Sitting of 26 February 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Fleetwood Gas Bill.

Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Bill.

Great Western Railway Bill.

Windermere District Gas and Water Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1910–11.
Copy presented of Abstracts of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred during the year ended 30th June, 1911, with particulars of the loss of life [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (HOMEWORK).
Copy presented of Order, dated 9th February, 1912, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying the provisions of Sections 107, 108, and 110 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to the manufacture of chocolates or sweetmeats and any work incidental thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
MEXICO.
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Treasury respecting the raising of Mexico to the rank of a first-class Mission, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STANDING ORDERS.
Mr. Vaughan - Davies, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. George Faber, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Mildmay, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. Parker, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson were nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
Copy presented of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Memorandum on the steps taken preliminary to the operation of Part 1. of the National Insurance Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Rules for Military Prisons and Detention Barracks, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of General Annual Report on the British Army for the year ending 30th September, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 20th February; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Prosecution of Mr. Bertrand Stewart (Leipsic).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been called to the character and record of one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution in the trial of Mr. Bertrand Stewart at Leipsic; and if any representations have been made, or will be made, to the German Government with a view of a reconsideration of those proceedings in the interests of justice?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I can add nothing to the replies which have already been returned to the questions on this subject.

  Cattle Testing.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state where the new test station for cattle intended for exportation to South Africa will be located; and who will be in charge of the station?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): No decision has as yet been arrived at with regard to the establishment of a station and it would be premature therefore for me to say anything as to the question of site. But it will in any case be under the direct control and charge of the Board.
  Mr. STANIERasked who will bear the cost of testing the animals at the test station for tuberculosis.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The intention is that the cost of the upkeep of the station, if it is established, should be met by fees payable by the owners of the stock quarantined or tested thereon.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it proposed to allow the representatives of foreign buyers to conduct the tests at these stations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the test will be quite well conducted by the staff at the station.

  Johne's Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture are collecting information and statistics which will show the amount of Johne's disease in this country; and
  970
  who is investigating this disease on behalf of the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board's veterinary officers have been collecting information with regard to this disease for some years past, and their inquiries are still proceeding. The nature of the disease is also being investigated by the scientific staff of the Royal Veterinary College. There is at present no obligation on the part of owners of stock to report outbreaks of the disease, and no statistics of its prevalence are therefore available.
  Mr. STANIER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is advisable that this should be a notifiable disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been no general request on the part of the agricultural community for the disease to be made notifiable, and until there is some stronger movement in favour of it I do not see my way to take the step.

  Milk Records.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Development Commissioners have made any Grant for enabling milk records to be kept in England as they have done in Scotland; and whether the Board of Agriculture have asked for a similar Grant for England?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have recently made an application for a Grant from the Development Fund for this purpose, which is now under consideration.
  Mr. STANIER: Through whom will it be worked—through the colleges and institutions of the country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should hope it would be worked more through the societies which are directly interested in dairy farming, but I can give no details at present. The matter is under discussion.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether mystin, used as a preservative for milk, is allowed under the Regulations of the Board; and whether it contains sodium nitrate, and is therefore a danger to a person consuming it?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Draft Regulations have been prepared by the Local Government Board prohibiting the addition of any preservative substance to milk intended for sale for human consumption. Notice of these Regulations was I given in the "London Gazette" of the

  971
  22nd instant, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893. I am advised that "mystin" contains sodium nitrite (not nitrate), and that this is a drug with a powerful physiological action.
  Mr. STANIER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what articles are included?
  Mr. BURNS: I would advise my hon. Friend to wait until the Regulations are submitted to those concerned. He will then see what articles are included.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask when these Draft Regulations will be circulated?
  Mr. BURNS: They will be circulated very soon.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can say approximately what proportion of the fresh milk imported from abroad is examined bacterially in regard to tubercle, and how long it takes to examine a sample; and has any tubercle been found in the samples reported on in recent months?
  Mr. BURNS: During the last five months of last year fifty consignments of fresh milk were imported. Forty-three samples were examined bacteriologically, but in no case was the tubercle organism found to be present. A conclusion that the organism is absent is not arrived at until six weeks after the receipt of the sample.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is with the approval of the Board that some county councils are throwing the sinking fund charges in respect of statutory small holdings upon the county rates; and whether, in the event of a judicial decision being hereafter given to the effect that such action is ultra vires The Small Holdings Act, 1908, such councils run the risk of being surcharged the amount of the above charges?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The approval by the Board of the practice referred to is only that which may be implied by their approval of schemes in which the sinking fund charges in respect of purchase money are not treated as expenses to be recouped out of the rents. The second inquiry of the hon. Member should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there not a danger, if the county councils follow the procedure that is evidently now approved by the Government, of their being ultimately surcharged?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can express no opinion on that except to say that in the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire and Glamorganshire, where the charges are borne by the rates and not out of the rent payable by the small holders, there has been, no case of surcharge.

  Aliens Deported.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many aliens have been convicted of crimes and minor offences since 1st January, 1906; and how many of these have been deported?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): It is not possible to say how many aliens have been convicted of offences since 1st January, 1906. The only information available is given yearly in the Reports under the Aliens Act, and relates to the aliens received into prison on conviction. Taking the figures already published for the years 1906 to 1910 and provisional figures for 1911, it appears that in the six years 16,878 convicted aliens have been received into prisons in the United Kingdom. Of these 2,378 were recommended by the Courts for expulsion and 2,173 expulsion orders have been made.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are the Courts of Justice tending to a more uniform practice in exercising their powers under the Act than the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated they were last Session, and have any further instructions been issued from the Home Office in regard to powers under the Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many of those aliens, having been deported, have returned to the country and been deported a second time?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is obviously a question of which I must have notice.

  Omnibus and Tramcar Accidents.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many persons were killed or injured by motor omnibuses and by tramcars, respectively, in the

  973
  metropolitan area during each of the past five years; and how many passengers were carried by motor omnibuses and by tram-cars, respectively, during the same period?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be happy to furnish the information, so far as it is available, if my hon. Friend will put down an unstarred question. I have the figures for the first part of this question, but, so far as I am aware, there are no more definite records of the number of passengers than those contained in the last Report on London Traffic, which are largely based on estimate.

  Sentences to Hard Labour.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is anything and, if so, what in the rule made by his predecessor with respect to the treatment of offenders who have been committed for an offence not involving dishonesty, cruelty, indecency, or serious violence which is incapable of application to those sentenced to hard labour?
  Mr. McKENNA: The rules for prisoners sentenced to hard labour provide inter alia, that such prisoners shall for the first month of their sentence be employed in strict separation on some hard bodily or manual labour. This requirement is quite incompatible with the indulgence allowed under my predecessor's rule to certain offenders of the second and third divisions. It is clear that Parliament meant, when it provided for sentence of hard labour, to enable the court to pass a sentence involving severe penal discipline. This intention would be defeated, and the courts deprived of the power given them by Parliament, if the indulgences under the new rules were extended to sentences of hard labour.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why does not that apply just as much to other sentences in the second and third divisions?
  Mr. McKENNA: Because Parliament has not laid down similar conditions for sentences in the second and third divisions as for sentences of hard labour.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Are prisoners who are sentenced to hard labour outside the rule which was laid down by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. McKENNA: What was laid down in regard to sentences of hard labour would
  974
  be inconsistent with the rule which was laid down by my right hon. Friend last Session.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Would the right hon. Gentleman point out the inconsistency?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think if the Noble Lord will read the answer I have given, he will see that the conditions laid down in the rule last year are generally inconsistent with the conditions attaching to sentences of hard labour.

  Hunting Carted Deer.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 8th January last a carted deer hunted by Lord Rothschild's staghounds, in attempting to leap a spiked iron fence at Wing, was impaled and partly disembowelled, being subsequently killed by the hunt servants; and whether, in view of the frequency of such occurrences where carted deer are hunted in an enclosed country, he will introduce, or give facilities for, a Bill to put a stop to this form of recreation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a report of this case. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the replies given last Session by my predecessor and myself to similar questions of my hon. Friend.

