Sitting of 17 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Felixstowe and Walton Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Bristol Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Milford Docks Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Sligo Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Halifax Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Lords Message [13th March], "That it is desirable that the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," be now considered.
Lords Message considered accordingly:—
Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Burns.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Resolved, That it is expedient that the Thames Conservancy Bill be referred to the same Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—[Mr. Burns.]
Message to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Return ordered, "showing, for each district for which a Committee on Secondary Education has been appointed, the separate items (a), (b), and (c), constituting the fixed sum allocated to each Secondary Committee District under Section 1 of
2598
the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 1st day of November, 1910, and set forth in column 2 of the table appended to the said Minute."—[Sir Walter Menzies.]

SUPPLY.—REPOET.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.

    LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.
    Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,100, 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 Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Captain CRAIG: I rise to ask the learned Attorney-General one or two questions with regard to this increase in the cost of criminal prosecutions in Ireland. I am somewhat at a disadvantage, because I was under the impression that these Supplementary Votes would be taken in the same order as they were during the Committee stage, and I did not expect to be called upon to discuss this Vote so early in our proceedings this afternoon. In view of the fact that on the last occasion when this Vote was before the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) raised a matter of very great importance to his constituency, and, bearing in mind that the discussion which took place on that occasion, drifted away from the question of the actual expenses which had been incurred by the particular Department concerned, before we allow this item of £2,100 to go through, I think we should have some explanation as to how this increased amount is arrived at. This is all the more necessary when one takes into consideration that the fact that these charges, ever since the present Government came into power in 1906, have been steadily increasing instead of decreasing. Everybody is aware that in the year 1907–8 we have had to complain each year of the excessive amount charged for criminal prosecutions and law charges in Ireland without the benefit accruing which one would naturally expect from the expenditure of such

    2599
    a large sum of money, in addition to what was granted under this heading when the Unionist Government was in power.
    Anyone who glances at the Paper will see that the bulk of this Estimate is made up with the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses, and I want to know whether these expenses have been incurred by insisting upon a change of venue in various parts of the country where it is found impossible to have a fair trial. If expenses amounting to £1,400 are incurred by having to change the venue from certain disturbed areas in Ireland in the case of trials for malicious injury and other criminal causes to parts of the country where a fair trial can be obtained, my objection to this increased expenditure would not be so great as it otherwise would be. If these trials are removed from county Clare or some other disturbed area to be tried before a county jury in Dublin or Belfast where a fair trial can always be relied upon then the expense of taking prosecutors, counsel, and witnesses long distances in order to get justice in the courts, it is only natural that course would entail the expenditure of a large sum of money. If it is true that it has been found necessary to take these long journeys in order to secure justice what becomes of the assurance of the Chief Secretary given in 1908? According to the report of the local Nationalist paper, the judge of the Assizes said it really appeared to him that a man was as safe in the dock in Kerry as he was here on the judge's bench. I recollect the words, because they struck me as a most horrible comment on the state of affairs since the statement made by the Chief Secretary that he hoped by giving full responsibility and weight to local jurors in Ireland eventually this excessive cost would be reduced and that the people in those localities would find that it was to their advantage to maintain law and order by finding true verdicts in the cases placed before them. Nobody who knows the state of affairs can deny that the Chief Secretary and the Law Officers have absolutely failed in the course which they have pursued. Instead of an improvement having taken place, as we all hoped and trusted, it is once more necessary to add to the already heavy charges by asking for £2,100 extra.
    The next point I wish to raise is with regard to the £700 fees for counsel, due to an increase in the number of Crown prosecutions. I wonder why it is necessary when we have the learned Gentleman and
    2600
    his colleague and when one of them is always in Ireland to spend £700 on account of an increase in the number of Crown prosecutions. Although there has been during 1910–11 at all events, increased activity on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown, as far as I can judge—and I have spoken to several of my learned Friends—that should not have entailed any necessity to employ outside counsel. Would it not be possible for the Attorney-General and his colleague to manage all the prosecutions themselves, and thus make it felt throughout the disturbed parts in Ireland that it is the Law Officers of the Crown themselves who are prosecuting, and not anyone to whom they have delegated their authority? If, instead of getting some barrister who has not all the weight and dignity which ought to be attached to the Law Officers of the Crown to act for them, the learned Gentleman or his colleague acted for themselves, the effect in certain parts of Ireland would be very great indeed. I would also like to ask whether any discrimination is made in the choice of the cases which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague undertake on behalf of the Crown, or whether in certain cases they think it discreet and judicious to remain in their shells and not to appear personally, but to delegate their authority to some counsel in the neighbourhood or someone they send down from Dublin. I am not grumbling at the salaries of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleague or making any personal attack upon them. My remarks would apply no matter who happened to occupy the high offices they hold. We pay large salaries to these two officers, however, and they might be able to undertake the work without calling in outside assistance. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that this increase will not occur again I It has been stated both by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by the Chief Secretary that their policy is one which will eventually lead to much less expense in connection with this Department. It has been far otherwise. Year after year we have been asked for an increased grant without reaping any advantage in the better state of the country or in a feeling of greater safety among the people, or in that due respect which every citizen ought to have for the law. Unless we get a satisfactory answer to these questions, I hope some of my colleagues will move a reduction of the Vote in order to enter a protest against what is not merely

    2601
    an increase this year, but a tendency year after year to add to the Law Charges in Ireland.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I have every hope that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be realised in the future and that there will not be an increase similar to that provided for by this Supplementary Estimate. As he himself suggested, a large part of this additional sum has been rendered necessary by the removal of trials from various parts of Ireland to the city of Dublin. Three or four cases of importance which were removed caused great expense in the way of witnesses. These trials, however, do not account entirely for the increased cost. There were in addition during the last twelve months two or three cases of an exceptional character, very important and expensive. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these sums might be avoided altogether by the Law Officers themselves undertaking all the prosecutions, I would put it to him whether, from his acquaintance with the state of affairs in Ireland, he does not agree that that would be impossible. It would be physically impossible for the Law Officers to appear in all the courts in Ireland, and the expenses, instead of being less, would be larger than at present. They do from time to time appear in particular criminal cases, selected not for any private reason at all, but because, owing to their great importance and sometimes to their great difficulty, it is felt that it is best the Law Officers should personally conduct them. The hon. Member may rest assured that in making a selection no private consideration is taken into account. Particular cases are selected entirely because of their importance and the public interest taken in them. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to hear from me that his observation that the condition of the country, as a result of these prosecutions, is not satisfactory, is not well founded, so far as the present year is concerned. The House will rejoice to hear that the reports to hand from the learned judges with regard to the present assizes, which are not yet completed, but which has been sitting two or three weeks, have been to the effect that in practically every county the condition of the country is very satisfactory, and that in some counties improvements are to be found. I have here some of the reports of some of the charges of the learned judges in practically every
    2602
    county. I find that in them the condition of the counties is described in most cases as "satisfactory"; in some cases as "highly satisfactory," and in the county of Kerry, alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member, the Lord Chief Baron, in charging the grand jury, congratulated them on the improved state of the county.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the report for County Clare?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have here a report of the charge of the Lord Chief Baron there, in which he says: "The condition of the county while not satisfactory was improving." The impression left on my mind as a result of the summary I have before me is that not merely in the case of the cities but also in the case of the counties the condition of the county is satisfactory, and the improvement is of an encouraging character, affording in that respect a complete answer to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that really no good effect at all has ensued as a result of the criminal prosecutions. I think that the result has been satisfactory. The increased expense has been inevitable, but it has been largely due to the trial in Dublin of exceptional cases, for which no provision was made in the Estimates of the year. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will think this a satisfactory answer.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): May I be permitted to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen to allow this Vote to be passed. I understand it is the wish to discuss Votes upon which there has been no debate up to the present.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought not to prolong the discussion on this particular Vote, but I should like to say a few words. I do not think the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really very satisfactory, because we know that in the last two or three years these expenses have increased, and all we get is the expression of a hope that next year there will be a diminution under this head. Hope is not yet taxed, though I suppose it will be very shortly if this Government remains in power. It is very cheap to tell us that we may have a reduction in the future, but I am afraid—although we were told in Committee that the state of Ireland is

    2603
    peaceful and law-abiding, there is no doubt that there are certain portions and certain districts where the conditions are not at all satisfactory: where they are not improving, and where, if the administration of the present Government is carried on for any length of time, they will not only not improve, but will deteriorate. Why is it? Because in certain districts there is a very legitimate feeling of grievance and indignation which ought to be directed against the Government, but which is in fact directed against law and order generally, because owing to the policy of the Government land purchase has been suspended over the greater part of Ireland. The people urgently desire land purchase to continue, but they see that the great difficulty standing in their way is that the landlords are unwilling and really unable to sell at the price offered. Therefore, they vent their ill-feeling against the law in general. I think the right hon. Gentleman is not standing on very sure ground when he hopes for a diminution in crime in these particular districts, and a great comment on that is that he has been obliged to remove a great number of cases for trial from the district where the crime was committed to populous centres. I am not complaining of that. I think it was the only thing the right hon. Gentleman could do, but it is a comment on the state of these particular districts that in the opinion of the Government—a Home Rule Government, who are willing to commit the future of Ireland to the representatives of the lawless districts—that they are obliged to remove these cases for trial from these districts to big populous centres like Dublin and Belfast, where a very large proportion of the jurymen would be Unionists and Conservatives—people of the better class. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Will hon. Members deny that the juries both at Dublin and Belfast are of the better class, and that they happen to be Conservatives and Unionists. Do they deny that in the College Green Division of Dublin, where the commercial classes live, everybody who has any stake in this country votes for the Conservatives. That, I suppose, is part of the policy of the Government of killing Home Rule by kindness, but I do not think they can kill Home Rule by kindness. They will never be able to do so, and I would protest—this is very relevant, I think, to this discussion—against the continued absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Vote.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I wanted to show that owing to the Chief Secretary not being at the helm this lawlessness has taken place, but of course I will not press the point. May I, however, be allowed to add that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking much too rosy a view, and I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AND OTHER LEGAL DEPARTMENTS IN IRELAND.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord BALCARRES: I will take this opportunity of asking the Patronage Secretary what he proposes to do now? I understand this Vote is to be postponed, not, I may remark, at our request; I understand, also, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to postpone the Irish Votes in Classes IV. and V., and then to begin with the Old Age Pensions and to go on with the International Exhibitions, and then the Post Office Vote, and, finally, the Ordnance Vote.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We must have the Excess Vote after the Post Office Vote.
  Lord BALCARRES: We have made no request, but, of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, it can be done.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understood it would be for the general convenience of the House if we to-day discuss those Estimates which were not discussed in Committee, and it is for that reason, and for that reason only that I suggested the course of

  2605
  procedure read out by the Noble Lord. It is a matter of perfect indifference to us which Votes are discussed, but we thought it would be for the convenience of the House to take those which were not debated in Committee.
  Dr. HILLIER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will really give an opportunity for a few minutes' discussion on Class V., Vote 6?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall be very glad to come back to that after the other Votes have been disposed of.
  Dr. HILLIER: I do not know that that will give an opportunity for discussion.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hope there will be an opportunity for discussion.
  Lord BALCARRES: I understand that the Votes which will be taken are the Irish Votes on Class IV. and Class V., Old Age Pensions, International Exhibitions, Post Office Vote, Excess Vote, and Ordnance Vote.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. LONSDALE: I should like some explanation of the deficiency in estimated receipts and falling off of the duty on sales in the Land Judges' Department. Is that to be attributed to the general block in land purchase which has been brought about by the Land Act of 1909. The right hon. Gentleman has already had his notice called on more than one occasion to the complete stoppage of purchase which that Act as brought about in Ireland and is this falling off in the duty paid into the Land Revenue Department in Ireland due to that cause. I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to it, and perhaps he might at the same time be able to assure us that some effort will be made by administration in Ireland to assist the working of the Land Acts, not only the Land Act of 1909, but that of 1903. I understand that the stoppage of the working of the Land Act of 1903 is mainly attributable to financial reasons. We all admit the great difficulty there was in raising the money to carry on the work of the Act, but we hope that some effort will be made by the Treasury in view of the enormous importance of this question to find the necessary funds to carry out land purchase. There is no more burning and vital question in Ireland. I venture to say
  2606
  then the completion of the land purchase settlement, and if the Government are to continue year after year allowing the Acts to remain a dead letter, and the land sales in the Land Courts, and under the Estates Commissioners to continue in this congested condition without any real effort to remove that congestion, I venture to say that we cannot hope to find in Ireland any large cessation from these agrarian outrages which are allowed to prevail throughout the country. I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation of these items will be able to give us some assurance in the direction which I have asked for.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am glad to say that the deficiency is not in relation to the operation of the Land Acts. It is due to three causes. The first is the diminution in the sales in the Land Judges Court, as distinguished from the Land Commission, and no duty is payable in the case of a sale to the Land Commission. The second is that in the Land Judges Court in the case of the sale of an insolvent estate no duty is payable on the purchase money. The third reason has relation to the working of the Land Commissioners Court and the Land Judges Court, but the deficiency has no application whatever to the Land Acts or either of them.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it has no application whatever to the block of land business?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I think not.
  Captain CRAIG: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the loss which has occurred here is as to practically one-third owing to no duty being charged by the Court to the Land Commissioners. Is that right?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Yes.
  Captain CRAIG: That is to say, that if the Court sells an estate or a parcel of land to a private individual he has to pay more for it than the Land Commissioners?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: In the Land Judges Court.
  Captain CRAIG: That is to say, there is a differentiation between the Land Commissioners and the private individual in Ireland, in so far as the duty is concerned. That seems to me rather unfair, and if

