some £14,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether that great expenditure was incurred in connection with the printing and publishing of the forms under the Budget of 1909–10. Was this extra cost of £14,000 or £15,000 caused by the unnecessary complexity of those forms and the unnecessary amount of paper used. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question, said it was not necessary to answer questions as to which the taxpayer had no information, and the words "not known" could be given as a reply. But that sort of policy involved the waste of an immense amount of unnecessary paper. Let me refer to a form in connection with the Licensing Clauses, Form LLI, which contained some five or six pages, and no doubt the cost of that is included in the £14,000, and two or three pages were withdrawn almost at the moment it was issued.
  The CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with the printing. This Department has no responsibility for any mistake in those forms.
  Mr. YOUNGER: What I am trying to arrive at is whether this sum of £14,000 which we are now asked to vote is not due to extravagance in regard to the forms which were issued. I do say that these forms were issued in such a way as first of all to be very costly, and, in the second place, in many respects wholly unnecessary.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to ask a question as to whether a large portion of this sum is due to unnecessary printing, but when he goes on to comment he is wrong.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Then I do ask that—whether a large part of this expense is in consequence of the printing which was proved to be unnecessary and was withdrawn?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A great number of questions have been put to me in the course of the last hour which I will endeavour to answer. The general charge which has been made against me and the Department I now represent by most speakers is in regard to some unforeseen extras which have arisen. I may say that practically the whole of this increase is due to a very old friend, the House of Lords, and is due to their action in throwing out the Budget.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask, Sir, whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would not apply in exactly the same way as those of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to general policy and general purposes?
  The CHAIRMAN: I suppose the hon. Member desires to ask whether the Secretary to the Treasury is out of order or not. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question as to why there was this increase in the cost of printing, and he has given the answer. If he went on to comment on whether it was wise or not of course he would be out of order.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no desire to transgress your ruling. I was asked the reason, and I gave it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Finance Bill only passed on 29th April, 1910. The Estimates have to be made up, many of them, in December, and all of them by the end of January. A great number of questions were addressed to me in the course of last year as to whether the Government were authorising expenditure in anticipation of the Budget, and a very great deal of exception was taken to the supposed sanction of expenditure in anticipation of the Budget passing. Now the criticism is that we did not anticipate the passing of the Budget, that we did not provide the expenditure for these valuation forms in anticipation of the subsequent sanction of the Budget. The whole of this increased expenditure is due to the fact that there was nothing authorising the actual land valuation, and, of course, the expenses connected with it in the shape of forms issued to the holders of land which will have to be valued. I have looked at the expenditure covered by this sum. It all goes in one form or another, and was consequent upon the legislation passed on 29th April, 1910. With regard to the Ap-propriations-in-Aid, certain Departments are not under the direct control of the Government, such as the Development Commission and various semi-official Departments of that sort which are allowed, for what are practically national purposes, to purchase their stanionery from the Stationery Office at what is practically cost price and they repay out of the sums placed at their disposal by Parliament the amount of the stationery so bought. It is really more in the nature of a bookkeeping transaction than anything else. The question of horses, carts, and carriages was also raised. It is clear, you cannot have a very largely increased output from the Stationery Department required by every Government Department without transporting them. The carriage arrangements are all by contract. You have more paper to carry and you carry it more frequently. Thence arises the charge.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Are those carts we see with H.M. Stationery Office on them contractors' carts?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. The hon. Member (Mr. Peel) raised the question of the examination by the London County Council Committee as to the cost of stationery m connection with that body. When the London County Council started their committee the first thing they did