  Case of Mr. Ball (Insanity).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the prisoner, William Ball, made any application, either to the prison authorities or to the Home Secretary, to be treated under and be accorded the full benefit of the new rules laid down by his predecessor to govern cases of political prisoners and prisoners connected with the suffrage agitation; and was any application for such treatment received from any friends of the prisoner?
  Mr. McKENNA: Shortly after his reception Ball asked the prison officials why he was not being treated under the new rule, and he was told that as he had been sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour he was not eligible for that treatment. The next morning he spoke to the governor and asked leave to petition. This was granted, but after Ball had written three lines he tore it up, remarking to the warder that he thought he would "leave

  975
  it alone." No other application for treatment under the new rule was made by Ball or by his friends, either to the Home Office or to the prison authorities.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Home Secretary can revise the various sentences passed, whether they involve hard labour or anything else?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have explained to my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary would have power to remit a sentence of hard labour.

  Suffragettes (Prison Treatment).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement made in the House of Commons on 20th July, 1910, by his predecessor, in regard to treatment of prisoners sentenced for passive resistance and as suffragettes, to the effect that he had given instructions that all persons committed to prison for passive resistance, and all persons committed to prison as suffragettes were, as a matter of course, in the absence of special circumstances, to be accorded the full benefit of the new rules, and any other cases to which it would be possible to apply these rules; and if, under these circumstances, the prison authorities were justified in treating the prisoner, W. Ball, as a person outside the scope of this promise, and the regulations issued to give effect to it, seeing that his offence was a political one, and in connection with the suffragist movement?
  Mr. McKENNA: The passage quoted from my right hon. Friend's speech must obviously be read in connection with the terms of the rule which he was discussing and which had shortly before been laid before Parliament. That rule applies in express terms only to offenders in the second or third divisions, and therefore does not apply to persons sentenced by the Courts to imprisonment with hard labour. The prison authorities had no option except to pursue the course which they adopted.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Docs not the absence of moral turpitude apply equally to offenders sentenced to hard labour?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, there might be no moral turpitude, but when my right hon. Friend spoke on the subject he had already published the rule. Those who
  976
  come under that rule do not include those who are sentenced to hard labour.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Does it include a person convicted of a political offence, and is it within the power of the Home Secretary to place a person sentenced to hard labour for such an offence in the second division so as to enable that person to have the benefit of the new rule?
  Mr. McKENNA: The rule applies to sentences for political offences, provided there is no moral turpitude and the prisoner is sentenced only to the second or third division. It is quite true, as I have already stated to my hon. Friend, that the Home Secretary would have power to remit a sentence of hard labour.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the whole question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. The position is very unsatisfactory.

  Imprisonment of George Baker.
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say for what reason George Baker, who was convicted at Uckfield, in Sussex, on 21st December, 1911, on a charge of poaching, but of whose innocence the Home Office were aware on 27th December, 1911, was kept in prison until 20th January, 1912; and whether he proposes to give any compensation to George Baker for wrongful detention?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that I was aware of this man's innocence in December. I did indeed receive a statement to the effect that another man had admitted that he had committed the offence of which Baker was convicted, but as the same man had already given evidence on oath to the contrary it was impossible for me to act on his statement until it had been tested by a prosecution. When it was reported to me on 19th January that this man and another had been convicted of the offence of which Baker had previously been convicted, I was justified in advising the remission of the remainder of his sentence. The case is not one in which I could recommend the payment of compensation from public funds.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: Is it not a fact that the magistrate who convicted Baker came up to London specially on the second day after the conviction, and informed the Home Office that he was satisfied Baker was not guilty?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will give me notice of the question I will certainly inquire.
  Mr. KING: Will the persons who gave false evidence be indicted for perjury?
  Mr. McKENNA: The person who in the original charge gave evidence against Baker is now in prison. I do not suppose any further action will be taken against him.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman send the papers to the Public Prosecutor?
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask on what ground the right hon. Gentleman refuses compensation to the man whom society has injured?
  Mr. McKENNA: The rules as to compensation do not involve the giving of compensation to every person who is charged and subsequently acquitted. There was certainly strong evidence in the case.
  Sir W. BYLES: He was sent to gaol.

  Censorship of Stage Plays.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the character of some passages in the play called "The Secret Woman," he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take in the interests of public order and decency with regard to those persons who are causing this play to be performed at the Kingsway Theatre?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the performance was by invitation and not for hire, I am advised that there is no power to take action under the Theatres Act. I do not propose to take any proceedings.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Stage Plays (Censorship) with regard to the play "Dear Old Charlie," by Mr. Charles Brookfield, the manuscript was reexamined by the Examiner of Plays before its revival; whether any alterations were made; and whether, in its present form, it is considered free from objection?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the answers to the first two parts of the question are in the negative. With regard to
  978
  the third part, the Lord Chamberlain sees no reason for interfering with the decision of his predecessor who licensed the play.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this play was described in the "Times" as "cynical and shameless immorality," and whether it is proposed to bring an action for libel against that paper?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman addresses the question to me. I have no responsibility in the matter.

  Labour Colonies for Vagrants.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a resolution passed by the guardians of the poor of the parish of St. Mary, Islington, urging upon the Government the necessity of establishing labour colonies where the habitual vagrant can be detained and compelled to work for his maintenance, and whether it is proposed to take any action in this direction or otherwise to deal with the problem?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received resolutions from a number of boards of guardians to this effect, but I regret that I see no immediate prospect of being able to propose legislation on this very difficult question.

  Tuberculosis of Childhood.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received and considered a report by Dr. Harris, the medical officer of health of the borough of Islington, submitted to the public health committee of that borough, with reference to the finding of the Royal Commission on Tuebrculosis, that a considerable proportion of the tuberculosis of childhood is to be ascribed to infection with bacilli transmitted in the milk of cows; and can he say when legislation on the subject will be introduced with a view to dealing effectively with this evil?
  Mr. BURNS: The report has been received and is being considered in connection with the general question to which it relates. With regard to the last part of the question, I may refer to the answer I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for the Ripon Division.

  Infantile Mortality.
  Viscount WOLMERasked what is the rate of infantile mortality (children under one year) in England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada; and in which of these countries women exercise the municipal franchise?
  Mr. BURNS: I will circulate an answer dealing with the rates of mortality, so far as they are in possession of the Registrar-General. My present information does not enable me to reply to the latter part of the question.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Local Government Board (Advertisement of Appointments).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in order to comply with the Regulations of the Local Government Board advertisements are inserted for appointment implying that the posts vacant are open to competition, whereas the appointments have been filled before the insertion of the advertisements; and whether, seeing that the practice involves waste of the ratepayers' money, he will see his way to amend the Regulations so as to meet the complaint referred to?
  Mr. BURNS: I assume the hon. Member's question refers to the appointment of sanitary officials. I do no not at present see that the Regulations require amendment. The publicity of advertisement is on general grounds desirable, and the provisions for dispensing with it in special cases seem to be sufficient.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him correspondence on the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, and I will exchange billets-doux by sending him my circular.

  Hollesley Bay Labour Colony.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what sum was paid for the property known as Hollesley Bay, and what sum has since been expended on the property; what has been the total cost of working the colony and, after giving credit for any profits made, what is the net loss on the undertaking; how many men have been employed at Hollesley Bay and what has been the cost per
  980
  average man employed there, including the allowance made to families and pocket money; what has been the average period of employment and how many men have been given employment on more than one occasion; and what percentage of men receiving temporary employment at Hollesley Bay is now in permanent employment on the land in other parts of the country and in other industries?
  Mr. BURNS: The total amount paid for the purchase of the Colony, including the value of improvements made prior to its transfer to the Central (Unemployed) Body, stock, stores, etc., and law costs, was £43,475. I am not in a position to state precisely what sum has been expended on the property, but from a statement supplied by the Central (Unemployed) Body the amount spent on buildings would appear to be some £12,000. This, I understand, would include some repairs and maintenance of buildings. From the same statement it would appear that the total cost of working the Colony up to 27th January last was £159,732, whilst the amount realised by sales, etc., is given as £38,156. The number of men employed up to 31st January last was 6,724. If we take the net expenditure on the estate as £121,576, the net cost of maintenance per man per week works out approximately at 30.9s. This is exclusive of loan charges and any allowance for the enhanced value of the estate. The average period of employment is 11.7 weeks. The number of men who have been given employment on more than one occasion up to 31st March last was 179. The number of men from Hollesley Bay in permanent employment on the land in other parts of the country up to the same date is, I am informed, nineteen, and at other kinds of work seventeen.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come when Hollesley Bay might be sold for some more useful purpose?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What is the enhanced value of the estate?
  Mr. BURNS: The enhanced value given by the Central (Unemployed) Body's valuer is £11,000 odd. The difference between the Local Government Board and the valuer of the Central Body is responsible for the difference in the calculation of the number of shillings per week.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In calculating the cost per man has there been included in the figure 30s., also the maintenance of the women and children in London?
  Mr. BURNS: I think that in order to avoid confusion and the possibility of misrepresentation on this point, if the hon. Member would give notice of any further information that he wants it will be better that the whole of the facts should be brought before the House by hon. Members without any misinterpretation from any quarter.