  2607
  the private individual buys from the Supreme Court or the Department involved in this particular transaction for the convenience of the Court which wishes to get its estates wound up in order to do that the private individual is charged more than the Commissioners. They surely ought to me on the same ground, but here one Department of the State is in unfair competition with the private buyer. There is something wrong about the Attorney-General justifying such a transaction. The corporate body should be treated exactly the same as the individual, and no differentiation should take place.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am told in the case of sales made to the Land Commissioners by the particular vendors, no duty is payable. That is the explanation given to me, and I have no doubt it is an accurate one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. FELL: I should like some explanation how it was that the Estimate of £450,000 was found so much too small that this additional sum of £200,000 is required. I should like an explanation as to what exactly the money is for. We know generally that it is owing to the removal of the pauper disqualification. There are only fourteen days left in the financial year, and we are asked to provide this £200,000. I cannot imagine that it is required for additional expenditure on old age pensions for the remaining fourteen days.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is a very simple one. It was necessary to put down a Supplementary Estimate because we propose to take over from the boards of guardians payments which would, under the original proposal, have fallen upon them for the maintenance of these pauper pensions. If the proposal which is contained in the
  2608
  Revenue Bill had not been brought to the notice of the House there would have been no occasion to take this sum. The charge would have been borne by the guardians, and no charge would have fallen on the Treasury, and no Estimate would have been presented to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £62,269, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in connection with International Exhibitions (including a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Royal Commission for the Brussels, Rome, and Turin Exhibitions)."
  Resolved, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1911, for the Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord BALCARRES: This is a very small Vote, but it raises an important question of principle. Since the original Vote was sanctioned by the House it has inevitably become necessary to buy a site in London, in Threadneedle Street, for which £183,000 has been paid. I do not doubt that that is justified by the exigencies of the Post Service service, but in order to find £183,000 for this service the Post Office has had to reduce its outlay upon other services by £182,990, so that the technical increase is only a £10 note. I want the Postmaster-General to explain how he arrives at a saving of £182,990 in order to justify an expenditure of £183,000 on another branch of the service. I am not complaining about the site in Threadneedle Street, but, after all, the services included in the £182,000, were not only sanctioned but were ordered by Parliament last summer. The Estimates were laid before the House and were agreed to, and, assuming that

  2609
  they were properly drawn up, it was the duty of the Post Office to spend that money if it was for the public service that the outlay should be made. But how does it come about that the saving is just £10 less than the cost of the new site. There is a suspicious approximation between the two sums which seems to indicate that the Treasury has directed that it will refuse its sanction to the outlay upon the Threadneedle Street site unless an equivalent reduction is made in other Post Office Votes. The outlay was no doubt necessary, but it is more incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to explain and justify the economy than to explain and justify the expenditure, and I should be glad if he will tell us of what items the smaller sum of £182,990 consists, how far he is justified in reducing the outlay to that extent which was sanctioned and ordered by the House, and whether, in short, the one branch of the public service is not suffering in order to carry out another branch which may be necessary.
  Mr. FELL: I should like to ask if the new premises will give further and better accommodation than is available at present. I have heard very grave complaints made with regard to the post office. It is greatly overcrowded and it is impossible to carry the business out efficiently. I suppose this sum represents the purchase of the freehold? Does it comprise anything additional, so that the site can be made larger than that which is now leased by the post office so that better accommodation can be provided than at present?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not surprised that the Noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that the estimated savings mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate are within £10 of the precise figure that is required for the additional expenditure. But it must not be supposed that the whole of the estimated savings of the year are included in this Supplementary Estimate as a setoff against the cost of the site of the Threadneedle Street office. It is not so. The total estimated savings for the year are, I am happy to say, over £300,000, and the estimated cost of the Threadneedle Street site less £10 has been stated in this Estimate because that is the ordinary form in which what is called a token Estimate is put before the House of Commons. We draw upon our estimated savings precisely for the sum needed for this Estimate less £10 in order that Parlia-
  2610
  ment should be asked to vote £10 as a token so that the matter may be brought to the cognisance of the House and that the Treasury should not be spending money allocated for other purposes behind the back of the House of Commons. The Noble Lord has asked how it is that these savings which amounted to over £300,000, and not to £180,000, have come to arise, and he says we ought to spend money which is voted by the House of Commons.
  Lord BALCARRES: No, I did not say that. I said you have no business to get the House of Commons to vote money unless you really know it is necessary to spend it.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: That As, strictly speaking, not so. The House of Commons every year votes for the service of the Post Office the sum which is required, plus what is called a small margin for safety. There is, every year, I am happy to say, a saving upon Post Office expenditure, the reason being that very many of our requirements cannot be precisely estimated beforehand. It depends upon the growth of work during the year, and Post Office work is continually expanding. It has doubled within the last fifteen years. Every year it shows a considerable increase of work, and it cannot be estimated to the last sixpence how far the work will grow during the coming year, what new engineering stores will be needed, and what precise growth of the staff will be required. Post Office expenditure is spread over a very large number of votes and subheads for different departments and different sub-departments of the Post Office, and for each of these there has to be a small margin for safety, and if the expenditure does not show any exceptional increase these margins are realised and a certain sum of money each year is saved. That, of course, is carried as a rule to the Old Sinking Fund. This year the savings as usual are spread over a large number of subheads chiefly with reference to the number of staff employed. There are also some rather exceptional savings relating to the packet service agreement which was expected to be arrived at in the course of the year as to the cross-channel mails with the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company. The argeement has not been concluded owing to a disagreement as to the amount of money to be paid, and that is to be resolved by a reference of the matter to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Consequently the sum which

  2611
  was expected to be paid has to be carried to another year. There are other small exceptional savings this year which bring the total up to the amount stated.
  Dr. HILLIER: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the sum which has not been paid to the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company as a saving? Surely it will have to be paid next year.
  1.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a saving of money voted in the year. It cannot be carried over to next year because our financial practice does not permit of that being done. Of course, there will be a corresponding expenditure next year. Similarly, if I did not take money this year as a Supplementary Estimate for the Post Office in Threadneedle Street it would have to be Voted by Parliament the year after, so that the matter is as long as it is short in that case. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked whether the site for the new building would be larger than the present site. The site is not larger, but the accommodation will be greatly improved. I have myself visited the office, which is an old office which was taken over from the Submarine Telegraph Company. I think it was purchased forty years ago. It is an old building full of narrow staircases, which waste space, and there is a large area in the middle which in those days was thought necessary for light, but which in these days can be dispensed with, as light can be obtained in other ways. We can also build higher on the same site, and consequently the accommodation will be greatly improved. Increased accommodation was not only necessary for persons connected with the Stock Exchange and others who use the Post Office, but also for the staff employed, their accommodation at present being very deficient.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICE (EXCESS), 1909–10.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £188 11s. 8d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments, Ireland, for the year ended on 31st day of March, 1910."
  Resolution agreed to.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1910–11.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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 Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, namely:—
  Vote 10. Works and Buildings—

  £

  E. Part I.—New Works, Additions, Alterations, and Special Repairs

  9,800

  J. Purchases of Land

  94,000

  103,800

  Less Surpluses

  103,700

  100"

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. HOLT: I do not wish to challenge the Vote in any way, but I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement in reference to a matter which has very much interested my Constituency. In this Vote money is taken for the purpose of providing an artillery range in Redesdale Valley or Coquetdale Valley in Northumberland. I want to ask, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district, if he will make a clear statement as to what is going to happen. Is there to be a camp during the summer only or all the year round? Is he satisfied as to the suitability of the land? I am told that it is extremely boggy in wet weather, and that the conditions in that part of the world in winter are not of the best. I wish to be told, further, how much of the camp is to be in the Valley of the Rede or the Valley of the Coquet, and, in either case, will there be a light railway laid down? If so, can he arrange that as some compensation to the people of the locality the light railway will be available to them for the purpose of the transport of agricultural produce. If no light railway is to be laid down, will he take into consideration the extra charge which will fall on the local authority for the upkeep of the roads on account of the additional traffic. It is quite clear that the sheep pasture cannot be carried on on these hills as hitherto, when the Artillery range has been provided. Probably this will lead to the displacement of a number of shepherds who have worked there for a long period. I would like to have an assurance

  2613
  from the right hon. Gentleman that he will view the claims of such shepherds to compensation in a friendly spirit, and that in any case he will be careful to inflict as little hardship as possible on the people who may be dispossessed. Everybody recognises that the Artillery service must have proper ranges to practice upon in order to make themselves efficient. I think the House will recognise that it is a very great nuisance to people in a district to have land taken for this purpose. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend would, for the convenience of my Constituency tell us as much as he can consistently with the public interest as to what his intentions are.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to draw attention to an item of £103,700, of which £64,000 is for regimental pay, and £39,700 for gratuities to officers and enlistment expenses. Are we to understand by this item that the Special Reserve is costing less in 1910–11 by over £100,000 than the Government thought it would cost when they framed their Estimates, because, if that is so, I think the House will agree with me, that shows a very disquieting state of affairs. Here we have a Special Reserve, which we were told was going to take the place of the old Militia—a force which was to be far superior to the old Militia, both in efficiency, age, musketry, and practically in every respect. We heard the other night that this force had decreased in twelve months from 67,500 to 60,000. That is to say, there are 7,500 men less in the Special Reserve than twelve months ago. I presume that the £103,700 represents the saving, if it can be called a saving, to the country, owing to the loss of 7,500 men in the Special Reserve. I think more attention should be given to the deplorable state of the Special Reserve, as shown by this Supplementary Estimate, than the country has yet given to it. Here we have a force which is going to train our recruits for war purposes, which is going, it is claimed, to be the creator of twenty-seven extra Reserve battalions, which is going to do garrisoning abroad, guard our lines of communication, go abroad in units if necessary, or garrison the important centres in England, or garrison in Ireland. Here we have brought up again to-day the fact that this force is a miserable failure, as is shown by there being over 20,000 fewer men than in the old Militia. How can the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and ask us without discussion to pass this Estimate? Having destroyed the Militia against the wishes of a very
  2614
  large number of the people of the country and against the experience of many Members of this House who had served in the Militia, he now acknowledges on this Paper that he has only 60,000 men instead of the 80,000 which the old Militia consisted of, and that in twelve short months over 7,000 men have fallen off. And the falling off is not only in men but in officers. We have here £39,700 less and a considerable portion of that decrease is due to falling off in officers. The right hon. Gentleman in his Memorandum issued with this year's Army Estimates practically acknowledges that he had given up the attempt to get officers with any training at all. He has now come down to six months' training, and I am sure that next year he will come down to no months at all. I do not complain of that. I think, on the whole, the old Militia officer did extremely well. I wish that the country as a whole could see what deplorable injury has been done to our second line by destroying the Militia and substituting this Special Reserve.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for the discussion of the question of the Special Reserve. What the House is now asked to vote are certain Votes for works and buildings. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take advantage of that to switch the discussion off to a wholly different subject, and to point out that certain results have arisen from the Special Reserve. The time to discuss that is on the Special Vote for Special Reserve.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTER: I would like some explanation of the footnote No. 3. It is stated that provision is made in the Army Estimates under Vote X. I have looked through Vote X. very carefully, and I do not find any direct special increase in the place you would naturally expect to find it for the sum of money required for this range, I presume it ought to be under the Northern Command, but I do not find it there. I know that in the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum there is a special sum, I think of £28,000, for the Northumberland range, which was to come out of the falling in of these annuities of £340,000. I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman where I could find the special specification for this Northumberland range.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having altered his first mind with regard to the site of the old Duke of York's School at

  2615
  Chelsea. On behalf of the county associations of London I put down several questions, pointing out that if it should go out of the hands of the Department it might be put to very good use by the supporters of the associations. As a supporter of the voluntary system I tried to do the best I could to convert the right hon. Gentleman to that view, and I am delighted to see by this Supplementary Estimate that our views have been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman; and I am sure that it will greatly assist the Territorial Association in its work in providing proper accommodation so far as the county of London is concerned. There is one question, as to the Bedford Barracks, as to which I do not know whether it is in order to mention it here. I am not sure whether the works and buildings are in the Vote. I do not know whether the discussion is limited to a certain number of subjects, or whether the whole question of works and buildings may be discussed on the Vote now before us. If there was that opportunity, I should be very glad to have the chance of saying a word or two about it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only works and buildings are the two mentioned in the Vote.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I would like to say a few words on the Supplementary Vote on Ordnance Army subjects.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We will reach that by and by.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I share the satisfaction that has been expressed by the hon. Member below the Gangway at saving the old school at Chelsea, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the question which I am going to ask is due to any feeling of antagonism. As the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, several Members on this side of the House went very carefully last Session into the question of the valuation of the Duke of York's School. I notice in the footnote of these Estimates that the calculation of the site and buildings is put down at the sum of £225,000, which gives an excess of £7,000 over the cost of establishing the new school. I do not wish to set the information which we acquired in the course of last Session against the expert information and advice which the right hon. Gentleman has received from his own Department, but it does appear to me that that estimate of £225,000, which is, after all, only a hypothetical estimate, is
  2616
  rather a swollen estimate and considerably in excess of the valuation that private valuers would put upon the land if they had been consulted. One other point I would refer to. In carrying out these new works and rearranging the site it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would make provision for adding a small strip—it is only a question of a few feet—to the public way, which I understand can be done without in any way causing serious inconveniences to the rearranging of the site for the purposes of the Territorial Forces.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: I wish to call attention to a subject of great interest, namely, the provision made for the accommodation in this country of the dirigible balloon, the "Clement Bayard," which was brought from France to Shepherds Bush in London. A few days later it was taken to Aldershot, where they tried to put it into the shed which had been erected. That shed was apparently too small for the magnificent balloon, which, unfortunately, was ripped to pieces and fell among the machinery. It has been found necessary to enlarge the shed, but I want to know why it was not made large enough at the beginning. Why is it that, while in France, between Paris and the German frontier, they have three enormous structures for the accommodation of these dirigible balloons with their apparatus, we have only one shed at Aldershot, which was found too small for the balloon which had been purchased? I think it is very unfortunate. The War Office might have made better preparations for the reception of the balloon, especially as the dimensions were known beforehand. A sufficient margin should have been left to enable the balloon to be brought in and housed in safety. I do hope we shall not have disappointments of this kind in future, and that care will be taken in the erection of sheds to allow a sufficient margin for the accommodation of the balloons for which they are intended.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I leave other questions to be answered by my hon Friend (Mr. Acland) and will deal with the question put by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). It was not the "Clement Bayard," but the "Lebaudy," which got into difficulties at Aldershot. The reasons why the shed was too small was because we built it to the dimensions furnished to us from France for the balloon. We carried the building out on the dimensions of