  781
  was to come to the Stationery Office and ask them how they arranged the paper which they used. They adopted all the suggestions of the Stationery Office, and if any economy has been introduced into the administration of the London County Council, of which I am not exactly sure, it is apparently due to the advice of His Majesty's Stationery Office, and they have made formal acknowledgment of their indebtedness to the Stationery Office. I must congratulate the London County Council and its representatives in this House on having adopted the admirable suggestions of His Majesty's Stationery Office. I do not think that I need follow the hon. Member into the observations he made about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture.
  Everybody knows under what circumstances a mistake was committed by the hon. Gentleman's private secretary. The moment it was brought to his notice he redeemed it in the only way he could redeem an error on the part of one of his subordinates. My hon. Friend the Member for the Kircaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) raised the question of the reappointment of the Committee to deal with publications. There is no Member of this House who is more concerned with economies of all sorts in the public service than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has some responsibility for the presentation of the Estimates in this House, and he has some responsibility to the House in respect of the expenditure of national funds, and as my hon. Friends know the duties performed by the Financial Secretary sometimes do not meet with much appreciation or popularity in this House. One is constantly in contact with all sorts of proposals for expenditure, and if there are any Members of this House who desire to take upon themselves the duties which are performed by the occupant of this post, and who think that the burdens which now fall upon him should be transferred to them, I am not sure that they would be more successful than the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Toulmin) in reducing expenditure. In regard to this matter, I will be glad to consult with my hon. Friends and see whether such a. Committee is not necessary and should not be set up. A question was asked by an hon. Member as to the ordering of stationery. The ordering of stationery is done by the chief clerks of the different Departments.
  782
  There is one official in all Government offices known as the Chief Clerk, and he is practically responsible for ordering all the stationery consumed in the Department. If there was any undue expenditure on the part of any Department, it surely would be brought to the notice of the Treasury by the Stationery Office.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What about the sale of waste paper?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am very glad that the hon. Baronet has brought to the attention of the Committee the sums received by the sale of waste paper. It is not so much as was suggested. The fact is that there has been an enormous amount of stationery consumed, among other places, by this House on account of the extra labours of the House. There has been an increase in the general consumption of stationery all round, and that has led to an increase for waste. In reference to the item for binding, I may point out that there is a natural growth in all these great Government Departments, such as the Local Government Board and the Board of Education. These establishments grow with the growth of the population.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Could not that have been foreseen?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not entirely. The extra duties thrown by legislation on these great Departments owing to the gradual expense and the strengthening needs of the people must of necessity cause extra binding, extra books, papers, and documents. That is spread over an expenditure of something like £170,000,000, and the excess on this particular item is only £5,000. I do not think that that is an unreasonable explanation, not from the Government, but from the Departments through the Government of the extra expenditure required.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: As they allowed for what they call natural increase, £1,000 in the Estimates, surely this extra sum must be due to some special expenditure which was unforeseen, which cannot be put down to the mere fact, as we all know, that the demands of legislation are constantly growing. That is a matter that is allowed for in the Estimates, and I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation accounts for this specific increase of £7,000, which is much larger than the usual normal increase.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said with regard to setting up the Committee. I sincerely hope that the result will be to set up one with a wide reference. There is one other point I want him to reply to. I do not press him now, because I can put a question on the subject. The question of contracts is of vital importance, as to whether the Departments should have short or long contracts. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to answer that now I will not press him on that point. In reference to the question of British paper, is it really the case that it is all British-made paper that is used? Even the most extreme Tariff Reform organs which announce every day that Tariff Reform means more work for British labour buy every pound of their paper from abroad, because there are some classes of paper that they are able to buy much cheaper and much better abroad. Therefore I am astonished to hear that in this case you buy all the paper at home. If you are able to do so at as good a price as abroad, of course it is satisfactory. It is somewhat surprising that with an expenditure of a quarter of a million of money it is all British-made paper. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: If, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, this extra expenditure is due to the normal growth in the working of the Departments, surely it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to foresee that growth and provide for it, not in a Supplementary Estimate but in the original Estimates, and not to manufacture surpluses by incorrectly estimating expenditure in such palpable matters as that. The right hon. Gentleman is not accurate in his historical facts in attributing increased expenditure to the action of the House of Lords. If it is no more than the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, it is a totally controversial opinion, and one which I submit to the House is very little worthy of its respect, because everyone knows that the late date at which the Budget was taken was not due to matters beyond the Government's control. It was only one of those unedifying transactions by which the real financial interests of the nation were sacrificed to party interests.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is very insufficient on one particular point. He is asked for an explanation as to the extraordinary
  784
  and quite abnormal increase in the cost of binding. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assert that it is due to some regular and automatic increase of the papers issued by the Departments. The different Departments do not issue blue books in a bound form. Why is there this enormous increase of seven times the normal sum for the cost of binding? There seems to be some idea that perpetuity is to be given to these blue books. Who is it that wishes them to be bound?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The words blue book are the hon. Gentleman's own interpolation. I never used the words blue book.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I will depart from the words "Blue Book." Why is it that the papers sent out are to be bound? An express order must have been sent out for some purpose, and why is it that these papers are to be preserved in bound form? Surely the matter is capable of some explanation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the explanation of the right hon. Gentlesman is not very satisfactory. The explanations which the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward have reference to the House of Lords and the "national growth." I do not know whether he means national growth as applied to the House of Lords. But the national growth is a very poor excuse for these Supplementary Estimates. The national growth must have been going on a year ago; national growth is not suddenly developed within a year. Besides, with his experience, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have provided for national growth, especially with the advent of a Liberal Government. With regard to carriage, the right hon. Gentleman said that with an increase of material which has to be carted about there is an increase of the cost of cartage. There has been an increase of paper, which is not carted about very much. The increase of paper has cost £14,000, and £600 is the charge for its cartage; £600 is a large amount for the carriage of £14,000 worth of goods. I am inclined to think it could be done cheaper than that. I beg to move that item B be reduced by £200.
  Question put, "That item B (Horses, and Carts and Carriages) be reduced by £200."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 216.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [3.35. p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Adamson, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mathias, Richard