  Emigration of Adults.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many adults were emigrated by boards of guardians, acting under the powers given them by the Poor Law, during the last five years, respectively?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of adults (persons over sixteen years of age) whose emigration at the cost of the poor rate in England and Wales was authorised by Orders of the Local Government Board during each of the past five years is as follows:—

  1907

  417

  1908

  92

  1909

  95

  1910

  137

  1911

  227

  Total for the five years

  968

  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How were they divided between men and women?
  Mr. BURNS: About equally divided between men and women; but the great majority, about 80 per cent., of the people emigrated by boards of guardians were children.

  Education Act, 1902 (Alleged Breach).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of the statement that the Merthyr Tydvil education authority proposes to pay, after 31st March, 1912, the same scale of salaries to the teachers in provided and non-provided schools in their area, this authority will make good to the teachers in the non-provided schools the losses they have sustained by the authority in question having disregarded the law in this respect in the past?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): As the hon. Member has been informed, I have no
  982
  official information with regard to the action of the Merthyr Tydvil education authority in this matter.
  Sir H. CARLILEasked when the local education authorities of Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire will give effect to the Education Act, 1902, by paying the same rate of salaries to the teachers alike in provided and non-provided schools in their respective areas; and whether they propose to make good the losses sustained by the teachers in the non-provided schools arising from the authorities having failed to carry out their legal obligations in the past in this respect?
  Mr. PEASE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on this subject on Monday last. I have no information with regard to the second part of the question. As the hon. Member has been informed, I am making inquiry into the circumstances attending the action of the local education authorities to which the hon. Member refers, and until I am in possession of the facts I cannot deal with the inference drawn by the hon. Member that the local education atuhorities have failed to carry out their legal obligation.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in possession of the necessary facts?
  Mr. PEASE: I assume after the next meetings of the councils of the two education committees?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: When is that?
  Mr. PEASE: I think that the education committee of Glamorganshire meet to-morrow. I think that the 14th of March is the county council day, and I think that 25th April is the date of the next county council meeting in Cardiganshire.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he cannot make inquiries before the county council holds its meeting?
  Mr. PEASE: The inquiries have been made, but I cannot expect an answer from the county council until the county council has met.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman expect an answer? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what has actually taken place and state the facts?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no power to summon the education committees of the county council. The meetings of the education committees will be called in due course, and whatever is recommended by the committees must be dealt with by the council before we hear from them.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Board of Education whether the differentiation by the local education authorities of Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire as to the salaries of teachers in non-provided schools is due to sectarian reasons, and whether he expects to hear from those authorities on the subject; and whether communications made to the Board of Education months ago on this subject have so far received no more than a formal answer?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not been furnished with the reasons which have led to the action on the part of the local education authorities referred to by the Noble Lord. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot undertake to name any date, but I have reason to believe I shall hear after the next meetings of the county councils. In reply to the last part of the question, I am unable to give a definite reply to the managers, until I have heard further from the local authorities.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the published statement to the effect that the committee state that they will be in a better position to consider the question if all religious instruction of a sectarian character were permitted?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no official information to that effect.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information of the facts?
  Mr. PEASE: No more than is open to the Noble Lord, with what has been published in the Press.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest doubt of the truth of the statement? I press for an answer.
  Mr. PEASE: I am not responsible for the accuracy of the statements in the Press.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is a plain evasion.

  Public Elementary Schools (Wales).
  Mr. HOAREasked the number and names of the public elementary schools in Wales built upon glebe?
  Mr. PEASE: The only information in the possession of the Board bearing upon the tenure of public elementary schools is recorded in a Return, No. 178, to the Order of the House of Commons, dated 23rd February, 1906, which was subsequently reprinted and published by the Board in 1907 as List 32. The information contained therein does not enable me to give in a complete form the number and names of the schools asked for.
  Mr. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a Return as near as possible to the exact figures?
  Mr. PEASE: I have looked into the matter, and I am afraid that I can add nothing to that particular Return. That Return was issued by order of the House. Since then we have not been able to obtain any additional information.
  Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very material question in view of the Welsh Disestablishment?

  Postal Letters (Date-Stamping).
  Captain O'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the regulations now in force for the date-stamping of letters at receiving offices, in view of the fact that letters are now frequently delivered without any date stamp on the back; and whether steps are taken to prevent this omission leading to irregularity and inconvenience in tracing any delay in the delivery of letters?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It has been the practice for some years past, with the view of expediting the work, to omit the date-stamping of letters received for delivery by one post, generally the first, at a number of towns. The absence of the stamp indicates delivery by that post. This practice, having been found to work well, has recently been extended. I am not aware that this omission has led to irregularity or inconvenience in tracing any delay in the delivery of letters.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dates stamped on the letters are sometimes so I smudged as to be absolutely illegible?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think a great many improvements have been made in that respect in recent years.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a still greater improvement?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The staff of the Post Office are well aware of the importance of stamping letters legibly.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether the Government intend, if requested to do so, to remove any telephone wires and poles which have been fixed in past years by the National Telephone Company over and on private property without permission?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall be glad to investigate any case of this kind on receipt of particulars. As a rule the powers of the Postmaster-General with respect to wayleaves on private property are no greater than those of the National Telephone Company. I hope, however, that property-owners will not press for removals of wires and poles which will cause interruptions in the service of subscribers.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Postmaster-General can appoint a committee to consider the advisability and practicability of a special cheap telephonic service in rural districts for farmers and small holders?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have revised the scheme for rural party telephone lines so as to allow of smaller and more scattered groups of subscribers being served, and I hope very shortly to obtain the sanction of the Treasury for this scheme. It is hoped that it will meet many cases in which the conditions of the previous scheme could not be fulfilled. It would not appear that the appointment of a committee is necessary at the present time.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any reduction in existing telephone rates is contemplated as the result of the recent acquisition of the service by the Government?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is my intention to revise the rates for telephone service when the price to be paid for the National Telephone Company's system has been settled. Until then I can make
  986
  no statement as to the amount of the new rates. If necessary the proposed rates will be the subject of public inquiry. It is not intended that the revised rates shall be higher than is necessary to secure that the telephone service shall be self-supporting with a reasonable margin of profit.

  Post Office Servants.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if, with a view to removing apprehension and uncertainty, he can assure the House that no further appointments will be made to the new lower grade of assistant women clerks in the General Post Office until the Select Committee on Post Office Servants has reported on the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of last Thursday on this subject.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Does the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on Thursday mean that he will make no addition to the number already appointed, but will only fill the vacancies made by those who may fall out of the number?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The vacancies to which I referred were in the class of women clerks who are doing work of an elementary kind similar to that allotted to the new class of assistant women clerks.