  2617
  which we were told, but I think we should have allowed a larger margin. The structure is now being put right, and we shall take care in future to allow a larger margin. As regards the Duke of York's School, I thoroughly appreciate what the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne) has said in regard to leaving a strip of land to be taken into the road. But that question does not arise at this moment, because there is another piece of property further along the road which the local authority have not got hold of. We quite see, however, that the King's Road should be made as good-looking a thoroughfare as possible, and the arrangements which we are making in regard to the Duke of York's School will not prevent the accomplishment of that object. There is a rather ugly wall on the King's Road, and we propose to take that down and substitute for it an ornamental railing. We also propose to put the Riding School in such a position that the public view will not be blocked. If at any time the King's Road is to be improved, nothing we are doing will make that work difficult. On the other point, as to the valuation, the amount of the purchase money, £225,000, was fixed by the Treasury valuers. I may remind the Noble Lord that various views were expressed as to the value of the property. There was a smaller valuation of £185,000; but on the other hand, the valuation went up to £300,000, while the Treasury valuers fixed the sum at £225,000. We have had to do our best. The purchase has been successfully accomplished, and what we are trying to do is to make the Duke of York's School fairly worthy of London. I quite appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. John Ward), who, with his military zeal, has contributed with hon. Member's opposite to bring about a state of things which is much better than if the Duke of York's School had fallen into the hands of the jerry builder instead of being retained for military training.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the AVAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): In regard to the purchase of land, the reason why we do not mention in advance the exact sum we wish to give for a piece of land is that if the amount were stated the purchaser would be asked to give more than the price named. Therefore, we have to put down a lump sum for the purchase of land, and we leave it vague on purpose so that the persons from whom we are intending to purchase cannot tell in ad-
  2618
  vance, by a study of the Estimates, what we are willing to give. We have found it very unwise to put down in detail the amounts we intend to give. As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) in reference to the Artillery range in the North, in the first place, no railway will be required to the site of the range. There are two good roads, not, I think, in the Valley of the Rede or the Valley of the Coquet, but from Knowesgate and Woodburn, two stations on the line from Hexham to Morpeth. Of course, if we do any extraordinary damage to these roads, and become legally and rightly liable to pay compensation we shall have to pay compensation accordingly. The total area we are purchasing is about 19,000 acres. I do not wish to name the exact cost now, for if I were to indicate it, the owners would be able to arrive at the amount which we intend to spend this year, but perhaps I may state that the amount is somewhere about £7 or £8 an acre for the 19,000 acres. It is very suitable land indeed for the purpose of an Artillery range. Great care was taken, and many inspections were made during several months to find a suitable site for an Artillery range anywhere in the North of England, and the site selected was found to be the most suitable. The land slopes gradually up from the valley of the Rede for about seven miles in a northerly direction, and it is one of the best sites for an Artillery range we shall have in the country. As to sheep, there must, of, course, be some disturbance, but it is not intended to have troops in the area all the year. They will be there for practice purposes only in the summer months, and even then there will be as little disturbance as possible. A very considerable part of the area may be used for sheep even at the time the troops are there and firing is proceeding. The question of compensation to farmers has not been left out of the reckoning in the price we have to pay. I hope the hon. Member for Bath is satisfied that there is wisdom in our practice in not revealing in advance the exact price we think we may have to pay when we are purchasing land.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY ORDNANCE FACTORIES.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the

  2619
  Charge, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Expenses of the Ordnance Factories."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. NEWMAN: From the Army Appropriation Account, page 11, which was presented to the House on 6th February, I see that there was a surplus of £70,909 10s. 9d. on the Ordnance Factories, which with the Suspense Account made a credit balance of £135,909. The maximum Suspense Account is not allowed to be more than £100,000, and, therefore, £35,000 went into the Treasury. That is a very handsome result. If the Ordnance Factories had been run as a business under the control of shareholders and directors I dare say £35,000 would have given a fat dividend for the shareholders and something in the way of a bonus for the employés in extra pay and salaries. I take it that the taxpayers, who are the shareholders, have got their dividend in the remission of taxation. Whether or not the employés have got their increase of salaries is another question which I cannot discuss now. I wish to ask, as 1909–10 was evidently a fat year, is 1910–11 going to be an equally fat year. As I read the Supplementary Estimate I do not think it is. We have Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £175,000; deductions for the Army for repayments, £5,000; from the Army, £160,000; sale of old stores, etc., £10,000; then we have got to take from those totals the estimated deficiencies. Army, Indian Government, and Colonies, leaving £80,000, out of which we get a total net Supplementary Estimate of £100. I take it that round figure was put down in order to give gentlemen like myself the opportunity of asking questions and discussing the matter. That is my reason for rising to ask a little explanation as one interested in these Ordnance Factories. Are we to have another fat year for 1910 as fat as 1909 or not? If we are I trust the Financial Secretary will try to remember the employés as well as the shareholders. I hope that without moving the reduction standing in my name the Financial Secretary will be able to give me some information.
  Mr. ACLAND: There is no question of a fat year in this matter. When money has to be either carried over in the Supplies
  2620
  Suspense Account or given back to the Treasury it only means that we have not succeeded in spending at the Ordnance Factories on the materials bought the amount which at the beginning of the year we thought and hoped we should succeed in spending. According to the Rules, it is absolutely necessary, whenever it is saved and wherever the actual expenditure for the year falls short of the estimated expenditure, that the balance shall automatically go back to the Treasury, which means that it goes automatically in the reduction of the National Debt. As to the item of £100, if the hon. Member would look at the Ordnance Factories Estimate he would find that the Estimate is always a token Estimate. The work done there is met entirely by charges from the different Departments, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Indian Government, and the Dominions, who are also purchasers. The whole expense is met by the purchases made in the course of the year. In putting down this token Vote for the Supplementary Estimate, we are only following the practice adopted with regard to Ordnance Factories. The reason for Supplementary Estimate is, I think, a very simple one. At the beginning of the year we thought that the Admiralty would be able to take over the torpedo factory at Greenock some months ago. As it turns out, they have not been able to take over the factory until now. Therefore to the extent of £80,000 of materials which they bought we assumed that they would be buying from their own torpedo factory moved to Greenock. They have, as a matter of fact, still obtained their materials from the Ordnance Factories, which appears in the Ordnance Factories Vote and not in a separate Vote of their own. That means that the Ordnance Factory at Woolwich had a cost of wages and materials of £80,000 more to meet for the stores purchased by the Admiralty for the factory during that time.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman states that the reason that this £80,000 is required is that as there was delay in the torpedo factory at Greenock the Admiralty was unable to make arrangements early this year, as they had intended, and that the removal is now taking place. Will he inform us why the delay occurred? We are told that there has been delay owing to a miscalculation in some of the Government Departments—the War Office or the Admiralty, I do not know which—

  2621
  and we are not given the reason. If, as I think I read in the newspapers, the reason is that the Government were not able to provide proper dwellings for the working-men in as short a time as they hoped, then I have nothing more to say. I do think we ought to have some explanation before we vote this £80,000.
  Mr. CROOKS: I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is very difficult to find out how much of this Estimate belongs to the War Office and how much to the Admiralty. I do not know whether it is got up for the express purpose of bewildering hon. Members, but, at any rate, it has that effect. Some day, when the proper time comes, I shall ask the House to knock these two Departments into one, and then we shall know where we are.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This Estimate is necessary because we are buying from the War Office material which we had expected to provide for ourselves. There has been some little delay due to various causes, of which housing for the men has been one. We have been careful to send the men down in small batches in order to meet the housing difficulty as far as possibe. We have sent down nearly 600, and there are very few still to go. No doubt there was difficulty in housing the men. They were very well off at Woolwich, but there was a shortage of accommodation for them at Greenock. In particular, they did not take kindly to the tenement system. I went down to see what sort of tenements they had gone into, and the Admiralty have now entered into arrangements with a Scottish garden suburb company, by which they guarantee a certain amount of rental and the company are to provide a number of dwelling houses at 8s. 6d. rental excluding rates. We guarantee, under conditions, rental up to £200 on account of houses empty. Sixteen of these houses must be ready by Whitsuntide, and the company will use every endeavour to have fifty ready by that time. There have also been difficulties with regard to the transference of machinery to Greenock. Perhaps the outstanding feature which will give the hon. Members opposite more satisfaction is that we do not anticipate any delay whatever in providing the necessary number of torpedoes for the Navy.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION. (CLASS IV.)
    Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1911, for Grants towards Expenditure on Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I wish to call the attention of the House to the great inconvenience of this Grant being administered by means of Departmental Regulations instead of under Acts of Parliament, as is the case with regard to the other Special Grants under the 1870 to 1892 Acts. Obviously, it is possible for the Department suddenly to change their policy by altering their regulations, thus creating great uncertainty on the part of the local education authorities, and putting them to great inconvenience when framing their annual estimates. This course has actually been adopted in the past by the Board of Education. Originally, this Grant was supposed to be to enable the necessitous areas to carry on the business of education unhampered by or relieved to a certain extent of financial considerations. The theory on which the Grant was based was that a certain poundage should be paid to the education authorities in accordance with their need. I think the idea of the Government of the day was that the Treasury should bear three-fourths of the excess of the education rate over a 1s. 6d. rate, which was taken as the normal level. But it was found that if that were carried out generally throughout the country the sum of £200,000 originally provided would be largely exceeded. It therefore became a question not of relieving the local education rates by so much in the £, but of dividing a lump sum among necessitous areas as far as that lump sum would go. In order that the demands might be made to fit in with the estimated sum of £200,000 the regulations issued by the Board were altered, with the result that some education authorities were prevented from enjoying the benefits of the Grant which they would have been able to enjoy had different regulations been in force.

    2623
    It is obviously very inconvenient for any local education authority not to know beforehand what Grant-in-Aid they are to expect form the Imperial Exchequer. In the case of London, for example, at the present moment we have no means of estimating whether we shall be entitled to receive any money from this Grant during the year 1911–12. I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us whether the same regulations will be in force during the year 1911–12 as were in force during the year 1910–11. In London the case is a peculiar one, because we are very near the border line. The product of our 1s. 6d. rate which is allowed to rank for the purpose of this Grant amounts to £3,182,000. The actual amount that we are spending for the purposes of elementary education after the proper deductions have been made is for the year 1910, £3,169,000. The House will see at once that we are rapidly approaching the point at which we shall be entitled to draw a substantial sum in respect of this Grant provided the same regulations are in force as are in force during 1910–11. Great inconvenience is caused by the method of procedure adopted by the Board of Education, because in framing our Estimates we have no means whatever of telling whether or not the same regulations will be in force. We therefore have to frame our Estimates wholly in ignorance as to the probability or likelihood of our deriving any money from this source. I quite recognise that the whole of this Grant is simply a makeshift, a temporary expedient, a very necessary but still a temporary expedient, to meet a state of affairs which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find himself in the position at present to deal with on some comprehensive scale. I am referring, of course, to the readjustment of the relations between the Imperial Exchequer and local finance. The basis of this Grant is essentially unscientific.
    The House is well aware that the system of assessments in different parts of the country, and the basis of valuation as between one district and another is wholly different. There is no common basis for assessment or valuation, with the result that in some districts where you have a low assessment, a 1s. 6d. rate is not nearly such a heavy burden upon the ratepayer as in other districts where you have a high assessment, and where you may have a 1s. 3d. or a 1s. 4d. rate. Therefore, to take as the standard education rate a
    2624
    1s. 6d. rate it is a temporary expedient which does not rest on any proper or scientific basis. I would point out also that in some respects it might be better if this Grant had been directed more towards encouraging the provision of new school places and of building in spite of the provisions of the Education Act of 1870. I do not wish to go over the ground, which was very fully covered in Committee on this question with regard to the various objections obtaining against this system of making grants, but I do press the Board of Education to give us some indication as to whether the regulations at present in force are going to obtain until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to deal with the larger question, and whether it is safe for local educational authorities to base their estimates on the assumption that the regulations obtaining in 1910–11 will still obtain in 1911–12.
    Mr. W. PEARCE: The Noble Lord who has just spoken has touched the real substance of the matter. The education rate in London is rapidly approaching a sum much larger proportionately than in other towns. Therefore, it is a matter of more than incidental importance to the London County Council to know how these regulations are going to be put into force. I would also point out that the fact that London has arrived at this stage is very largely due to the way in which the Education Grant is at present based. The grants are so based that London, seeing that an excess of 2s. per child is earned by the rest of the country, is at a disadvantage of nearly £60,000. As London has suffered in the past, I do hope that, whatever the future regulations may be, they will not be so framed as to work against London. I trust we can get some information to-day from the Under-Secretary that will relieve a good deal of anxiety in London, and that we shall be told how these Grants in the future are likely to be based.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I make a further suggestion to the Board of Education? The financial year of the local authorities ends on 31st March. I would suggest that a certain amount of this Grant should be paid to those local authorities who have earned it before the 31st March. Take the case of Edmonton, my division, where the education rate is 3s. in the £. We expect to get the sum of £96,000 at the end of the financial year. We are over-drawn at the bank. We have several big accounts to be met. Only the day before yesterday I