  Alden, Percy

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ffrench, Peter

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barton, William

  Greig, Col. James William

  Muldoon, John

  Beale, William Phipson

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

  Munro, Robert

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

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

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Boland, John Pius

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brace, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bryce, John Annan

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Cameron, Robert

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Chancellor, H. C.

  Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnson, William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clough, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Radford, Geirge Heynes

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rainy Adam Rolland

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George (S. Molton)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richards, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lansbury, George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Matthew Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norfolk)

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Logan, John William

  Robinson, Sydney

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rowlands, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Doris, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Mallaby Deeley, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E, (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Webb, H.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wadsworth, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Waring, Walter

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Forster, Henry William

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Barnston, Harry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Spear, John Ward

  Bennett-Goldrey, Francis

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Courthope, George Lloyd

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, George

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Celonel

  Fleming, Valentine

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Remnant.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [4.36. p.m.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Barnston, H.

  Goulding, E. A.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francls

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Spear, John Ward

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Burn, Colonel C. E.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, George

  Croft, H. P.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dawes, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Adamson, William

  Delany, William

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Alden, Percy

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Johnson, W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Jones, Sir O. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Doris, W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Barry, Rdmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Joyce, Michael

  Barton, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Boland, John Plus

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leach, Charles

  Brace, William

  Falconer, J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brooklehurst, W. B.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fitizibbon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicea.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Clough, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mathias, Richard

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

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

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harwood, George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Cotton, William Francis

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molloy, M.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Munro, R.

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Toulmin, George

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptes)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, Sir O. Scott (Bradford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Grady, James

  Robinson, Sidney

  Webb, H.