  Royal Engineer Telegraph Reserve.
  Major GASTRELLasked whether a number of telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office who belong to the Royal Engineer Telegraph Reserve have had a week's pay deducted for the period of their technical training with the Royal Engineers, although they have a week's residue leave due to them; whether such residue leave has been formerly permitted to be taken by Central Office telegraphists and continues to be allowed to provincial telegraphists; and whether, in view of the fact that Territorials in Post Office employ are granted one week's leave with full civil pay and the Army Post Office corps ten days' leave with full civil pay, the right hon. Gentleman will grant to members of the Royal Engineer Telegraph Reserve a similar privilege by allowing them special leave with full civil pay for one week, or permit them to deduct one week from their residue leave?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The facts are as stated by the hon. and gallant

  987
  Member, except that in all cases—Territorials as well as Royal Engineer Reserve—Civil pay is not given for one week of the period of annual training. The "residue" leave referred to is that part of the holidays which, by arrangement with the staff, has to be taken in the winter months. To allow it to be taken in the summer would necessitate a reduction of the established holiday substitute force. The men of the Army Post Office Corps were performing actual postal work during the ten days in question, and, consequently, were entitled to Post Office pay.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the difficulties in connection with the question of reckoning for superannuation purposes the Army service actually rendered on Post Office duties of ex-Royal Engineers have been overcome; and, if not, whether the Postmaster-General will take such immediate steps as may be necessary to place the question within the scope of the inquiry by the Select Committee about to be appointed to consider the wages and conditions of service of Post Office employés.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difficulties in the way of reckoning towards Civil superannuation the Army service rendered by Royal Engineers on Post Office work have not yet been overcome; and are now engaging the immediate attention of the Secretary of State for War and myself. I do not think that a Select Committee upon the wages and conditions of employment of Post Office servants would be a fitting body to consider the question of pension for military service. Any question of pension for Civil service would be within the scope of their inquiry.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    LECTURES.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary to the Treasury when he will state the names and addresses of the official lecturers appointed to expound the National Insurance Act and of all officials so far appointed in connection with that Act, the nature of their respective qualifications, by whom they were recommended, and by whom they were selected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The persons appointed have been selected by the four National Commissions—English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh. For the rest of the
    988
    Noble Lord's questions I would refer him to the reply I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Colchester and Mid-Armagh.
    Viscount WOLMER: In answer to my question, can the hon. Gentleman say when he will publish the names and addresses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is understood that they were to appear in the White Paper.
    Viscount WOLMER: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that this, information should be before the House previous to our discussing the Supplementary Estimates?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I had it ready, and it would have been before the House, but for the additional promise made in response to an appeal opposite, that we should give the names and addresses of the gentlemen in question.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman publish what information he has before we discuss the Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I can undertake to have it ready in time.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman postpone the Supplementary Estimates until he can publish the information?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked how many lecturers have been appointed by the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales); at what salaries; how many such lecturers can speak Welsh; and whether they have addressed public as well as private meetings to explain the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Thirteen lecturers have been appointed by the Welsh Insurance Commission at a salary of five guineas a week. Eight of these are able to speak Welsh. With regard to the character of the lectures I beg to refer the hon. Member to the White Paper which I am laying on the Table of the House.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the lecturers have got to do full time during the week—have they to lecture every day?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think they have to do a full week's work.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether 15s. a day is allowed for travelling expenses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think there is some allowance.
    Captain CRAIG: Does a full week's work under the National Insurance Act include Sunday?
    Mr. GIBBSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Government officials (established or unestablished) are permitted to leave their duties before the close of official hours in order to be present at preparatory lectures, in order to qualify them to become lecturers either for the National Insurance Commissioners or for the Liberal Insurance Committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge as to any practice of Government Departments to allow officials to leave their duties before the close of office hours. No Government officials are being trained to become lecturers by attendance at the preparatory lectures.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the official lecturers appointed to explain the details of the National Insurance Act have been instructed to inform insured persons as to the conditions under which they can obtain, in cases of sickness, medical attendance from duly qualified practitioners; and whether, having regard to the fact that these conditions are not yet settled, he will consider the advisability of postponing the lectures now being provided at the public expense till such time as shall enable the Commissioners to state whether, and, if so, under what arrangements the members of the medical profession have expressed their willingness to co-operate in giving effect to the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The official lecturers have been given careful instructions to explain the Act as it stands on the Statute Book. The Act allows alternatives in respect of medical benefit: either that it shall be given from a panel, with free choice of doctors, or that alternative arrangements shall be made by the Insurance Committees or the Commissioners, or that medical benefit shall be suspended and the money equivalent returned to the insured person.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can furnish a list of the times and places at
    990
    which the official lectures on the Insurance Act are delivered in London and elsewhere?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of official lectures on the Insurance Act at present arranged for is too great for me to read them in an answer. I shall be glad to communicate places and dates to the hon. Member if he wishes for them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that he made the same promise four or five days ago in this House to me to send me the list, and he has not done so?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was only this morning I was going through the list to get the information.
    Mr. KING: Would the hon. Gentleman, send this information to all the Members of the Opposition, so that they may have the opportunity of really understanding the Act?
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Would the hon. Gentleman, instead of making personal answers to individual Members, circulate the information with the Votes, so that everybody may see it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Members of this House, medical practitioners, and medical students, to whom a knowledge of the details of the Insurance Act is of especial value, are, or will be, admitted to the lectures of the official lecturers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If any body of medical practitioners or other persons affected by the Act apply for the attendance of an official lecturer the Commissioners will be happy to consider their request.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is there any objection to the attendance of medical students at these lectures?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If any of them wish to do so, and send in applications, they will be considered.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTERasked if the Scottish Insurance Commissioners have inserted in newspapers advertisements of lectures on the National Insurance Act to be given by lecturers appointed by them; whether those meetings were open to the public; and who paid for the advertisements and the hire of the hall?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On the question of publicity I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of Wednesday last, and to the White Paper shortly to be issued. Model Bills for display have been sent to Organisers of Lectures, emphasising the non-political and non-controversial character of the lectures. All other expenses of printing, advertising in newspapers, hire of hall, etc., have been borne by the conveners of the gathering.
    Mr. FORSTER: Have any of those meetings been convened by the Scottish Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked whether the Welsh Insurance Commissioners invite more than one gentleman at a time in each district to convene a meeting to be addressed by their representative; and, if they only ask one at a time, on what principle do they select the first to be asked?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Invitations were sent to the persons mentioned in my answer to the question of the hon. Member on the 21st instant to communicate with the Welsh Commissioners if they were willing to co-operate in arranging conferences to be addressed by official lecturers.
    Mr. A. SYKES: May I ask an answer to my question, whether they invite more than one gentleman at a time in each district?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I stated in my previous answer that the questions were addressed to certain classes of persons, and that if there were more than one that probably they were sent to all.

    HEALTH COMMISSION (WALES).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether a conference has been held at Cardiff under the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales) to consider the regulations to be adopted in making appointments to the staff of the Commission; who were invited to attend such conference; and whether the conference was private or public?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A conference was held at Cardiff to discuss questions connected with the appointments under the Welsh Insurance Commission. Invitations were sent to the Welsh University Court, the three Welsh University
    992
    Colleges, the Central Welsh Board, the Welsh Board of Legal Education, to the Associations of the Secondary and Elementary School Teachers, and to the Welsh Appointments Board to send representatives. Personal invitations were also sent to the Lord Mayor of Cardiff, the chairman of the Welsh parliamentary party, and the hon. Member himself. The conference was private and informal.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether it is intended to hold special examinations in connection with appointments to the staff of the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales); and whether any qualifications, university or other, will be required before persons may present themselves for such examinations?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The method of making further appointments to the staff of the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales) is still under consideration.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will the appointments be confined to the Welsh people?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is under consideration.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether only Welshmen who have passed through the University of Wales will be eligible for the higher posts under the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales), or whether such posts will be open to Welshmen who have passed through other universities such as Oxford or Liverpool?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No limitation has been made on the higher posts under the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales), either to graduates of the University of Wales or any other universities.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will any university qualification be required?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Can the hon. Gentleman state what are to be the necessary qualifications for the Chief Clerk.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I have no information additional to that already given to the House.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a conference, held on Saturday at Cardiff, at which the Welsh Insurance Board, the Welsh Appointments Board,

    993
    and other authorities were represented, when it was recommended that the higher appointments under the National Insurance Act should be filled by examination to which only university graduates should be admitted; and whether he will at once take steps to secure that all appointments under the Act are made without regard to social or other irrelevant considerations of this kind?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Denbigh. I understand that no limitation will be made of the higher appointments in Wales to university graduates, and no recommendation to that effect was made by the conference.