    2625
    was telephoned for while in this House by the secretary of my local education committee, who asked me to go at once, see the Board of Education, and discover if they could possibly allow Edmonton to have some of the money to save the committee from bankruptcy. I wrote a letter to the Board of Education, and I trust something may be done. At any rate, there is £96,000, perhaps more, due to us, and we cannot get it. We are threatened with bankruptcy, and our goods may be seized. Whereas, if only some of the money due to us on account were paid, we would get on very nicely.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not know what has gone on at Edmonton, but I happen to know that in many instances the Board of Education seem to be under the impression that they can pay their debts whenever it suits them to do so. The consequence is that these school managers have to go to their banker and borrow money, which they very often can give no sufficient security for, and for which there is often no power to pay interest. I have always understood that it was one of the principles of the Government to settle their debts during the year, and that you should not borrow money in order to defray your expenses.
    They do not carry that principle out. They allow these unfortunate people to have large sums of money owing to them, and apparently, for no reason, do not take the trouble to pay their debts. I am not sure that I always take the view held by hon. Gentlemen opposite that all this vast amount of money spent on education is well spent. But at least they should see that the money owing to local authorities is paid. I happen to know, being a director of a bank, a case where we were absolutely told that unless we allowed a cheque to be drawn which there were no funds to meet, the salaries of the teachers would be in arrear. I hope the Under-Secretary who is a great supporter of all this education will see that the money which is collected for this purpose shall be paid when it is due. I do not know what the Board of Education do with this money. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain? It must be somewhere! Has there been something wrong with the Estimates? What has the money gone in—in some of the wonderful and beautiful schemes of social reform by which we are always told the world is going to be regenerated? I hope that my few remarks will induce the Board of Education in the
    2626
    future to endeavour to conduct their business in a proper and businesslike way.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): It certainly was a very distressing picture which was drawn by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), but I am not certain, though I have not looked into the matter, that there has been anything very irregular or unusual in the delay of the grant, but if there has been I can assure the hon. Member that I will see it put right. I do not think the Edmonton authority need have any worry about receiving the grant; they have already received it, and I do not think the local authorities need have any doubt but that they will be paid in time.
    Mr. NEWMAN: But we want something on account.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman said he did not think it was unusual; I am sure it is not unusual, that is what we complain of; we say such a thing should not happen in the future.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: We cannot pay grants until we have taken proper precautions to see they are earned. I have no doubt there are very good reasons why this has not yet been paid, and I say I will look into the matter. If there has been an unusual delay, it shall not occur again. With regard to the question raised by the Noble Lord, the Member for Bath, I am afraid I cannot add very much to what was said the other day by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education when the Estimates were in Committee. On that occasion my right hon. Friend spoke almost as strongly as the Noble Lord, or the Member for Limehouse, with regard to the unscientific basis on which this grant is given. It is notoriously of a stop-gap character, and my right hon. Friend was especially anxious to emphasise that. In the course of his remarks he called attention to the fact that the local authorities must not regard this as a permanent grant, and he expressed the hope that the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider it and deal with it when dealing with the general question of grants; I am afraid I cannot go beyond that. If I were to say definitely that I knew London would get a grant in the next financial year, I should be going beyond the action of my Department. I cannot say because I cannot prophesy.
    Lord A. THYNNE: The hon. Member misunderstood my point. I asked if he could give us an assurance that as long as this Grant continues, that is to say, until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to deal with the wider question, it will be administered under the same regulations that obtained in 1910–11.
    2.0 P.M.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am afraid I cannot give any assurance. I can only say that the existing basis is not permanent, and will probably soon be changed. That is the most I can say at the present time. My right hon. Friend will be ready to let London or any authority know as soon as possible whether it may expect the Grant and would be likely to come in under the regulations. In view of the fact that the Government is considering the whole matter, I cannot give any assurance beyond that; but I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that the authorities interested shall have long notice of what policy the Government are going to adopt in subsequent years. Beyond that I cannot go.
    Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: May we take it that this is the policy of the Government, that in the case of London or any other authority they will give these authorities notice in time before they make up their Budget, so that they may know if they qualify for the Grant and know exactly the amount of money they will receive. I think if that is the policy, until the wider point is dealt with it meets my Noble Friend's point.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not absolutely know the dale of the London Budget, and therefore I cannot bind myself precisely.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC. (CLASS IV.)
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for sundry Grants-in-Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Dr. HILLIER: The subject of scientific investigation for which the House is asked to grant this Supplementary Vote-in-Aid so seldom comes before the House, that I
  2628
  desire to take this opportunity of saying a few words upon it. I should like to say this with regard to such grants as are made in aid of this object, that of all the vast sums of money voted by this House to various national objects, I venture to say there is none which is anything like so productive of beneficial results, not only to this country, but to mankind at large, as the Grants-in-Aid of scientific investigation. I should like to invite the consideration of the House for a moment to the immense good which is done by endowed scientific research, even to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the various Governments, and especially to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the British Government. We have had scientific investigation into the nature of tropical diseases, with results that will be remembered as some of the greatest results of intellectual and scientific investigation in the age in which we live.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER.(Mr. Emmott): We cannot upon a Supplementary Estimate discuss the principle of the original Vote. The hon. Member must confine his observation to the subject for which the money is asked in the Supplementary Estimates.
  Dr. HILLIER: I bow entirely to your ruling. Sir; but I thought this Supplementary Estimate was described as in aid of scientific investigation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I see there was no original Estimate for this matter, and, therefore, this is a new Estimate. The original Estimate was blank, and if there was no original Estimate I submit, very respectfully, the policy of this particular grant may be discussed.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentle man will look at the Estimates he will see that there was a total vote of £74,000 for scientific investigation; this supplementary sum of £2,000 is for the Ornithological Union.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree that the original Estimate of £74,000 was for scientific investigation, and that this is an Estimate for the Ornithological Union, which was not in the original Estimates. Of course, we cannot discuss the original policy of scientific investigation, but we may discuss the policy of the British Ornithological Union.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not got the original Estimate here, but I do not

  2629
  think the principle can be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, the Debate must be confined to this Vote.
  Dr. HILLIER: In deference to your ruling, I should like to say a few words with regard to the Grant to the British Ornithological Union. I see there is an amount for the expedition to New Guinea of £2,000. I cannot help feeling considerable regret that while £2,000 has been given for this object another important branch of scientific investigation is only receiving a grant of £1,000. I will conclude by expressing the hope that when this question of scientific investigation and tropical research comes before the Treasury for consideration again they will extend to it a larger measure of generosity than it has hitherto received.
  Mr. ASHLEY: As we are debarred from discussing anything but this particular item, our discussion is necessarily rather limited. I wish, first of all, to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he should endow an expedition to a foreign country when I know there was a similar expedition went to British New Guinea. Why should he endow an expedition going to Dutch New Guinea when he might have supported one going to British New Guinea. It is not very patriotic to endow an expedition going to a foreign country when you do not do the same thing in the case of your own possessions. The sum of £2,000 is going to be spent to examine into the habits of birds—in fact, this is only a moiety of the sum required, the full amount being £4,000. Now £4,000 is a large amount to give to an expedition going out to examine into the habits of birds and the different forms of bird life. I do not wish in any way to depreciate the importance of this form of research, but there are forms which are infinitely more necessary, and which do infinitely more good to the people of this country than spending £4,000, which is going to a foreign country purely for the gratification of a private society to investigate the habits of birds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give us some valid grounds for the spending of £4,000 in this rather trivial form of research.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last can be put into a very few words. If the hon. Member had had the good fortune to be present when an account of this expedition was placed before the House in Committee and if he had read what had appeared in
  2630
  "The Times" the previous week he would have seen a most interesting account of the objects of this society given by the leader of the expedition, who has just returned, and he would see that it is not so much the habits of birds as the habits of the people who live there.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then why is it called a grant to the Ornithological Union?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Because it was granted to that union, a body whose activities the hon. Member must be fully acquainted with. The reason why this sum is given is because all the valuable specimens obtained will be offered to the British Museum.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, GREAT BRITAIN, AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, WALES.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Grants-in-Aid to Universities and Collages in Great Britain."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I bog to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I do so not because I object to universities, but because I object to the sloppiness of the finance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I find that the original Estimate was £218,100, and that was for universities, colleges, and intermediate education in Wales. We had a Supplementary Estimate in July, 1910, of £21,000, and now we have a further Supplementary Estimate of £4,000 In addition to this I must point out that in the original Estimate there was no sum put down for these particular grants, and there is a footnote which says that the expenditure by the universities out of these Grants-in-Aid will not be accounted for to the Controller and Auditor-General, nor will any balances which remain be surrendered at the close of the financial year. This is certainly the second time at which a footnote to this effect has appeared at the bottom of these Supplementary Estimates. I object very strongly to this, because it is a bad precedent, and nothing ought to be taken out of the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor-General which is granted by Parliament. We ought not to have a Supplementary Estimate upon a Supplementary Estimate. I want

  2631
  to know how it is that when the original Estimates were proposed it was considered necessary to grant this extra money to the universities. The whole principle is so bad, that in order to show that at any rate there are in the House at the present moment a certain number of people who are desirous of seeing that money when granted should be granted in a businesslike manner, and when expended there shall be some means of seeing that the money is expended in the way it was intended, and that these grants should not be taken out of the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that I propose to reduce this Vote by £100. I know that discussion on these Estimates should conclude at about three o'clock, and therefore I will not labour my argument. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are constantly asserting that this House ought to have control over its finance to show by their votes this afternoon that they disapprove of these Supplementary Estimates, and more especially of a Supplementary Estimate upon a Supplementary Estimate. I think they will also disapprove of the Government trying to evade the control which has always been maintained over public expenditure by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reason for this extra vote of £4,000 is not so obscure as the bon. Baronet seems to think. It is due to two grants being necessary in order to put Bristol University and Durham University on the same footing as the other universities. Neither of those grants could have been foreseen, but it would have been most unfair in respect of both universities to have delayed grants justly due to them until after the end of the financial year. It was in order to put them on the same footing as other universities in respect of these grants that this Supplementary Estimate was put down. A grant has been made to Bristol where there was a university college which has been subsequently merged in the university, but it was made upon the express condition that £2,000 per year was not necessarily to be the permanent grant, and that it would not set up a vested interest should these grants be merged in the general grants to university colleges and universities for general education. The same considerations apply to the case of Durham University, the scientific side of which is a separate university college. It is absolutely necessary in order to do
  2632
  justice to these two localities that this Supplementary Estimate should be presented.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am very glad the Government are giving money for the purpose of university education, but I regret it should continue to be the practice to give grants to the younger universities and not to the older universities. There are institutions connected with the University of Oxford like the Bodleian Library which are of national interest, and which might very well receive assistance from the National Exchequer. I shall not be able to vote with my hon. Friend if he persists in his Motion for a reduction, because, although I share his desire to see financial purity, and certainly agree in thinking the Comptroller and Auditor-General's authority should not be interfered with, yet the importance of university education and the desirability of furnishing funds for the purposes of it is so great that I should be sorry if anything was done to discourage the Government in the good path on which they have entered.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not given the explanation for which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked. He has referred to certain mysterious local circumstances which made it impossible for him to foresee this additional expense when he framed his original Estimates, but I should have thought if there was one matter capable of exact and precise calculation it would be a case of this sort, because the Bristol and Durham Universities, I presume, are not of sudden growth. It has been known for some time that they would be qualifying for grants of this character, and I should have thought that a little care on the part of the Treasury would have relieved them of the necessity of presenting any Supplementary Estimates at all, and certainly of presenting two consecutive Supplementary Estimates of this character. I should be the last to wish to see the accounts of the Bristol University examined in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I deprecate this habit which is growing of withdrawing one item after another from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope the House may be furnished, perhaps later in the afternoon with some explanation as to the basis on which these grants are made. These provincial universities are doing a very great work in the country, and some of us feel

  2633
  that the usefulness and the possible sphere of the Bristol University might be widened and very largely extended if they received more generous treatment.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman partially, but only partially, met the criticism of my hon. Friend. He told us there were local circumstances which prevented the Treasury from knowing beforehand whether these two universities would qualify, but he did not say a single word about the Supplementary Estimate in
  November. I put it to the House whether we ought not to support my hon. Friend in his Motion as a protest, not so much against the Supplementary Estimate as against no explanation being given of this large Supplementary Estimate of £21,000. Surely, it was perfectly within the power of the Treasury to have foreseen that this would have been needed.
  Question put, "That £4,000 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES.

  [2.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Adamson, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Hackett, John

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Alden, Percy

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hancock, John George

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Price, Sir Robert J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hills, John Waller

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rowlands, James

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  St. Maur, Harold

  Bryce, John Annan

  John, Edward Thomas

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Johnson, W.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Cameron, Robert

  Joyce, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lansbury, George

  Soares, Ernest

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Logan, John William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Crooks, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, M. Vaughen- (Cardigan)

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wardle, G. J.

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, Sir Luke (York E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whyte, A. F.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Furness, Stephen

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Glanville, Harold Jams

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Grady, James

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bird, Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Barnston, H.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Campion, W. R.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Swift, Rigby

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gretton, John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Younger, George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Ashley.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  COLONIAL SERVICES.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

  TREASURY CHEST FUND.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,128, 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 making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1909–10."
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I want to have an explanation of this. No doubt there is one, but I do not understand it. It may be due to my stupidity. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the paper, he will see that the items are given in a different form to that in which they are submitted for every other Vote in the Supplementary Estimates. I find these words, "Treasury Chest Fund, 1910–11, £26,128." Then the next item goes back to "1909–10, £17,052—increase £9,076." Then there is a little star, and we go back to the Supplementary Estimate 22nd February, 1910. Why we should suddenly go back to that date I cannot understand. Is it in order to inform the House that last year there was a
  2636
  deficit of £17,052, and this year of £6,928? If so, it may be a very good way of doing it, but I would point out it has not been done in the case of any other Estimate. I believe it means that the £26,000 is required to make up a loss on exchange. I am not disputing that item, although it seems to me rather a large amount, but I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me some explanation why it is brought out in this form in the Supplementary Estimates? I have only given the explanation which I have found out for myself. I want to know if it is correct.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Treasury Chest Fund is an account with which I daresay a great majority of hon. Members are not familiar, and perhaps it will serve the purpose of the hon. Baronet if, in half-a-dozen sentences, I endeavour to explain what the operations of this fund are. It goes back, I believe, to the year 1826, when the Treasury first became responsible for the fund, and when the practice was somewhat antiquated. Since that time they have had to deal with the money required for the pay of the troops and of the Admiralty, and in connection with these transactions there are telegraphic transfers on bills. There is a loss, or it may be a gain, upon these transactions in some years, and provision is made in the expenditure of one year for the loss resulting from the transactions of the previous year, consequently the Treasury Chest Fund is presented to Parliament in the year subsequent to the financial year on a Supplementary Estimate. It is therefore the sum required to make good the nett loss on the transactions of the year 1909–10 of £26,000, which is really an increase upon the year previous to that. These transactions entailed us in a loss of something

  2637
  like £9,000 more than they have in previous years, and the reason why this sum is brought to the House of Commons is this. No final expenditure may be charged upon a sum, which is fixed, I think, by the Act of 1894—a capital sum of £700,000—no final expenditure may be charged upon that fund, but the expenses incurred in connection with it can be brought before Parliament and sanctioned year by year. If there is a loss that has to be voted by Parliament, and if there is a surplus that has to be surrendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who audits the accounts, so that the control of Parliament over the whole of this fund is fully and amply maintained.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand that this sum is for a loss of exchange on orders and bills in the financial year ending 31st March, 1910?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount involved in the transactions connected with this charge so that we may see what ratio the cost has to the magnitude of the actual transactions?
  Mr. ASHLEY: There is only one point I wish to ask for information about, and which arises out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend, and that is if this is a loss which has occurred during the year ending 31st March, 1910, why was it not put in an Estimate before? Why has it remained over till March, 1911, before we are asked to pass it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The explanation is not a difficult one to give. It is due to the vastness of our territory and to British possessions being scattered all over the world, a fact which does not allow of these amounts being brought into account until a very late period of the year. May I add that this is the usual time at which the consideration of this matter is presented to Parliament?
  Mr. ASHLEY: I do not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is a very satisfactory one, although it might have been a good explanation in the year 1856, when we had no telegraphs and no posts.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is only entitled to speak once.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I was interrupted, Sir, when I was in the middle of my speech.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman is only answering an interruption he can proceed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I say the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. If he had made that explanation fifty years ago then I can quite understand that it may have been possible that information from distant parts of the Empire or from China could not arrive in London in time to present Estimates, but to tell us now in the year of grace, 1911, that letters or telegrams take six, eight, or ten months to reach other parts of the Empire is, I think, a very lame explanation. I do hope and trust that in succeeding years the right hon. Gentleman will not wait until March of the succeeding year before he brings this expenditure before the House.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This is a loss which appears to have occurred in the year ending 31st March, 1909–10, but apparently, if it is a loss, it was paid, and I should like to know out of what fund it was paid? It was brought forward as a loss by exchange, but if that was the case it must have been incurred and paid before the 31st March, 1910, and it would interest the House to know whether this sum was drawn from the capital sum of £700,000, and the object of this Vote is for the purpose of replacing it or whether it is a sum which has been paid and not authorised by Parliament at all, and now at this time he comes to Parliament to authorise the payment of it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If I may speak by the leave of the House the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has accurately described the transaction which took place.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I cannot regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as in any way adequate or as meeting the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is a loss that has been incurred upon certain rates of exchange in consequence of certain operations with regard to establishments abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what the total amount involved amounts to.
  Mr. BOOTH: I asked that.
  Lord A. THYNNE: We have no means of telling whether these operations by means of bills of exchange or documents of a similar character were advantageous or not, and we should like to know what