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowlands, James

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Sheehy, David

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

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westheughton)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Young, W, (Perthshire, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Mr. PEELmoved, "That Item F (Paper for Public Departments) be reduced by £500."—
  I never take any action in this House without very careful and anxious thought, and while going through the Lobby I was weighing the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for this very unfortunate increase in the cost of paper. He gave only two reasons—one was that it was due to the natural expansion of the national necessities with regard to the further use of paper. I pointed out that in these cases we have a right to expect some sort of foresight in the public department who have to. make, these arrangements, and that they ought to exercise a little prognostication in dealing with these questions as they arise from year to
  year. It is the custom of hon. Members opposite when anything goes wrong, either in legislation or administration, to say that it is entirely due to the action of the Second Chamber. This was the second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for the increase of this expenditure. When this expenditure is entirely due to the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, I think it not only unfair but rather mean to set down the reason for this increase to the action of another place.
  Question put, "That Item F (Paper for Public Departments) be reduced by £,500."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 84; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 32].

  AYES.

  [4.45. p.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fleming, Valentine

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barnston, Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gordon, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goulding, Edward A.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Spear, John Ward

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Crott, Henry Page

  Lyttelton, Rt Hn A. (S. Gea., Han. Sq.)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Younger, George

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

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peel and Major Anstruther-Cray.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Acland, Francis Oyke

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Greig, Colonel James William

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shee, James John

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hardle, J. Keir

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, William

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Boland, John Pius

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Price, C E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hinds, John

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Johnson, William

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Leif) Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, St. Geo.)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Clough, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A.

  Sheehy, David

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Leach, Charles

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dawes, J. A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Wadsworth, John

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Waring, Walter

  Dillon, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mathias, Richard

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Doris, William

  Meagher, Michal

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molloy, Michael

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whyte, A. F.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Falconer, James

  Munro, R.

  Wood, T. M-Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Field, William

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Fitzgibbon, John.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 81.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES.

  [4.55. p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Dowd, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  O'Grady, James

  Adamson, William

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

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

  Alden, Percy

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Shee, James John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hardle, J. Keir

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrene, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Beale, William Phipson

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hinds, John

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, William

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, St. Geo.)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clough, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A.

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

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Sheehy, David

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemeuth)

  Leach, Charles

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebroek

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dawes, J. A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutherland, John E.

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicss.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Denman Hon. R. D.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Wadsworth, John

  Dillon, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mathlas, Richard

  Waring, Walter

  Doris, William

  Meagher, Michal

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molloy, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Whyte, A. F.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Muldoon, John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Falconer, James

  Munro, R.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt Hon. R. C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Field, William

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Conner, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  O'Donnell. Thomas

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith

  Boyton, James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burn, Colonel C R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, John Ward

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Croft, Henry Page

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

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Weimer, Viscount

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Forster, Henry William

  Norton-Griffith, J

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Gordon, John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Younger, George

  Goulding, Edward A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Malcolm and Mr. Carlile.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  And, it being after Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next:

PRIVILEGES.
Ordered, The Attorney-General, Mr. Balfour, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. MacNeill, Sir Gilbert Parker, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Eugene Wason were nominated Members of the Committee of Privileges:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—[Master of Elibank.]

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker Adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Fire o'clock till Monday next, 6th March.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
TUESDAY.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,—Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
FRIDAY.
Women's Enfranchisement Bill,—Petitions from Bolton; and Thurso in favour.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Matthew Estate, Thurles.
  Matthew Estate, Thurles.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Barley Cultivation (Ireland).
  Barley Cultivation (Ireland).
  Sir S. Falkiner's Estate, Currihaly.
  Sir S. Falkiner's Estate, Currihaly.
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Territorial Force Associations (Cadet Units).
  Territorial Force Associations (Cadet Units).
  Canada and West Indies (Trade Relations).
  Canada and West Indies (Trade Relations).
  Heswall Reformatory School.
  Heswall Reformatory School.
  Home-Grown Wheat and Wheat-Flour.
  Home-Grown Wheat and Wheat-Flour.
  Development Commissioners (Fishery Advisory Committee).
  Development Commissioners (Fishery Advisory Committee).
  Written Answers in Summonses.
  Written Answers in Summonses.