    BUNTINGFORD ASSOCIATION.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Reports of Mr. Watson on the Buntingford Association were furnished gratuitously; and, if not, on what estimate the cost will be borne?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The first Report was prepared by Mr. Watson while acting as actuarial adviser to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill was before Parliament, and is covered by the fee to be paid to him from the Treasury Vote for work done in that capacity. The second Report was prepared since his appointment as Chief Actuary to the National Insurance Joint Committee as part of his official duties without extra remuneration.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that one of the Government officials should be instructed to enter into a matter of political controversy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: One of the first duties of the officials of a Government Department is to furnish all accurate information upon matters needed by Ministers for the information of the public.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether the information was not furnished for the purpose of publication in the Press on a matter of acute political controversy which was then proceeding?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as I remember it was promised in Parliament in Debate definitely by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    WELSH COMMISSION CLERKSHIPS.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked whether the essential qualification for a higher clerkship on the staff of the Welsh Insurance Commission is to have graduated in first-class honours at the University of Wales?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. No such limitation has been imposed.

    OFFICE ACCOMMODATION EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what expenditure has been incurred in 1911–12 in respect of the Insurance Commissions on office accommodation, and when the Supplementary Estimate will be presented?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The expenditure incurred to 31sfc March, 1912, amounts to about £13,400. It is being met from the Public Buildings Vote, and there will be no Supplementary Estimate.
    Lord BALCARRES: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate with the Votes a statement showing where the economy of £13,000 in Class I. has been effected?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I will communicate that question to the First Commissioner of Works.

    STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what part of the revised Estimate of £366,500, or of the additional sum of £47,000 included in Class 2, Vote 24, Subheads F to N, of the Supplementary Estimates related to stationery and printing required by the Departments administering the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amount provided in the Supplementary Estimate for stationery and printing for the Departments administering the Insurance Act is £10,000. No provision was made for this service in the original Estimates for 1911–12.

    Metropolitan Police Rate Bill.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early date for the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: As the Prime Minister is unavoidably detained on business connected with the coal strike, he has asked me to reply in his behalf. I hope that this measure will be arranged for at an early date.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very important that we should have it as early as possible.
    Mr. McKENNA: Nobody knows that better than I do.

    Church Disestablishment (Wales).
    Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether it is proposed to disseize the Established Church in Wales of the glebe lands; whether the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House of the number of acres of such land, with their present approximate total value, which have been bestowed upon the Church for Church purposes since the Reformation; and, in this case, if it is also the intention of the Government to deprive the non-established churches in Wales of their recent bequests?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley on Monday last.

    University of London (Oriental Languages).
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONESasked whether any and, if any, what steps have been taken to establish a school of Oriental languages within the University of London, as recommended by Lord Reay's Committee?
    Mr. ACLAND: The India Office Committee on the School of Oriental Languages, under the chairmanship of Lord Cromer, submitted an interim Report to the Secretary of State in June last which dealt with the question of site and buildings. Since then negotiations have been proceeding with the London Institution which the Secretary of State hopes will result in the early introduction of a Bill by means of which the school may be housed in the institution buildings and enjoy the benefit of the library. When the matter has progressed rather further the way will be open for Lord Cromer's Committee to present a final Report upon the organisation of the school.

    Home Rule Bill.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prime Minister has received any communication from any official or public bodies in Ireland urging the importance of granting to Ireland the imposition and collection of her Customs under a Home Rule Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that I have received any representations from any responsible bodies on this subject.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prime Minister will consider the advisability of establishing a temporary Customs cordon in Ireland for the purpose of discovering what in reality is the true revenue of that country; and whether, in the absence of such information, he proposes to base the financial clauses of the Home Rule Bill on the figures contained in the annual White Papers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I see no necessity for the measure suggested by the hon. Member; as regards the latter part of the question the financial clauses of the Bill will be based on the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will that information be published?
    Mr. McKENNA: I fancy it will be published at some date, but I am unable to say when.
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it is not fatal to base any Bill on some of the information of the present Government?

    Collisions at Sea (Pilotage).
    Mr. PAGETasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to collisions at sea, having regard to the findings of the Admiralty Court in the recent "Hawke"-"Olympic" case, in which it appeared that when a vessel under charge of a Trinity pilot in compulsory pilotage waters causes a collision her owners are under no legal liability to pay compensation for the damage done, even though the vessel under such pilotage may be solely to blame for the collision?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Pilotage Bill which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced last August contained a provision (Clause 45) dealing with this matter. It is proposed to introduce a Bill containing a similar provision during the present Session.

    Mr. Churchill's Visit to Belfast.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been

    997
    called to a proclamation signed by Lord Londonderry, a lieutenant of a county, inviting the people of Belfast to prevent a public meeting from being held to be addressed by a Minister of the Crown; whether, having regard to the fact that Lord Londonderry is a member of the Privy Councils of Great Britain and Ireland and lieutenant of the county of Down, in whom is vested the nomination of a vice-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenant of that county and the selection of persons for the magisterial bench, and in whom also is vested, as county lieutenant, the nominations for commisisons in the North Down Regiment, offices held at the pleasure of the Crown, the Government intend, in the interests of the preservation of law and order, be take any and, if so, what steps in reference to his retention of those offices or any of them?
    Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member, but I do not think it necessary to take any action with regard to them.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask if ever a question has been asked before by the hon. Member in the interests of the preservation of law and order?
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the loyal people of Ulster hope that Lord Londonderry will take the chair on any opportunities of a similar nature when civil and religious liberties are in danger?
    Mr. MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that twenty-two Members of this House have been imprisoned for less offences than Lord Londonderry's?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have these debates on every question.

    Threatened Coal Strike.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the intimidation and violence which accompanied certain, industrial disputes last year, he will state what steps have been and will be taken in the unfortunate event of a coal strike occurring to ensure the adequate protection of life and property, and to secure the freedom of action of all who may desire to work?
    Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): It would be inexpedient at this moment to
    998
    say more than that the Government are fully alive to the obligations which may be imposed upon them?

    Government Contracts (Departments in Ireland).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn by a resolution from the Dublin Trades Council to an Order from his Department directing that the uniforms now supplied to the Irish Land Commission messengers should be made in England; and whether, in the interest of the Irish taxpayer and the Irish workman, he will see that all Government contracts for public Departments in Ireland will be given out in that country, where the work is to be used and paid for?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, I see no reason to depart at the present time from the usual practice governing such cases.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Am I to understand that the Treasury have taken upon themselves to instruct the contractors in Ireland to send over to England for clothes to be worn by officials in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the Treasury followed the usual practice.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously tell me that the Treasury have not interfered with the Irish Land Commission as to whom they should give contracts to in the interests of an English contracting firm?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is this the result of the principles of Free Trade?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the custom of all public boards in Ireland, including the Board of Works, has been for years past to use Irish manufacture in making all public uniforms?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have nothing to add to my answer. I shall be glad to hear representations.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. NANNETTI: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the late Government, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Balfour) was Leader, that the question was brought before him

    999
    with reference to the making of soldiers' clothes for which an Order had been given to send to London, and that the Government of the day condemned that Order; and will he see that this is condemned in the present case?

    Development Fund (Harbour Grant Applications).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the result of the applications received from St. Andrew's, Anstruther, Pittenweem, and St. Monans for harbour Grants from the Development Fund last year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the Development Commissioners have these applications under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say what their recommendations will be.

    Irish True Revenue (White Papers).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are in possession of information showing the unreliability of the annual White Papers in respect of Irish true revenue; and, if so, whether they will publish the information forthwith for the benefit of the public?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question by the Member for Dublin University on the 27th November last.

    Science and Art Buildings (Dublin).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he was aware that the work at the new Science and Art buildings in Dublin had been stopped, and that in consequence numbers of men had been thrown out of employment; whether the work had been stopped by an alteration in the plans and specifications; and who was responsible for such alterations and stoppage of work?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Work has been stopped in consequence of the completion of the new Royal College of Science buildings. The completion of the original scheme for the erection of new public offices has been deferred in view of the possibility of changes in the requirements of Government Departments in Ireland.

    Warrant Officers (Salutes).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that the officers in the Royal Marines obtaining the new rank of gunnery sergeant-major were entitled to salutes, and that warrant officers in the Royal Marines, although under the same authority and holding the same office were not so entitled; and whether he could see his way to conceding the same privileges to warrant officers in the Royal Marines as were now enjoyed by officers holding the warrant rank of gunnery sergeant-major?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part I cannot add anything to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on Monday last.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that these two ratings are on the same level?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The gunnery sergeant-major is a new rank. A gunner sergeant-major is practically all his time at sea, whereas the other warrant officers in the Marines are on shore.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But they rank the same.