  2639
  proportion the sum of £26,000 bears to the total sum involved in order that we may form some rough estimate of the business ability with which the financial affairs of this country are transacted. There is one other point which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with at all, and that is the point raised by my hon. Friend below me, that this is a complete transaction before 31st March, 1910, and there was no reason why it should form the subject of a Supplementary Estimate. This practice of bringing in Supplementary Estimates has grown with great rapidity under the right hon. Gentlemen's administration, and I do not think that it makes for sound finance, or makes our system of finance intelligible to the ordinary Member of this House.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,900, 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 Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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 Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £585, 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 Public Record Office, Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers, Dublin."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and
  2640
  Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland, and for the Expenses of Valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (WELSH COAL STRIKE).
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord BALCARRES: On the Committee stage of this Vote the Home Secretary made an important statement about the sum which is asked from Parliament. He said he had expected that an Appropriation-in-Aid which will reduce this Vote would be forthcoming from the local authorities in questions, but that they had refused it. I take this opportunity of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on that point. It is very important, not only to the London metropolitan taxpayer, but to the taxpayer at large, that we should know exactly how we stand with regard to what must be called an Appropriation-in-Aid for this Supplementary Vote. We should like to know how the agreement was arrived at that the local authorities should contribute, whether the agreement was in writing or not, whether it was made by and with the consent of a competent authority to guarantee the payment of money, and, m short, what prospects our taxpayers at large have of being relieved by a contribution from the Glamorganshire local authorities.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I do not think there is any prospect whatever of the taxpayer being relieved in this matter. On the contrary, the prospect is the other way. The amount in the Vote now under discussion—£15,000—was never

  2641
  expected to be reduced by any Appropriation-in-Aid from the source to which the Noble Lord has referred. It is the sum which must be paid, not for the ordinary costs of the Metropolitan Police while they were on duty in Wales, but for the extra allowances which were paid to them in consideration of their employment on duty so far from their own sphere. There never was any question of recovering any part of this £15,000 from the local authorities. There has, however, been a question of recovering from the local authority the ordinary pay of the police, apart from the special allowances, and an agreement to that effect was signed by the chief constable. Of course, we had to act in a great emergency, and there was not an opportunity for considering how far the chief constable was authorised or whether the acceptance of this aid by the chief constable was couched in due legal form. We had to accept such an undertaking as we could get in the crisis and emergency with which we were trying to deal, and I now understand that the Glamorganshire County Council Standing Joint Committee repudiate the signature of their officer, and, although they have profited by the Metropolitan Police during all these months, they propose to resist at law any attempt to impose upon them any portion whatever of the charge. The question of law is difficult and uncertain, and I am far from saying I am at all decided that we occupy a position of superior advantage in regard to the law. I have, however, laid the subject before the Law Officers of the Crown, and they have expressed an opinion upon it which is now being considered with a view to a decision whether action shall be taken or shall not be taken. Passing from the sphere of law to equity, I should think the case was a good deal clearer and I would very respectfully submit to the Committee that it is a subject which well deserves the future legislative attention of the House of Commons. It is a very unsatisfactory position of the law in which soldiers can be requisitioned to an almost unlimited extent without any reference to the central authorities, and that they cost nothing to the local authority, the whole cost being borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and yet that the charge for police, although they may be better suited to deal with an emergency than soldiers, can be repudiated.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Why the Metropolitan Police, which is partly paid for by the local authority in London?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord is surely aware that the Police Forces in all parts of the country are called to go to the aid of other police forces, and they frequently do, and the calls made on the Metropolitan Police have been much less than on other forces in other parts of the country.
  Lord BALCARRES: Has this local authority refused to contribute to the cost of the police from half a dozen other districts who co-operated with the London police?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know what they have done in respect of other authorities. It is only the Metropolitan Police, so far as I am advised, that they have refused to pay for. I daresay they have their own special reasons for that.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: At the Glamorgan County Council yesterday there was a statement made that a number of merchants in the Aberdare Valley who supplied provisions to the Metropolitan Police during their visit there are still without their account being paid, and the county council, owing to the refusal of liabilities, will not pay these accounts. Some of the merchants are on the verge of bankruptcy as a consequence. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make an arrangement whereby, pending the decision of the legal point, the accounts of those merchants who supplied goods to the Metropolitan Police could not be paid?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I must consider that. The hon. Member might put down a question on the subject. I will certainly consider the point that the Central Government, whether it supplies military or police, ought to be in a position to recover, at any rate, a proportion of the cost. That appears to me to be the only check upon the altogether undesirable and unlimited use of these forces in local disputes. I am bound to say I can hold out no expectation of this sum being reduced. There never has been any expectation of that—but I can hold out a very considerable expectation that it will be increased if it should be decided not to press the case at law against the Glamorganshire County Council and that may well be decided in view of the opinions which the Law Officers have expressed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I think this is a very important point, and the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is one of very

  2643
  great importance. Are we to understand that the present state of the law does not give power to the central authority to recover the ordinary expense from the local authority, and that it is the intention of the Government, as early as possible, to bring in a Bill to alter the law so that if a local authority does requisition police the ordinary cost of these police shall fall on the local authority and not on the taxpayers at large?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That was the view I was putting before the House, but I must not be understood to be specifically promising legislation on the subject. I think it is a desirable course. It is obvious that no part of the charge will fall on the ratepayers of London. If it is not paid by the Glamorganshire County Council it will be paid by the Imperial Exchequer.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: The action taken by the Home Secretary has an important effect with regard to the position of the Metropolitan Police as well as in regard to the Metropolitan ratepayers. So far as I know, there is only one authority under which police can be transferred from the districts in which they usually act into another district. That authority is Section 25 of the Police Act of 1890, which the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue. I think that has a most unfortunate effect on the position of the Metropolitan Police when they were sent down into Wales. As the House is probably aware, the law hedges round with special protection constables who are in the execution of their duty, but that protection is only given to them while acting within the district for which they are sworn. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sent Metropolitan Police down into Wales he divested them of that protection which they would have had if performing their duty in London. The section to which I have referred meets the difficulty, because it specifically provides that police when they go into what I may call a foreign district shall have the same powers and privileges which are possessed by the local police. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that section, and that special provision did not apply. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman put the Metropolitan Police in an unfortunate position. I should like to ask him whether, when he sent these police, he told them what their position would be. The more experienced Metropolitan police know the law, and they would naturally suppose that
  2644
  the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing Section (25) of the Act of 1890, which would give them the same protection in South Wales as they possessed here. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman further, whether the heads of the police informed the police who were sent down that they were not sent under Section (25) of the Act of 1890, and that when they got into South Wales they would be in the position of ordinary citizens and not in the position of police officers acting in the execution of their duty.
  3.0 P.M.
  I wish to say a word with regard to the position of the Metropolitan ratepayers and the claim which we have upon the County Joint Committee of the County of Glamorgan. The right hon. Gentleman the other night said that he intended to press his claim against the county of Glamorgan. When he said that, I ventured to make an interjection that he would fail in that claim. The right hon. Gentleman relies upon the signature of the chief constable of Glamorgan. That signature is not worth a snap of a finger. He has, I suppose, been advised by the legal gentleman at the Home Office that it is the chief constable of Glamorgan and the Joint Committee for the county which is the police authority within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. Although chief constables have undoubtedly very large powers, we have not yet come to the pass in which a chief constable can on his own initiative lay a heavy burden like this on the ratepayers of a county. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it right to pursue this claim in the courts. It is only wasting time, and it is throwing good money after bad. He has referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. Until I see the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and not only the opinion, but the case on which it is given, I shall not believe that they advised the right hon. Gentleman that he has a leg to stand upon if he persists in pursuing the claim in the courts. The fact is that the law requires to be altered. What occurred in Glamorganshire might occur in any part of the country to-morrow. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to repeat the course he took as regards South Wales? If he does, he will again put the police in the unfortunate position I have described, and leave those responsible for the pay of the police without any claim against the authority of the district into which they go. It is clearly a case in which the law requires to be altered, and

  2645
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not waste time by pursuing a futile claim against the county of Glamorgan, but will at once proceed to ask this House to alter the law. I am perfectly certain that there will be no objection raised on any side to that course being taken.
  Resolution reported, "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."
  Resolution reported, "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 the 31st day of 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."
  Resolution reported, "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 the 31st day of March, 1911, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, 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 Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."

COAL MINES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. CHURCHILL: A large modern colliery, with its extensive and carefully elaborated equipment, including its various appliances for getting the coal and bringing it to the surface of the ground, or transmitting power through long distances underground, or causing great volumes of air to flow through confined passages many miles in length, or draining wide areas underground and raising water to the surface, or sorting the coal into various sizes, separating it from the intermingled dirt; that spectacle, as has been said, is one of the most remarkable specimens of human activity in its struggle with and triumph over matter. We must remember that there are employed in the coal mines of the United Kingdom upwards of a million persons—1,049,000 persons—of whom 848,000 are employed below the surface of the ground; and this vast community, with their dependents, make up a very substantial proportion of the whole of the inhabitants of this island. The Bill which I have now the honour in a very few words to place before the House deals with the health and safety of all that number of persons. It amends and consolidates the law relating to coal mines, except in regard to check-weighing and miners' eight hours. Both of those subjects are left out of the consolidation clauses of the Bill. We have had nothing of this nature since 1887; and in 1906 my predecessor appointed a Royal Commission, which was composed of the very strongest representation of both the mine owners and the miners which could be found in the country together with additional representatives. This Commission has made a prolonged and exhaustive inquiry into the whole of the present conditions under which coal mining is carried on. This Bill, which I now ask the House to consider and to assent to upon its Second Reading, is the result of the labours of that Royal Commission. The great bulk of the amendments of the law included in this Bill are recommended by the Royal Commission unanimously. There are also a number of amendments suggested by the departmental experience of the Home Office, and there are several amendments which have been added in view of the inquiries into the recent

2647
colliery disasters. The Bill itself is divided into eight parts—management, safety, health, accidents, regulations, employment, inspectors, and supplementary provisions.
I think that the House will agree that it may be considered an urgent matter. The death rate in collieries which had been coming down steadily year after year for upwards of half a century ceased to fall any lower five or six years ago, and last year, I regret to say, there was a very grave rise in the death rate, which was, no doubt, in large part due to the accidents of these great explosions. And it is a fact that the number of persons who were killed in coal mines last year, though not the highest proportion on record, because, of course, the population engaged in mining has increased very greatly, was unfortunately the greatest number of persons killed in any one year since mining statistics have been prepared. With all the main causes of these accidents this Bill attempts to deal. Let me remind the House what these main causes are. There are first of all the dangers which arise in the shaft. There are the dangers which occur in the haulage way; and there are the dangers which occur in the works. Now shaft accidents are often due to improper raising or lowering of the cage. They are due very often to errors in signalling: Men are precipitated to the bottom of the shaft. That is dealt with in Clause 54. Through the breakage of ropes or chains accidents also occur. For this, however, the Bill proposes the inspection of the winding-ropes every three and a half years, that they should be re-capped every six months, and that no rope which had been spliced shall be used at all. Over-winding is also a cause of accidents, and this Bill provides, in Clause 40, for a greatly improved system of speed controllers and detached ropes and suitable brakes which are designed to protect the miner from that terrible peril of over-winding, which throws the men out of the ascending cage and very likely wrecks the descending cage at the same time.
Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: On the question of inspecting every three and a half years—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait until the right hon. Gentleman has finished.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Another provision is in reference to minerals and tools being raised at the same time that men are being wound up and down the shaft. Provisions are inserted which will ensure the shaft being kept in good repair, and provisions are also inserted to remedy the defective arrangements in signalling and to secure a uniform system of signalling throughout the country. Leaving the shaft, I come to the haulage accidents to which the miner may be exposed as he travels between the bottom of the shaft and his working place, Passing along the haulage way he encounters sets of tubs which are moving often at a high speed, and a very large number of accidents occur every year from this cause. Two hundred and thirty-four of these persons were killed during the last year by accidents connected with conditions of travelling from the shaft to their work being caught between the trucks and the wall or being run over or being crushed by tubs which had left the line or got out of control. The Bill will deal with that in Clause 47. It will provide that adequate space shall be maintained by the sides of the trucks while they are travelling, that suitable and sufficient refuges shall be prepared and there will be special regulations wherever the inclination of the roadway is steep, and where there is danger of high speed being developed by these trucks. There are various complicated technical provisions designed to make the haulage of coal less dangerous than it is to persons proceeding along the haulage road. The haulage road is too often the return airway. The return airway is the sewer of the mine, the channel along which all the inflammable gases which have been driven through the mine by the ventilating machinery run, and when there is much gas coming back that way clearly it is not a proper travelling road, nor is it a suitable road for haulage. There are always persons there, and the conditions are unhealthy if not dangerous. Ill new mines, we prescribe that there shall be two intakes, one for haulage and one for tramways, and, in any existing mine, if it is found to be required in the interests of safety, two intakes may be required. That will be a subject for arbitration under Clauses which deal with that, and it will not apply to any mines which are naturally wet, or in which less than 100 persons are employed.
The provision of these extra means of exit will make sure that people will not be cut off by fire, as they were in the case of