    Destruction of Fishing Nets (Firth of Forth).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that on or about the morning of Tuesday the 20th instant, about £150 worth of fishing nets were destroyed by being run down by six destroyers, in clear weather in the Firth of Forth, dashing at speed through the fishing fleet from Anstruther, Cellardyke, Pittenweem, and St. Monans, one Pittenweem boat losing thirty nets; and whether he would cause prompt inquiry to be held, and take the necessary steps to protect the lives and gear of the fishermen, and to fully compensate the losers if the facts were found to be as stated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A preliminary report which I have received on this occurrence states that a flotilla, seeking shelter in the Firth on the night of the 19th and 20th February, passed through a fishing fleet in thick weather. With regard to the question of compensation, until the full report has been received, and claims have been lodged by the fishermen,

    1001
    I can express no opinion upon the matter. I ought to add that there is no reason to suppose that the navigation of His Majesty's ships was negligent.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the weather was fine, and not thick?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. It was fine subsequently, but when the ships passed through the nets it was thick, and, I understand, there was a heavy sea.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are fourteen miles of seaway in the Forth, and that the boats were within one mile of the shore? Will he give orders that in future more care should be taken?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must wait for the full report of this occurrence. I would repeat, however, that I have no reason to believe that the ships were navigated negligently.

    Public Works (Accommodation for Treatment of Sick Workmen).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to Standing Order 184a of the House of Commons, which imposed upon the promoters of every Bill for the construction of works the duty of providing for the proper housing and treatment of cases of sickness and accident, including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases, amongst the workmen who might be employed upon such works; and whether his Department were prepared to undertake a similar responsibility for works carried out under his Department?
    CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): The Standing Order referred to lays down the decision of the House for the guidance of its Committees. The Admiralty, being a public Department, is under the direction and control of the House itself, and the House would certainly express its displeasure if it were found that the conditions of any labourers executing a contract for which the Admiralty was responsible were injurious to their health or safety, or deficient in reasonable and proper precautions. The facts, however, as my hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree, would have to be proved in each particular case.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Am I to understand that the Admiralty place themselves above the orders of the House and entirely outside the ordinary law with reference to these matters?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not think that that inference can be drawn from the answer I gave.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What other inference can one draw from the answer?

    Board of Trade Estimates (Irish Establishments).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the President of the Board of Trade if he would arrange for the Irish establishments of his Department to be shown separately in the Estimates, in accordance with the practice prevailing in the Revenue Departments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is too late to consider a proposal of this kind in connection with the Estimates for 1912–13.

    Minimum Wage for Colliers (Cost).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked if any estimate had been made as to the amount of money it would cost the mineowners of the United Kingdom to grant the minimum wage asked for by the colliers; and what additional cost per ton would be added to the cost of production if the full demands of the men were granted?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The data necessary for the estimates referred to by my hon. Friend are not available.

    Trade Union and Friendly Societies (Sick Benefits).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he could give the number of members belonging to trade unions which give sick benefits, and the number of persons belonging to friendly societies giving sick benefits?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: According to a special analysis of the financial rules of all trade unions in 1908—registered and unregistered—with a total membership of 2,380,000, there were 950,000 members eligible for sick and accident benefits, including 222,000 who were eligible for industrial accident benefit only. As regards friendly societies, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any additional statement as to the business for this week?
Mr. McKENNA: If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly put a question tomorrow, the Prime Minister will be able to say what the business will be on Thursday. With regard to the other days, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the information.

EDUCATION ACT, 1902 (ALLEGED BREACH).
Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, that the President of the Board of Education has admitted a breach of the Education Act, 1902, which breach it is his duty to restrain, but nevertheless refuses to take any steps in consequence thereof.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): On a point of Order. May I say that the charge against myself is not accurate? I have never made such an admission as that to which the Noble Lord refers.
Lord H. CECIL: The matter is within the recollection of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: My recollection is that the President of the Board of Education said that he had no official knowledge of the matter.
Lord H. CECIL: I asked him whether he had the slightest doubt about it, and he made no answer. At any rate, that is not a matter of order; it is a matter for argument when the Motion is brought forward. I, as a Member of Parliament, from my place in Parliament, allege that he has admitted it, and he has got to disprove it if he can.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord must have rather sounder grounds than that. The President of the Board said that he had no knowledge of the particular circumstance.
Lord H. CECIL: No official knowledge.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord then asked whether he had unofficial or any other knowledge, and to that question the President of the Board gave no reply.
Lord H. CECIL: I think your recollection is mistaken. He said that he had the same information that was at the disposal of myself or any other Member of the House—or some phrase of that kind.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lord must prove that the Minister has official knowledge of some particular act or default before he can found a charge upon it.
Lord H. CECIL: Is it necessary for me to prove more than, first, that it is a definite matter; secondly, that it is an urgent matter; and, thirdly, that it is of public importance? I do not see how the fact, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman answered as I thought he did, affects any of those three points.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is necessary to bring home to the Minister or to the Government the fact that he or it is aware of the particular matter with which the Noble Lord wishes to charge him or it. In my opinion, he has not done so.
Lord H. CECIL: That would be brought home in the course of the Debate.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  DOCKYARD INEQUALITIES.
  On going into Committee on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the inequalities in the Dockyards and in the Navy.—[Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke.]

  INSURANCE ACT.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the administration of the Insurance Act, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the matter of Insurance, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Pike Pease.]

  ARMY WORK.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the conditions under which Army work is done, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. William Thorne.]
  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the question of Poor Law Administration, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Jowett.]
  FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the administration of the Fair-Wages Clause, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]
  AVIATION.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the inadequacy of the provision for Aviation, and to move a Eesolution.—[Mr. Bird.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented:—
BILLS PRESENTED.
  ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION BILL.
  "To provide for the abolition of Vivisection." Presented by Mr. LANSBUBY; supported by Mr. Keir Hardie, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. James Thomas, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Albert Smith. To be read a second time upon Monday, 11th March, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To facilitate the grant to Members of the Constabulary in Scotland of one day's rest off duty in every seven." Presented by Mr. REMNANT; supported by Mr. Clyde, Mr. Mackinder, Sir William Priestley, Sir Henry Dalziel, Major Archer-Shee, and Mr. George Roberts. To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) PENALTIES BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to the penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels." Presented by Mr. MUNBO; supported by Sir Archibald Williamson, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Bryce, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Mr. Duncan Millar, and Captain Waring. To be read a second time upon Friday, 19th April, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

  ASYLUM OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT, PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  "To limit the hours of employment of officers and servants in Asylums and to amend the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909." Presented by Viscount
  1006
  WOLMER; supported by Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Higham, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. William Redmond, Sir David Brynmor Jones, and Sir Reginald Pole-Carew. To be read a second time upon Friday, 19th April, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

  INTESTATES' ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the distribution of estates of intestates in Ireland." Presented by Mr. KEATING; supported by Mr. Clancy. To be read a second time upon Mondey next, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to County Courts." Presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General. To be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1911–12).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  CLASS 2.—HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "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, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
  Mr. FELL: May I ask the Minister in charge of the Vote whether there is included in this sum anything for the payment of Members, or for expenses occasioned by them?
  Mr. REMNANT: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman about the £300 under the head of Police and Miscellaneous Expenses (increase caused by the revised pay of the police and the effect of the weekly day of rest). I take it that the money is solely for the police attached to the Houses of Parliament. It is natural that this should be included here, for these police have been described as being on the