2649
the Whitehaven disaster, and that they will be able to find another method of exit to the foot of the shaft. We also provide in the Clauses which deal with this part of the subject, Clauses 42 to 49, that a proper means of extinguishing fire shall foe provided wherever there is an accumulation of combustible material. When the miner has safely descended the shaft and has travelled along the haulage or travelling way to the workings, there he is received by the deputy or fireman, and the deputy or fireman, after having inspected the district beforehand, pronounce the workings quite safe for the man to begin his work. The deputies and firemen are the non-commissioned officers of the mining industry, and, just as the non-commissioned officers are said to be the backbone of the British Army, so the deputies and firemen are the essential foundations on which the safety and security of the mines mainly repose. Clause 14 deals with the position of the firemen and deputies. They must be twenty-five years or more of age; they must have had at least five years experience below ground, and they must have received from a mining school approved by the Secretary of State a certificate of ability to test for gas, and also of ability to calculate the volume of air current. There are also provisions for a test as to eyesight. The district over which the deputy or fireman has charge must not be greater than will permit of his thorough and effective inspection. The Bill provides that his duties must be limited so as not to conflict or prevent the performance of the essential and primary duty which he has in his charge, namely, that of safeguarding the men working in the mine. Another danger to which the miner is subjected when he is in the workings is from the falls of ground, and it is calculated that from falls of ground, whether great or small, from roof and sides, which take place mainly at the working face, one-third of the fatalities which take place in the mining industry are due. In the last ten years 3,479 deaths have occurred in the mining industry from falls of rock and coal, which have taken place either at the working face or in the travelling way. It is a matter of great difficulty to guard against this danger, but there is a very strong opinion that a systematic development of timbering on scientific lines is in the main a very great safeguard against it. Clauses 50 to 53 deal with the question of timbering. I do not propose to go into the details of that subject, though the House will see that it has been
2650
very carefully considered by the experts who have dealt with this measure. But the principle of the Bill in regard to falls of ground is that no person shall work under an unsupported roof—shall neither work permanently under an unsupported roof nor shall he work under an unsupported roof when, from temporary causes, props are being removed to some other position. There are provisions in the Bill to ensure that where drilling is likely to engender dust which may lead to fibroidphthisis, proper precautions in the way of jets and sprays shall be provided. There are provisions in the Bill dealing with the use of explosives, from which, I am sorry to say, there were twenty-three fatal accidents last year. Among those provisions it is laid down that no explosive shall be used but that provided by the owner of the mine. That will prevent explosives from being left about in miners' houses, where accidents have several times occurred. All those matters it will be found are dealt with in the text of the Bill.
Then I come to the most striking of all the dangers which beset the life of the miner, and one which impresses most the imagination of the public—I mean those terrible explosions of coal dust spreading through the whole mine, and sweeping away in a few moments the whole, or nearly the whole, of the men who are working throughout the extended area. I must remind the House that we have had four great explosions since 1908—the Maypole explosion in 1908, where seventy-five persons perished; in 1909, the West Stanley disaster, in which 168 lives were lost; and in 1910 we had two—the terrible catastrophes of Whitehaven and Hulton—in which two together, in a single year, 500 persons perished. In the Bill it will be attempted to deal with this great danger from various points of view. Clauses 32 to 35 deal with safety lamps, and deal with them in a much stricter form than hitherto has been the law. Clause 67 prevents any person from working in any part of the mine where there is more than 2½ per cent. of gas. There are provisions for compulsory search for matches under regulations laid down by the Home Office. There are provisions in Clause 62 to prevent the avoidable accumulation of coal-dust in roadways or elsewhere. By Clause 60 electricity is precluded in any mines where its employment would be attended by risks. There are important provisions intended to deal, not only with the health of workers,

2651
but to prevent explosions connected with ventilation. By Clause 30 a standard of ventilation is required. Proposals are put forward for the classification of mines according to the degree of the inflammable or noxious gases in the atmosphere. That is a provision which prevails in Belgium, and the death-rate there is smaller than in any other country in the world. Clause 29, Sub-section (2), provides that, in order to avoid errors in measuring air, the measurements must be taken, not only in the main current and in every split but also at the point where the mechanical haulage comes to an end. It is provided that means shall exist for reversing the air current. It is also provided, and here I pass from danger to health, that baths shall be established for the miners when they reach the surface of the ground, and the provisions on that head are of a somewhat daring character. By Clause 79 provisions are made in regard to disease which may be acquired by working in the mine; and there are clauses dealing with the employment of children and women, the former not to be employed at the surface under thirteen years, and below ground under fourteen years of age.
That is a very, very brief and rough survey of the general scope of the Bill. I recognise that the time is short, and I recognise that the House has had very short notice, and that complaint may legitimately be made on both those grounds. We are in the hands of the House. It is not suggested for a moment that the course which I have ventured to suggest to the House should be adopted as a precedent. The opportunity presented itself of bringing this Bill before the House, an opportunity which might not recur until a very late period in the Session if it were lost. The bulk of the Bill embodies the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission. There are many important points of detail, but they are points of detail which are well suited for discussion in Grand Committee. No principle is involved in the Second Reading of the Bill, for there is no division between parties on the subject; it is only a question of the method by which safety can be obtained. I propose, if the House should decide to read this Bill a second time this afternoon, to allow a substantial interval before the Grand Committee stage. I should not propose to enter upon that stage until after the Easter holidays,
2652
but in the interval there will be conferences. No time will be wasted. Conferences will begin between the miners' representatives and the mine owners, which will be held at the Home Office; and it is hoped by the time the Grand Committee are ready for the Bill that a very great amount of their work would have been rendered wholly uncontroversial by agreement which will have been reached at those conferences. As I say, I cannot claim the Second Reading from the House, but if the House were disposed to grant it it would demonstrate strikingly that the health and safety of the mining population is in this country a common cause upon which capital and labour may join hands, and for the sake of which all parties in the House of Commons are wiling earnestly and energetically to contribute.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I have no claim to speak on this subject with the authority which many Members in different parts of the House possess, and I shall certainly occupy but a very short portion of the very slender margin of time which is available to us for this discussion. I have been asked to make a few observations on the subject, and on the various points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised by persons in Lancashire who are largely interested in this question, and I shall be careful not to take an undue part of the hour and a half available for the discussion now. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very conciliatory and persuasive appeal to the House, and principally, I suppose, to the Opposition, to allow the Second Reading of this Bill in the very short time which is available for that purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman was always as conciliatory and persuasive to those who sit in this part of the House I think that other business might be carried through the House a little more expeditiously. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that although this is a Bill which contains 12.3 Clauses, much of that matter is merely re-enactment, but it is also true that a considerable part of the measure consists, not of what has been done, under any previous legislation, but of recommendations, some of them a little controversial in their character, of Commissions.
I must not be taken, in the few observations I have to make as assenting to the use which the Government is making of the time of the House, or to the plea which is put forward that it is not possible to give adequate time for this discussion, or

2653
the discussion of any other meaure, but I do assent to the view which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward that it would be a very great misfortune, that although we have so short a time to discuss this measure, if the Bill did not obtain its Second Reading to-day. I express that view, not because I do not think it might have been possible that we should have been allowed a little more than one and a half hours for this purpose, but I express that view because, on whosoever's shoulders the responsibility ought to be placed for the very limited time, we have to face the fact under existing conditions that that is all the time that is available, and that if we do not give the Bill a Second Reading on this Friday afternoon it is very doubtful whether it will obtain a Second Reading until the summer is far advanced, and we should have to assent to the conclusion that the prospect of the Bill becoming law this Session would be gravely jeopardised. As far as I am concerned, and some of my hon. Friends, that is a prospect we should contemplate with very great dismay.
I may perhaps be allowed to say, as I had the opportunity of discussing this matter, not only with some of those interested in this question from the point of view of the miners, but also with those whom it is equally necessary to consult, and on behalf of the coal-owners, I am authorised to state to the Government and to the House, that on the part of the coal-owners, and particularly as to the views of those who carry on the business in Lancashire, there is a very strong desire that there should not appear to be the slightest disposition on their part to prevent such progress being made with this measure as will enable it to be placed in its ultimate agreed form on the Statute Book in the course of the present Session. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said on this point is that there will be some considerable interval before the discussion in Grand Committee, and that full opportunity will be allowed in committee with the object of arriving at a measure of agreement on many of the important points which arise. I will not deal with many important matters now, but it has been my duty to examine into the Memorandum which has been drawn up and which is a very lucid document dealing with the object and scope of this measure. Probably the attention of the House will have been most vividly directed to that part of the Bill which deals with accidents and their prevention. I am sure that the
2654
House listened with great interest to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the scope and effect of the Bill in the direction of preventing accidents. As to accidents caused by the fall of the roof or the side, which I may say in the Memorandum account for nearly 50 per cent. of the fatalities, and as to the accidents which are the consequences of haulage, practical proposals are brought forward in the Bill. I understand, as far as I have been able to follow the Bill, that those accidents which are caused by explosions due to coal dust are not comprehended in the scope of the Bill, for the reason that unanimity has not followed on the experiment made by the coal-owners who have attempted to deal with the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of one other provision, and that was the provision contained in Clause 76 of the Bill. He says there are daring provisions contained in the Bill in relation to baths. The right hon. Gentleman has not informed the House that the daring provision consists in the fact that daily baths are made compulsory on all miners under the terms of this particular Clause. I am far from expressing any decided view upon the matter, but I should be very sorry to be taken as expressing the sanguine view that in its final form this Clause will be found to still adorn or improve or complicate the measure. May I say, I cannot help feeling it may be a happy precedent in legislation of this character, if the Opposition are able to take the view that they can unite with the Government and with other sections of the House in forwarding the measure to its career in Committee. The occasions of party controversy are frequent enough in this House, and are not growing less frequent; and it would be a source of great satisfaction to those of us in every part of the House who take any interest in questions of this kind, if it were possible, however various and numerous the party controversies which distract our Parliamentary life, for us to concentrate in all parts of the House in endeavouring to avoid unnecessary or excessive controversy on measures of social reform and requirements which really, to an equal degree have the sympathy and support of all sections of the House.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) has referred to the fact that this Bill consists of 123 Clauses, and the Home Secretary has admitted that

2655
there is much to be said as to the undesirability of a Bill of such magnitude being brought forward for Second Reading so soon after its introduction. The First Reading was only on Wednesday last; the Bill was then printed and circulated, and the Second Reading is proposed to-day. Consequently it is almost impossible for Members to have read the Bill through or to have mastered its details; while, as far as the interested industries are concerned, it has been almost impossible for them to have the Bill in their hands at all. It will be agreed, I am sure, that it would be most undesirable that it should become at all usual for so short a time to elapse between the First and Second Readings of such a Bill. The Home Secretary has also referred to the unprecedented reforms which are proposed, and has urged as a reason for the unusual course which is being taken the fact that during the last few years serious accidents have occurred in connection with mining, and that there have been explosions which have unfortunately caused the loss of so many valuable lives. These considerations, perhaps, take the Bill out of the ordinary category, and give some excuse for the celerity with which the Second Reading is being taken. The main provisions of the Bill are designed to safeguard the workers underground. It has been impossible for the Mining Association of Great Britain, which includes nearly all the great mining interests of the country, to convene a meeting to discuss the Bill, but I had the advantage yesterday of meeting representatives of nearly all the large mining industries in England, Scotland and Wales, and taking their opinion upon it. Although they felt that they were adopting a very unusual course in coming to the decision at which they arrived before they had seen the Bill, they felt that a very grave responsibility would rest upon them if they took any course which might prevent the passing of a Bill in which the safety of the miners was concerned.
I am therefore authorised by them to say that they intend to take no part whatever in trying to prevent the Second Reading this afternoon, but that they will do all they can to secure that result on condition that their agreeing to the Second Reading at such short notice is not taken as a precedent in any way, and that sufficient delay is allowed before the Committee stage is entered upon for the Bill to be sent into the various mining districts
2656
of the country and thoroughly considered by those who are interested. The right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that at the earliest the Committee stage should not commence before 25th April next. A further condition is that if they assent to the Second Reading no objection shall be raised in Committee to Amendments, on the ground that they have agreed to the main principles of the Bill, or that the Amendments proposed are contrary to the main principles or the Preamble or title of the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that this unusual course is being taken, will grant reasonable time for the discussion of such Amendments as may be proposed either by the employers or by the miners. On behalf of the coal-owners, therefore, I have the greatest pleasure, so far as I am concerned, in assenting to the Second Reading. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will afford every consideration to those who wish to discuss the Bill more fully in Committee. I will not on this occasion enter into the merits or demerits of the various clauses, but will rely on there being opportunities for them to be discussed and thoroughly threshed out in Committee.
Mr. FENWICK: I was very pleased to hear the Home Secretary frankly acknowledge the difficulty experienced by most Members of the House in consequence of the very short time allowed for considering this Bill in all its details. Our difficulty on this occasion is considerably greater than when we considered the Bill of 1887, which is now the principal Act. At that time we had no Debate either on the introduction or on the Second Reading of the Bill, but the House was then in a very different position as compared with now. The present Bill, I understand, is to be sent to a Grand Committee. In 1887 we had no Grand Committees. The Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House, and all Members interested had an opportunity of taking part in the discussion of any substantial Amendment that was brought forward. Under present circumstances, the utmost limit of the Committee upstairs is eighty, so that about only one-eighth of the House will be engaged in considering the provisions of this Bill. I agree that the matter is urgent, and I make no complaint of the brevity of the time at our disposal this afternoon, although I should certainly have liked to have had longer. But it is not my intention to enter into any lengthened con-

2657
sideration of the proposals of the Bill on the present occasion. For my own part and on behalf of those Members representing mining constituencies who took part in the Debates in 1887, I may say that most of the new proposals embodied in this Bill were submitted to the House by them at that time, but were unfortunately rejected. I am very glad to find that a different spirit has come over the dream, and that proposals which were then rejected are more likely to find acceptance on the present occasion.
I am sorry that it has required such evidence to induce the House to move in the direction of humanitarian legislation. No doubt the four recent serious explosions to which the Home Secretary has referred in such sympathetic tones have quickened public sympathy in this respect, and made the House more ready to accept such proposals as are now put forward. It required the loss of over 200 lives of men and boys in the Hartley Pit, in the county of Northumberland, to induce the country and the Government to grant us the double-shaft system. I regret that it has required the four recent calamities which have carried such widespread suffering to quicken public sympathy in these later times. However, we are very likely now to carry this Bill through. But I must warn the Home Secretary, from the very cursory observation which I have been able to give to the Bill, that it seems to me he cannot expect to get the Bill through Grand Committee without some very considerable amount of time being devoted to it. Many of his proposals will have to be seriously considered. The question of "search" is a question to which personally I offer no objection, because I see, as we can all see every day in the newspapers, cases being brought before the courts in which men and lads are fined for carrying matches into dangerous parts of the mines. None of us, I think, who have any regard for the safety of whose who earn their bread underground can object to search. But I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in all cases that search should take place on the surface, and not in the mine. There is very grave danger of the workpeople being subjected to considerable hardship if the search is permitted to take place underground. The search ought to be open, in the light of day, and before the man leaves the surface. We know what goes on in mines and in other industries where a man has become a marked man. It is an easy
2658
thing for an official or any man in a responsible position to pass by where his clothes are lying, drop a few matches in the vicinity, and so endeavour to fix upon that man the responsibility for a breach of the regulations. Therefore, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the advisibility of the course I have suggested in respect to the search.
I do not think that the Bill provides with sufficient force for the watering of dry and dusty mines. No one who has read the report of the Stanley Inquiry, or who has read Mr. Redmayne's Report on the Whitehaven Inquiry, can fail to see the great importance that must be attached to the watering of dry and dusty mines. I was a humble member of the Royal Commission that considered this question of the effect of coal dust in mine explosions. The chairman was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Every Member of that small Commission was fully convinced as to the serious danger that exists in a dry and dusty mine, even in the entire absence of gas. If there had been a moment's doubt in our minds I think the Pemberton explosion would have freed our minds of any doubt whatever. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be free to accept the tightening up of the provisions with respect to these dry and dusty mines. I regret also, in the light of the evidence which has come from the Whitehaven calamity, that there is not some power given to the Home Secretary or some other authority to limit the distance which mines working under the sea can be extended. In the Whitehaven case you had workings that were, according to the report of Mr. Redmayne, going four miles away from the shaft bottom. The workmen were there at great risk, because the breakage of the roof might let in the water. For a man to run a distance of four miles under the sea in order to make good his escape is a very serious thing. In other mines that are worked inland, far away from where there is any serious accumulation of water, it would be possible to have an extra shaft. But in a case like that of Whitehaven it is utterly impossible for you to have an extra shaft. I regret there is not some provision in the Bill to prevent mines working so far under the sea. I was very pleased to hear that there was likely to be a conference held between employers and workmen to see how far we could come to mutual agreement on points in dispute. That was the course which