  1007
  sole charge of His Majesty's Treasury. Are these men for whom this £300 is now asked to be denied the one day's rest in seven until the Police Rates Bill has been passed? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill refers only to those who are paid, or partly paid, out of the rates of the Metropolis, whereas these police are paid solely by the Exchequer, and are no charge upon any of the rates of the Metropolis. It would be a considerable relief to these men to know that their one day's rest in seven is not to be affected by the rejection of the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill. I want also to ask the hon. Gentleman concerning the revised pay to the police: Do the Parliamentary police get this 1s. 6d. per day increase on the same lines as the Metropolitan Police? If so, where is it? Is it for that that the £300 is asked? It seems to me that there must be something in addition to the £300. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us some information about this important matter.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I should like to ask about the £2 per day extra for the official reporting of the Debates of the House for each sitting of the House beyond 150. I think the Official Reporters have a very arduous task, and I am only too glad that they should receive adequate remuneration, for their labours. But I want to ask the hon. Gentleman who has settled that the sittings of the House are to be 150? Further, am I to understand that in the opinion of this Government the normal sittings of the House in one Session should be 150? I presume that somebody must have arrived at the figure of 150, and I presume that that figure must have been founded on the idea that that was the proper time for the House of Commons to sit—150 days, that is seven and a half months. If this be so, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates making any reduction in the number of these days; whether it is intended to revert to the ordinary length of Session?
  Mr. BOOTH: We have payment of Members now.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I began the few remarks I am making by saying that in our opinion the Official Reporters should be paid just remuneration for their arduous duties; and I further said that, apparently in the
  1008
  view of the Government, 150 days was the proper time for the House of Commons to sit. The hon. Gentleman opposite talks of the payment of Members. Why should they not get £2 a day extra for every day over 150? If it is understood that 150 days are to be length of the Session, Members, who have quite as hard work to do as reporters, should be paid in addition for overtime. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side will remember this, and will assist me in suggesting to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that somebody besides reporters should be paid for the labours for the Session when they are protracted. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary thoroughly understands the question I put to him. I want to know why are 150 days selected, and I want to know who fixed the 150 days, which is seven and a half months. I think that is an accurate calculation. It is an extremely long time; I want to know whether we are to sit for 150 days this Session? I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions, because he has always distinguished himself by courtesy in answering questions in other posts which he occupied. I have not a word of complaint against the hon. Gentleman. I should like to know if he remembers that when our party was in power and his party in opposition they always inveighed against Supplementary Estimates. They said they were a mistake—showed want of business knowledge and acumen and want of foresight. I wish my powers of expression would enable me to use all the words so eloquently used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to these Supplementary Estimates when my hon. Friends on this side of the House were in power. Has the hon. Gentleman made any calculation or not as to whether it would be necessary to have Supplementary Estimates again at the end of the Session?
  With regard to the question of the payment of the police, my hon. Friend (Mr. Remnant) asked a good many questions, so that I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more on that point; but I want to know what the £940 addition in fees is for. Payment of fees have increased £940 more than what was expected in the original estimate of the amount. To whom were these fees paid? My hon. Friend beside me (Mr. James. Hope) is very learned in these matters, and perhaps he can give us the information. It is a very large sum, and I should like to know very much who pays these

  1009
  fees, and how this estimate was so badly made at the commencement? I hope I have not put too many questions to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to deal gently with him, as this is the first occasion he is dealing with Estimates in his new office, and therefore I have rather limited my questions.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I should like to know whether this increased pay for the police is applicable to all ranks or only to constables; and also whether, in view of the great amount of extra work put upon the police during last Session, any extra allowance has been made for late sittings of the House?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I thank the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) for the kindly tone in which he has spoken of me, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy his thirst for information. This Vote, as I think the hon. Baronet knows, is not a Vote for which the Treasury are strictly responsible. It is a Vote settled by the House of Commons Offices Commission under special Statute, over which Mr. Speaker presides. They settled the number of days after which the extra pay should be calculated, and it was the House of Commons Commission which made that recommendation. The £940 addition in fees is paid by the promoters of private Bills on the regular scale and the extra amount is in part due to the prolonged nature of the Session. As to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) in regard to the increased pay to the police, it is paid to the police of all ranks, and does not include any special Treasury Grant from any Supplementary Estimate. As regards the very pertinent questions put by the hon. Member (Mr. Remnant), the increased amount we are asking is for the House of Commons police, and is for two purposes. Since the 7th August, 1911, the Metropolitan Police are paid at a higher rate, and consequently a higher rate is demanded of us for the Metropolitan Police. The other is for the increased allowance policemen now get owing to the gradual introduction of the weekly rest-day. Hon. Members will be glad to know, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the rest-day is given. I am sure the whole House will welcome the giving of this small extra allowance to the police of the House of Commons on the one hand and to the Official Reporters on the other.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the remuneration given to the Official Reporters, and said it was settled by a Commission over which Mr. Speaker presides. As we are all agreed in this House that Supplementary Estimates are most unsatisfactory, and have always been the object of attack by hon. Members opposite when they were in Opposition, can we not have some information from the hon. Gentleman as to whether the same steps are to be taken in regard to the present Session as to the remuneration of the Official Reporters? The hon. Gentleman, I suppose, does not anticipate that the duration of this Session will be very long, or perhaps he does. At any rate, there is no indication as to the extra remuneration to which the Reporters may lay claim, and will the hon. Gentleman see that some steps should be taken by the Government next year so that if Supplementary Estimates are brought forward the number of days should be larger than 150.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: One part of the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury seems to me to be unsatisfactory, and that is in connection with the Appropriation-in-Aid on the question of fees. The hon. Gentleman's explanation was that the fees were larger because of the length of the Session. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that as these fees are derived from private Bill legislation, and as notice of Private Bill legislation must be given at the very beginning of the Session, the explanation with regard to the length of the Session does not hold good. I have no doubt he has further information to give us upon the point, but I am afraid his present explanation is far from satisfactory.
  Viscount WOLMER: There was one point upon which the Secretary to the Treasury did not touch, and that was as to the excessive hours of duty imposed upon the police during the long sittings. I asked a question of the Secretary to the Treasury last Session as to what remuneration was paid to the police on the occasion of these long all-night sittings.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question should be raised on the main Estimate, not upon the Supplementary Estimate.
  Viscount WOLMER: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the extra expenses for the police was allowed for in this Supplementary Estimate, and are we

  1011
  to understand that this item for the police has nothing to do with the extra sittings of the House?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said any extra allowance given to the police did not come in this Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: There is one question which I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, and I am afraid in doing so I display my own ignorance. I want to ask him about this Commission to which he refers. Is it a permanent Commission? I remember some years ago, when unfortunately I was not a Member of the House, I read of considerable dissatisfaction which was felt at the reporting of our proceedings. Some body was appointed to go into the question. That body is in existence to-day, and it meets from time to time to review any question that may arise in connection with our reporting. I think the hon. Gentleman spoke of a Commission or a Committee. Is this body reappointed every Parliament or every Session? I understand that body is responsible for this extra item. They asked for a larger sum of money for extra work for the Official Reporters. On the whole I entirely approve of that, but at the same time, of course, we want to get value for the extra money. I think there has been a very great improvement in the reporting of our Debates under the very able and assiduous supervision of Mr. Dods Shaw.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter also for the main Estimate, but not for Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was only pointing out that as more money was asked for we might have some guarantee that greater care was exercised. It is not a matter I want to press, as I admit there has been great improvement. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, with regard to this Committee or Commission, what its constitution is, how often it sits, also what is the basis of payment taken to be? It seems to be rather an anomaly that when the Session is unusually prolonged there should be an extra Estimate required for the remuneration. I never heard of extra remuneration for the long hours caused by all-night sittings, and we must look forward to many all-night sittings in this Session.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the whole
  1012
  subject is outside the question of this Supplementary Vote. It should be raised upon the main Estimate of the year. The reference to the Commission made by the Secretary for the Treasury was only permissible to explain how the 150 days is arrived at.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: When was this Commission appointed?
  Lord HUGH CECILCan the hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the Commission? I understand that this Estimate is due to decisions taken by a Commission over which Mr. Speaker presides. I suppose it is a Commission appointed in obedience to a Vote of this House or under an Act of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us who serve on this Commission in order that we may know who is responsible for these Estimates?
  The CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order on this occasion, because it would raise the whole question of the power of that Commission, which is distinctly a matter for the main Vote of the year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If we cannot discuss the policy of the Commission generally, I think we might be told their names, because that would be useful to us in making preparations later on.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord can discover the names of the Commission in the usual way from the ordinary sources of information.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen will say what sources of information are available?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Noble Lord will put down a question I shall be glad to answer it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My experience in regard to the putting down of questions is unhappy.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I remember, on a similar occasion, the wrong answer was given to my question, and I am inclined to think the Secretary to the Treasury has read the wrong answer this time. The increase in the fees to which reference has been made cannot be due to the length of the Session because all Private Bills come under certain Standing Orders and comply with them before November, 1910, for the Session which is just over. Under these circumstances, how on earth can they have