2659
was followed, and with very good effect in 1887. Several conferences took place between employers and workmen, and very many knotty points of difference were considered and finally got rid of.
In conclusion one suggestion I would like to make to the Home Secretary is that before this Bill is reprinted, as it will likely have to be before we consider it in Committee—seeing it is largely a consolidating Bill—though an enabling Bill as well—the course should be followed which was followed with the Workman's Compensation Bill. Those parts which are simply consolidating, and the parts which are from other Bills, should be reprinted in italics or underlined for the convenience of Members so that they may be able to see what parts are new.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will see if it can be done.
Mr. FENWICK: Such a course prevents Members from having to refer to old Acts of Parliament. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, although I speak for nobody but myself, but that this Bill will be hailed with great satisfaction throughout the country. I hope sufficient time will be given between now and the Committee stage for us to master the details of it.
Mr. SWIFT: On rising for the first time to address the House let me say I do not profess to have expert knowledge of this matter like the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, or yet the practical experience of many of the hon. Members below the Gangway. I claim, however, the indulgence of the House for a few moments, because the subject of this Bill is one in which personally I not only take a deep interest, but I represent a Constituency which contains nearly 12,000 coal miners. There will not, I think, be any doubt but that the time has come that some alteration should be made in the law relating to coal mines with the object of preventing those deplorable accidents, so far as they can be prevented by legislation, which have startled the whole of our community during the last two or three years. It is not only accidents like the Maypole, West Stanley, Whitehaven, or Hulton which required to be considered by Members of this House, and for which some provision should be made: it is absolutely an appalling fact that during the year which has just passed over
2660
12,000 accidents occurred in the mines of this country, involving a loss of life amounting to something like 1,260. I do not think there will be found inside this House or outside this House any opinion expressed contrary to the view that the time has come for amending the Coal Mines Regulations Acts of 1887 and 1896. I agree with the observations made by two previous speakers as to the difficulty put upon Members of the House owing to the shortness of time in connection with the introduction of this Bill. I am not distressed by that fact so much as I might have been had I not known that the greatest measures of improvement which the right hon. Gentleman has included in the present Bill were always the object and aim of the miners and of those who advise them.
Although the Bill at present under consideration includes a great many Clauses it will be found that many of them are re-enactment Clauses, and that the new Clauses are not so many in number. Such as they are I think they are a step quite in the right direction. Clause 4, which provides for proper supervision of the mines by the manager; Clause 15, which requires qualification for firemen, a body of men whom the right hon. Gentleman very properly referred to as the backbone of the mining industry; and Clause 20, relating to the plan of the ventilation of the mines, are all of them Clauses which are undoubted improvements relating to the management of coal mines in this country. The provisions contained in the second part with regard to ventilation, travelling roads, and haulage, appear to be a most praiseworthy attempt to meet dangers constantly occurring in our mines, and the right to make regulations as to the use of electricity and provision dealing with the terrible danger of coal dust are most hopeful. I know that the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors have made regulations regarding the use of electricity in mines. I heartily welcome the introduction of the power to make these regulations into a Statute. The evil of coal dust has long been a recognised one, and the time has certainly now arrived when the Legislature should do something to mitigate the evil that arises from it. I notice, also, that a standard of inflammable gas has been set up in this Clause. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite know, and those who advised the Home Secretary know quite well, the difficulty of fixing the standard for inflammable gas, but

2661
although the matter is a difficult one, it is undoubtedly one that ought to be dealt with by legislation, and there should be a percentage fixed to prevent the workmen in mines being subjected to the danger of working in a mixture of gas and air of an inflammable nature. There is only one other Clause to which I should like to refer, and it has been already mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith).
4.0 P.M.
I think the promoters of this Bill will have to adduce very strong arguments indeed before they succeed in getting a Committee of this House, or the House itself, to assent to Clause 77 of the Bill, which makes it a criminal offence not to take a bath every day. Speaking from extensive knowledge of the coalminers of Lancashire, I say without hesitation that they are as clean and careful in themselves as any other class of workmen in the community, and personally I am a great deal more averse to coal dust in coal mines than upon the collier's face, and I see no difficulty whatever and no danger to themselves that the miners should come home, as they do at the present day after their work, and have their wash-up when they get home, and I think that is a great deal less dangerous than being compelled to take a bath as soon as they come out of the mine. That is all I have to say with regard to the Clauses of this Bill. There is just one other observation, and it is this. It seems to me that the success of this Bill will depend in very great measure upon the regulations made by the Home Office when it becomes law. I have not had sufficient experience of this House to know whether the remark I am now about to make will find ready acceptance on the Front Bench, namely, that it is a very easy matter to pass an Act of Parliament. I am not quite sure that it is; it certainly is an easy matter to formulate principles and put them into a Bill, and it is not difficult, if all sides are agreed to pass a Bill into law, but the success of the measure will depend upon its administration. I am in hopes of learning before long that very drastic steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government with the object of appointing a greater number of qualified inspectors than hitherto for the purpose of seeing that the provision of this Bill, when it becomes a Statute, and the regulations made under it are carried out. There can be no doubt that for a very con-
2662
siderable time past the number of inspectors has been totally inadequate to perform their duties, and I am sure the mining communities, as well as the public, will be glad to know that steps were taken to improve that condition in the future. I venture very respectfully to say to this House that I welcome this Bill on behalf of the mining community, and I trust that at an early date it will be passed into law.
Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: In rising to add my tribute to the general trend of praise which we heard in this discussion I should like, in the first place, to acknowledge the very admirable services rendered to the mining community by the Home Secretary, and I also want to bear my testimony to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool and to other hon. Members also for the wishes expressed that this Bill, tending towards the safety of the miners of this country, shall have support in this House irrespective of parties. I am glad that there are, after all, some subjects upon which all parties can agree. It is not every day that we can agree, and I am delighted to find that on this great question there is a general agreement. That is the position which I have always taken up, and I quite believe that, irrespective of a Member's polities, there is always a general desire to meet such questions fairly, temperately, and humanely in this House. I would like to have given a synopsis of the work of the Commission, but at this stage it would be out of place. I wish to bear testimony to the fact that from one end of the country to the other, there has been a willingness on the part of all sections of the community to tender evidence before the Commission to enable the Government to draw up a Bill to reduce to the lowest possible minimum the death-rate in mines. I realise, what most men must realise who have had experience in mines, that whatever Bills may be framed to deal with this question, it is desirable that there should be sufficient inspectors to see those measures administered properly. Whatever is done in this direction, there will always remain open to those interested in this trade an educational work to impress upon managers and workmen that there is a duty devolving upon them and that is to exercise the greatest vigilance and care. I am persuaded that we shall do much to reduce many classes of accidents in the pit by constantly enforcing upon those engaged

2663
the necessity for greater care, thereby strengthening the provisions of this Bill as foreshadowed.
It has been said that many important questions are raised, but I am sure there is a desire on all sides to bring the discussion of those questions before the Committee upstairs. I am satisfied that before such a Committee we shall be able to thresh out what is in the best interests of all concerned. The Home Secretary has spoken of the duties of firemen and other classes of officials. I am one of those—perhaps somewhat old-fashioned—that have held the view that the most important official in the pit is the fireman, and it is desirable that this man, above all men, should be able to prove his fitness. The last Act dealing with mines was passed in 1887, and a good many things have happened since that time. The industry has in the interval undergone a complete change, and it is desirable that these men who are always in touch with the men who work in the pit, should possess such qualifications as will enable them to discharge those duties. I am satisfied that the eulogy paid to this class of men is quite a deserving one. Whatever may be said about managers and under-managers, it is to the firemen we must look for greater safety in mines throughout the country. The Home Secretary has referred to a class of accident which, I am afraid, does not excite the sentiment of the nation, and you do not get the same spontaneous subscription in support of the men who are killed at the face. There is no other industry at all comparable to mining carried on under such difficulties under a contract system. I have often considered this question of the number of accidents happening at the face. Perhaps a man neglects to set up a prop as he should do. I think experience has taught us that if this question is to be faced and if the workman is to be safeguarded there must be more constant general supervision at the face than what there has been up to date.
I am sure that any general attempt to deal with this question will meet with general approval. I believe both masters and men will seize the opportunity to deal with this question themselves and come to an agreement on this Bill before it gets to a Grand Committee. I am sure that a solution on those lines will earn throughout the mining community of this country the gratitude of all men who have been
2664
seeking to bring about some sort of legislation to reduce the number of accidents. One thing is clear. No one needs to be deceived by thinking that accidents such as we had in Lancashire and Whitehaven are not the least we shall hear of unless there is more vigilant care exercised everywhere. Anyone who knows anything of the general trend of things to-day knows that in the old pits twenty, thirty, and forty years ago, where perhaps 100, 200, or 300 men were at work, the conditions were different, and you could understand them better; but now you have between 1,200 and 1,600 men and boys working in one shaft, and unless this important question of the danger of coal-dust is dealt with I shudder to think what may happen some day. It is desirable that everything that is humanly possible should be done to prevent such a disaster as has already happened from this cause spreading to our large mines, as may be the case unless we have some effective remedies. I am aware that there is no finality about this measure, but everybody knows that coalmining in many of its aspects is better understood to-day than it was twenty or thirty years ago, although it is not completely understood. It should be the business of the Government, at any rate, to lend itself to all efforts of research. You have in and about the mines five or six million people, and I venture to say there are none more patriotic or heroic. These men are looking to this House, to the Government, to the inspectors and to the machinery of the Law to help them. I heartily welcome the general agreement which exists on all sides of the House, and I hope the first consideration with the Committee will be, not pounds, shillings, and pence, but the safety of the lives of these men. We are not unmindful that the question of cost must enter to some extent into the matter, but I do not think it enters so largely as it did twenty years ago. There is a desire on the part of managers and colliery people that the mere question of a few pounds shall not stand in the way of what they believe will add to the safety of the men. I hope the Government and the Committee will proceed with this Bill on those lines, and place it on the Statute Book at an early date. Whatever may be the rejoicing in the country over the Coronation, there will be no greater rejoicing than among the miners of the country when they find on the Statute Book a Bill which will give them greater security in the mines.
Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: As one of the oldest representatives of a raining constituency, I desire to associate myself with what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick), in welcoming this Bill as perhaps the most valuable legislative attempt that has ever been made to mitigate—I cannot say remove; that, perhaps, is impossible—and reduce the danger to the miner. I would like also to express my acknowledgments of the generous spirit in which the Bill has been welcomed by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), and my hon. Friend who sits on this side of the House. I am not going to take up more than a moment, because we are all anxious to see the Second Reading of the Bill, and I fully recognise that the matter of the Bill is Committee work; but, while recognising that fact, I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to two points to which I attach great importance. I observe that the sections of the Act of 1887, which dealt with shot-firing are altogether omitted, and no clauses in substitution thereof have been placed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will justly say that these matters are to be dealt with by Regulations of the Home Office. I am not at all sure, with all respect to the Home Secretary, that he is not affording a little too much scope for the Regulations of the Home Office. The Bill deals in the most minute detail with many very important questions, but, on the other hand, electric lighting and firing of the shot, two of the most vital questions in the management of mines are simply totally ignored in the Bill, and the whole thing is left to the Regulations of the Home Office, which means, of course, Regulations of Mines Inspectors. I cannot, of course, claim the experience of my hon. Friends behind me, nor do I pretend even to equal them in judgment on this point. But I have had practical experience in this sense, that all great colliery explosions in this country, until the introduction of electricity in coal mines, were due to the firing of shots in mines. I take a strong view, which may not be entertained by my hon. Friends behind me, when I say that in gaseous mines—and nearly all mines are more or less gaseous—shot-firing should be absolutely prohibited. I may be told that that is impracticable. I know that even among my hon. Friends there is some difference of opinion as to that, but at any rate the precaution should be taken,
2666
and it should be a statutory precaution—it should not depend on the regulations of Home Office officials—that all men who are not actually engaged in the process of shot-firing should be withdrawn from the mine when shots are fired. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fully appreciate this point. I give him, for all it is worth, the highest credit for anxiety to make this Bill an effective measure. But I wish to impress upon him the importance of not leaving this matter to be dealt with by Home Office officials. He should in this statute state explicitly what precautions he intends to take with regard to the firing of shots. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of the danger of leaving this matter to the Home Office. It was left to the Home Office to decide what explosives should be "permitted" or "non-permitted." The Home Office gave authority to certain types of explosives. The mine managers said, "These are permitted explosives, and our responsibility is discharged." As a matter of fact, we know that explosives were used which were a source of very grave and serious danger, and, in some cases, their use undoubtedly resulted in serious accident. That is the only observation I wish to make with regard to shot-firing.
My second observation is with regard to coal dust. There, again, the proposed statute deals with it, but the words are in vain. I have made a most careful examination of every clause of this Bill, and I find that where the roads are wet precautions with respect to coal dust are not required. There could be nothing more illusory. I was down a coal mine a short time ago where the roads were so wet that the water stood in them, and, at the same time, the walls, props, timbering and roofs were covered with impalpable dust. I believe, on the authority of well-known professors, that if an explosion took place through the introduction of a small percentage of gas that coal dust would be just as dangerous and would result in just as much disaster as if the roads were dry. It is, therefore, no security to say if these roads are wet precautions need not be taken. I am satisfied with this, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's very able advisers, will bear me out when I say that, whatever might be the unusual cause of the explosions which have taken place in this country, their disastrous effects Lave in almost every case—perhaps in every case—been due to the presence of coal dust. Therefore there is no more vital question to which the right hon. Gentleman could

2667
direct his attention when dealing with coal mines. Then, in regard to electricity, that is left to the Home Office, and I know the difficulty of putting it in the pit. I am perfectly convinced that these coal-cutting machines with loose cables are a source of great danger, but it may be that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to embody provisions in the Bill dealing with coal-cutting by electricity. At all events, before this Bill leaves our hands I hope he will give us a specific assurance as to how he is going to deal with electricity. I was professionally engaged in the West Stanley case, and although it was not the actual finding that electricity was one of the causes of this accident, yet one of the most distinguished men of experience in this country was of opinion that that was a most serious source of danger. And the evidence at that inquest satisfied any reasonable man that, as at present provided for, these coal-cutting machines worked by electricity—some of them are worked by water—are a serious source of danger. In conclusion, let me say a word as to the provision in regard to searching. I know that that will be very distasteful to the miners in my county, and I will say this that throughout my experience I have never known a case at which it has been even plausibly brought home that the miners have been responsible, either by the use of matches in lighting their pipes or otherwise, for an explosion. But I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he does not eliminate this clause he will put that limitation upon it that is suggested by my hon. Friend that the search should take place at the pit head by responsible persons deputed in writing by the owner of the colliery to carry it out. It is a vexatious proceeding, and one which the high-spirited miners in my Constituency will resent; but, apart from this criticism, I recognise that the Bill is one of the most valuable measures that have been introduced in connection with this subject, and reflects the highest credit upon the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him. Care should, however, be taken to make it acceptable both to the miners and to those who employ them.
Lord BALCARRES: I wish to support the view put forward by my hon. Friend and others that this Bill should go forward to-night and be remitted to a Committee. Personally, I look upon this Bill as the only useful Bill foreshadowed by
2668
the Government during the present Session, and it is deplorable that on a subject of this magnitude and character, affecting as it does such gigantic interests, and the lives of 800,000 or 900,000 people, business should be so managed that we can only get an hour and a half for our Second Reading. That point, for what it is worth, is met by the undertaking given by the Home Secretary to occupy the interval between the Second Beading to-day and the effective opening of the Committee stage by conferences between people who are directly concerned. I hope the result of that may be that the labours of the Committee may be abridged, and not only abridged but may be brought to a fruitful conclusion.
There is one point which should not be overlooked. There is a great danger, I think, of this Bill being pushed through Parliament without receiving adequate attention and consideration. Everyone knows that the effect of the Eight Hours Bill has been to produce confusion. In some cases it produced dislocation of the whole industry, and in some cases, again, I am very much afraid the result has been to stimulate the speed of work, and thus to increase accidents. I was a party to that Bill, and to that extent share the responsibility with anyone else who supported the measure. It left Parliament with all these blots and oversights on it simply because it had to be pushed through owing to the pressure of other business, and the result in some districts has been very serious indeed. Why the Eight Hours Act has not been put into a Mines Consolidation Bill the right hon. Gentleman has not explained. These matters are extremely technical—far more technical than controversial. A principle or an appliance which may be excellent in the Midlands may be fatal in Lancashire, or vice versa, and if you begin to makes rules about the length of the shaft and the distance of the workings to meet the case of Cumberland you may find yourself prejudicially affecting work in Lancashire or Staffordshire, and therefore the greatest of care and the greatest of patience has to be shown in dealing with this matter, or else we shall again do what, unhappily, has been our experience in the regulation of hours, and do something which may militate against the general safety. I hope, therefore, that much may be done between now and the opening of the Committee stage, that the Committee stage upstairs will be handled with prudence and patience by the Home Secretary and his colleagues, said that

2669
when the Bill comes back for Report, we shall have an opportunity of discussing it commensurate with the great interests and great dangers which hasty decision might involve us in now.
Mr. MARKHAM: I wish to offer my thanks to the Home Secretary for the introduction of this Bill, which, I am sure, will be of benefit to the mining community. There are several clauses to which I wish to direct the attention of the House, and particularly to the clause which relates to explosions. The Act of 1887, Clause 49, and General Rule 12, dealt at very considerable length with the whole of the conditions under which shots were to be fired in mines. That was superseded to some extent by the General Order of 1906, but in this Bill there is no reference to the use of explosives underground, except that they shall be purchased by the owners instead of by the men. I do not think I am wrong in saying that nearly all the great mining disasters in this country have been due to shot firing in the main roads. I think that, with the exception of those due to electricity in mines, an overwhelming majority of the great disasters which have taken place in this country have been occasioned by shot-firing, and shot-firing only.
Clause 2 of this Bill provides that the owner of a mine shall take no part in its management, unless he has a manager's certificate. As a matter of fact, I am going to do it whatever the Act does, and if any accident was occasioned I am perfectly willing to be summoned and to pay any penalty, or go to prison if necessary. I do not see why an owner should be divorced from the management of his mine. The proposal seems to me to be ridiculous. I would point to the fact that the Home Office officials are to be the people who are to have the settlement of these important matters, while a man who is the owner of a mine is not to have control in its management. It is absolutely ridiculous. The House of Commons is not to be trusted to make the general regulations with reference to shot-firing. All these things—and this is my objection to the Bill—are to be centred in the officials at Whitehall. The officials at Whitehall are to be regarded as competent to manage a mine, and an owner who is doing all he can to manage his mine properly is not to take any part in its management at all. The proposal is so ludicrous that I can only say that it must have been inserted by the Home Office officials.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Mr. MARKHAM: Pardon me, the Royal Commission did not recommend it. The Royal Commission did recommend that an owner who took an active part in the management of a mine should be held responsible for any fault occasioned by the part he played in the mine. But the Royal Commission did not say that an owner was not to take any part in the management of a mine. I do not wish to say anything to retard this measure, but I do trust that the Home Secretary will recollect that, although we who are coal owners say that we are all anxious to see this Bill passed into law in some modified form, when we get into Committee upstairs the fight will be on the question of cost—on the question whether the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill is to represent a capital expenditure of several millions by those who are connected with the coal mining industry. This Bill does not go far enough That is my opinion. I am willing to give the Home Secretary every advice I can give with the view of minimising the appalling slaughter which takes place in the mines of this country, but the Bill does not go far enough to meet my wishes. I hope that we shall be able to greatly improve the Bill in Committee. As to the use of electricity in mines—of which I have had considerable experience—and also in regard to shot-firing, I hope he will allow us a full Debate on the question whether these all-important matters could not be incorporated in the Bill, instead of being left to the Home Office, as provided now.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As the representative of a large mining constituency, I desire to say a few words with regard to one or two points in connection with the Second Reading of this Bill. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Gladstone, did very many things in the cause of mining reform of which the establishment of a special Mines Department and the appointment of the Royal Commission were only two instances. But how much more remains to be done is shown by these appalling disasters which have been alluded to this afternoon. I want to point out in that connection that, in addition to these disasters which make this dramatic appeal to the sympathy of the nation, there are constantly taking place small disasters, accidents that affect

2671
one or two men only, but which are very serious in their frequency. I rejoice that the Bill, not only embodies many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission that was appointed by Lord Gladstone, but also applies the lessons, so far as they can be applied at this stage, afforded by some of the recent disasters. In this connection I should like specially to mention the precautions that are now to be taken with regard to fires in mines. If I have read aright the lesson of the Whitehaven disaster, whatever was the original cause of the disaster it was subsequent fire which led to so great a loss of life, and the proposals that are now made seem to mark a substantial advance in dealing with accidents of a similar kind. In that connection a great step forward is taken by the proposed classification of mines according to the inflammable gases which may be expected in the mines. I take it that the classification means that regulations will be issued by the Secretary of State, and I believe that that is a great step forward. But the other point, which I think of supreme importance, is the proposal which is made in this Bill in the matter of the daily and other reports by the officials of the mine. There, again, experience of the report issued in connection with the Whitehaven disaster is being used and I believe it to be one of the most important proposals in the whole Bill. Two points arose in the course of the Debate to which I wish briefly to refer. One was raised by the hon. Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith), who received the Bill in a very sympathetic manner, so far as its general proposals were concerned. He referred to the Clause under which, as he quite truly said, a daily compulsory bath would be necessary. I do not know whether or not that Clause is to be modified. For my own part, I desire to appeal to the hon. Member for the Walton Division and to the Government, to reconsider it with reference to the housing accommodation that exists in so many of our mining districts. I should like to remind the House of the grave words of the Royal Commission in connection with housing accommodation in so many of our mining districts. My hon. Friend who spoke for the first time in this House yesterday knows how degraded and unhealthy those conditions are in many parts of Scotland, which were es-
2672
pecially referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission. With regard to the searching of miners, referred to by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick), I may be wrong, but my reading of the clause leads me to think that if that search is to be carried out in the way desscribed by the regulations of the Secretary of State, I see no difficulty in the search being carried out at the pit-head under the Bill as drawn. However, I may be wrong in that respect, but if so, surely the Bill is capable of amendment in that direction. To my mind the mining population of this country has been extremely patient. The miners of the country carry on one of the most risky of all occupations—a risk peculiar to their work, and unique in the industries of this land. I rejoice in the introduction of this Bill, because it takes us towards an ideal which I believe every Member of this House, and every party in this House, desires to attain—an ideal under which this great industry shall be carried on under conditions which make for the entire health and safety of those engaged in our mines.
Colonel HICKMAN: I have just as great and earnest a wish to see this Bill go through as any Member of this House. I have not had much time to read the provisions of the Bill, and I have not had an opportunity to send it down to experts in my own constituency, or in the mines with which I am associated myself, to get their opinion as to how the provisions could be applied in different localities. One thing which has struck me is that it will be rather difficult to make miners take a bath every day, and Clause 76 I think will receive a severe handling. As to research in order to find out the causes of and guard against explosives in mines, there is a certain amount of research going on in the country by private individuals, who are trying to find out whether there is any connection between the effects of earthquakes and the subsequent explosions in mines. It has been thought that where an earthquake takes place, almost in any part of the globe, there is such a disturbance of the crust of the earth as to produce cracks through which the gases escape into the mines, thus causing explosions. It would be very interesting, and most necessary, I think, to find out if the times of these earthquakes synchronise with the lowering of the barometer at the mine itself. All who have anything to do with mines know that the barometer is really not much of a safe-

2673
guard against explosions, because an explosion takes place almost at the same time as the barometer falls, and there is no time to get the men out of the mine. I would ask the House to consider whether it is not the duty of the Government to spend some money in research for the public good, and that they should, in gaseous mines, where the thing is particularly applicable, start what is called the seismograph, an instrument which records earthquakes, and also instruments to record the height of the barometer at different times, and to watch over cyclones and to see whether such cyclonic conditions affect the rise or fall of the barometer, and whether those synchronise with actual times of earthquakes, and to see if something could not be done to give warning to the mine owners so that they could be able to withdraw the men out of the mines before an explosion takes place and so avoid accident.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: Speaking as the representative of the Constituency in which the last disastrous mine explosion took place, I thank the Home Secretary for introducing this Bill. I am not going now to dissect the various Clauses, many of which will be of immense benefit to the mining community. I am not quite sure whether it would not be possible for him to deal with the question of explosives as applied to gaseous mines, that is mines which show a certain percentage of gas. I believe there are hydraulic cartridges whereby it is possible to get coal quite as quickly as by means of explosives and which if used would do something to prevent accidents. If steps were taken to deal with that question, possibly many accidents would be avoided. In connection with the last big accident, we had a mine that was supposed to be a model mine in mines of this description, but I am not quite certain whether a certain amount of carelessness does not creep in, owing to the idea that they are perfectly safe. With the object of preventing explosions, in my opinion the best way is to make the firemen Government officials. When all is said and done, the cost would fall on one particular industry. Then you could have the records of observations properly kept. Sometimes records and reports are lost at a very critical moment. If my suggestion were adopted the interests and the safety of the men would be safeguarded. I know there is a clause giving them power
2674
to deal with this matter themselves, but as the alternative to the Government taking over the mines, we ought to do all that we possibly can to safeguard the lives of the people working in the mines. The step I have mentioned would help to do that. If hon. and right hon. Members had only seen the haggard looks on the faces of the wives and the fathers and the mothers of those who perished in the Hulton explosion they would not, I feel certain, hesitate at any cost to safeguard the lives of the workers. While I am prepared to do all possible to pass the Bill I hope full consideration will be given to the various suggestions. The question of a compulsory bath is a secondary matter, as it is the lives of the people we have to consider. I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction, and being such I shall give it my hearty support.
Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: On the first occasion I have the opportunity, I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, for my interruption to him a few moments ago. There are questions in this Bill which, as a mine-owner myself, I cannot possibly pass by without sincerely hoping that adequate discussion will be given to the whole of the Bill. There are matters in this Bill which are of vital importance to everyone of His Majesty's subjects, whether mine-owners or workers in mines. Hon. Members opposite will recognise that we who are mine-owners have the same humane and humanitarian ideas as anybody else on the question of life in mines and the precautionary measures to be taken, and that our responsibility is as great as that of those who represent the working population. For that reason, particularly, I wish to say that from three o'clock to five o'clock is an absolutely inadequate amount of time in which to discuss this Bill, and I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us the greatest possible time he can for discussion both in the House and in Committee, so that the measure may be thoroughly considered.
ADJOTJRNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. Churchill.]
Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Five o'clock, till Monday next, 20th March.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were Presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.

  TUESDAY.
  Licensing Acts—Petition from Ashton-under-Lyne, for alteration of Law.
  Women's Enfranchisement Bill—Petition from Tain, in favour.

  FRIDAY.
  Women's Enfranchisement Bill—Petition from Folkestone, in favour.
  "Conscience" Money.
  "Conscience" Money.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Hotels and Licensed Houses (Provisional Valuations).
  Hotels and Licensed Houses (Provisional Valuations).
  Income Tax Payers.
  Income Tax Payers.
  Unregistered Friendly Societies.
  Unregistered Friendly Societies.
  Registry Districts (Ireland).
  Registry Districts (Ireland).
  Canteen Fund (Ireland).
  Canteen Fund (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).
  Plague in India.
  Plague in India.
  Egyptian Government (Sale of Magazine Prohibited).
  Egyptian Government (Sale of Magazine Prohibited).
  Poor Law Order.
  Poor Law Order.
  Coronation (Public Elementary Schools).
  Coronation (Public Elementary Schools).
  Mall (Footpath).
  Mall (Footpath).