  1013
  increased because the Session was a long one? I think the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake, and the answer he has given is a wrong one. I shall be glad if he will answer my question, and state whether or not I am correct in saying that the fees are payable for the last year in November, 1910?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: With regard to 150 days fixed with reference to the reporters, it is certain that under modem conditions it is rather too low. I wish to ask a question about the revised payment of the police. I take it that this is a general revision, or is it some special allowance granted for attendance at this House?
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I wish to know if any provision has been made of any kind in regard to all-night sittings—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order on this Vote.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: The point I wish to put is whether on an occasion when the House has had an all night sitting, is any provision made for meals—
  The CHAIRMAN: Probably the hon. Member was not present a moment ago when I dealt with this question. The point he has raised is a matter to be dealt with on the main Vote, and it cannot be dealt with on a Supplementary Vote.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answer my question?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I shall not be in order. If I am in order I may say that the Commission settled this increase in the payment to the reporters last December when the 150 days was fixed. With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, perhaps I did not explain what I meant clearly by the length of the Session. I should have said the anticipated length of the Session. There was an uncertain anticipation last Session because there were more contentious Bills dealt with, and that makes it more expensive as regards fees. The revised pay of the police merely consists of the amount we have to pay for the police, and this cost is more because they have been given more pay all over the Metropolitan area.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Is this increase sanctioned by the Commission done under an Act of Parliament or under the Standing Orders of the House?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Under an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. REMNANT: What will be the increase in the course of this year?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot tell at the moment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not wish to convict the hon. Gentleman of error, but I think I have done so. I understand that the promoters of Private Bills anticipated that the Session would be a lengthy one and they brought in a large number of Bills at the proper time. That is the revised answer of the hon. Gentleman. May I point out that business would be expedited if the hon. Gentleman would give the right answer the first time.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,400, 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, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Before we enter upon a discussion of these items, I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether it is in order for us on this Vote to discuss the policy of the Development Fund. It may be held that it is the policy of the Development Fund and not that of the Board of Agriculture, because the Grant comes from them. I think it is desirable that we should have this point made quite clear.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Am I not right in thinking that this is a new Vote, and therefore the whole policy can be discussed?
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that this Vote came up in exactly the same form in the month of February last year. The rule is that the policy of the Development Commissioners, in allocating these Grants, cannot be discussed on the various Votes to which payment is made, and that discussion must be reserved for the Vote dealing with the Development Commission. The question whether it is a new Vote appearing for the first time does not affect that rule?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that you ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the general policy of the Development Commissioners cannot be discussed. Am I not right in thinking that this particular item of agricultural research can be discussed—that is to say, the question can be discussed as to whether it is advisable to apply £11,000 or any other sum of money to that particular purpose?
  The CHAIRMAN: What is open for discussion is the method by which the Department proposes to spend this sum within the terms of the allocation.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to refer to one or two of the items which appear under the Supplementary Vote for the Board of Agriculture. I find it exceedingly difficult to do so, however, in the absence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whom we hope to see here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: He will be here in a moment, and I will make a note of what the hon. Member says.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am sure everyone will give the right hon. Gentleman a a hearty welcome, for he has left an important Department in order to apply his great abilities to another Department in which there is immense scope for enterprise if he proceeds on sound lines in the interest of all branches of the agricultural community. The first item to which I desire to refer is the improvement of light horse breeding. I think the very small sum put against this particular item is only intended to afford an opportunity for discussion.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I ask if we shall be allowed to go back to the previous portion of this Vote if a Motion for reduction is made?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand that the hon. Member for the Wilton Division is moving a reduction. If he does, of course it would cut out the other items.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not intend to move a reduction, but I shall refer to the earlier items in the vote. I assume that the small sum set down has been put down for the purpose of welcoming a discussion on the policy adopted by the Board, and I wish to make a few remarks on that subject. It is to my mind very difficult to defend this item of £40,000 a year which the Development Commissioners have
  1016
  placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture unless there is some really national benefit to be derived from it. It is common knowledge that the War Office are acting in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture in this matter, and it is also common knowledge that we are certainly deficient in the right type of horse best suited for modern military requirements. I think one is justified in asking whether this money is being expended to the national advantage. I am only acquainted in this respect with what is going on in the county in which I live, where I find that, all told, thirteen mares have been purchased with the money provided for the purpose last year, and these have been placed with suitable farmers. It was too late when the scheme was matured by the Board to enable the mares to be served last season unless they were going to drop their foals at a very late period of the year. In any case, thirteen mares only are being provided for the somewhat large county of Gloucestershire. If that average prevails all over the country, the number of foals which will be available for this national purpose will be extremely small. There is another objection to this scheme as it exists at present. The Grants are being made to the various counties irrespective of the suitability of those counties for the purpose of horse breeding. We all know that certain parts of England are much better suited in the way of both soil and climate for the raising of strong and sound horses than other parts of the country. In my own county, for instance, the farmers in the vale of the Severn have not received any of these mares, because it is considered that the land is unsuitable, whereas the farmers living on the hills have received the mares in preference. That is strong evidence that if we want to get full value for the money it would be much wiser policy on the part of the Board to choose certain districts eminently suited, and to select five or six farms for this express purpose, instead of dealing out mares through every county. They could then buy their two and three-year-olds, suitable young horses, break them, and provide them, when the time comes, to the War Office as suitable for remount purposes. They would be able to raise a very much larger number of suitable horses than under the existing scheme, they would be able to give a greater benefit to the farmers, who would be glad to receive £20 or £25 for sound two-year-

  1017
  olds, and they would be able to choose to a greater extent than at present suitable localities for carrying on this nationally important work.
  As regards the King's Premium stallions, there is one very useful although somewhat unpleasantly significant result which has come from the Board's policy in this matter. I believe the right hon. Gentleman makes it a condition precedent to nomination for any of these King's Premium stallions that the mare shall be absolutely sound. It is a sad fact, and rather an indication of the drain of good horses from this country to other countries, that in the county I know best the majority of owners of mares who asked for nomination possessed stock which, on examination by the veterinary officer, was found to be subject more or less to hereditary unsoundness. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain that condition and insist upon every county committee making it a condition of such service, because it may do something to prevent stock which is subject to hereditary unsoundness being bred at the national expense. I want to turn to two other groups of items in this Supplementary Estimate. I group them for a purpose which I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate when I mention it. There is an Estimate for salaries, wages, and allowances for the staff required under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and in connection with the Diseases of Animals, and a much larger item in connection with the same work described as "travelling and removal expenses." Those two items together come to £4,000. Lower down we find an item, "assistance in the organisation of co-operation in agriculture," £3,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: The real question of policy, as I said a few moments ago in connection with another Vote, must come on the main Vote. I say this for the guidance of other hon. Members of the Committee. It appears to me the only matter arising on Sub-Head I. is whether the sum should be paid through county committees instead of direct from the Treasury. Therefore, the question of policy does not arise further on the Supplementary Vote.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, although I may find it very difficult. I want to point out in connection with the work of the Board with regard to the provision of small
  1018
  holdings that there is an ever-increasing national bill, and on the other side we find it has become necessary, and I fully welcome it, to provide a large sum in order to encourage co-operation. I have from the outset been a sympathiser with the principle of small holdings, but extremely apprehensive as to the methods adopted by the Board, because it seems to me the Board, as evidenced by the recent appointments of new Commissioners, realise they have to face economic conditions and economic tendencies with something in the nature of pressure in order to carry out the alleged objects of the Small Holdings Acts. I have always held that in this matter of small holdings they have put the cart before the horse. If they had prepared the ground by a proper scheme of practical agricultural education on the one side and co-operation on the other, a large amount of money which has now to be allocated to putting pressure upon the county councils to resist what I call a natural economic tendency would not be necessary. In other words, the Board has, to some extent, to modify economic conditions if they want to bring into existence a large number of artificially created small holdings which are going to be an economic success. The first way in which they can modify those conditions—and it has been done with enormous success on the Continent—is to provide a network of co-operative societies throughout the country, or to encourage their formation, and also to provide some system of meeting the financial difficulties of small holders by co-operative credit associations, which will enable the small holder to have money upon easy terms. Although somewhat late in the day, I welcome most heartily this sum of £3,000 which is being devoted to agricultural co-operation; and I only hope it is the first instalment of a very much larger sum which will be devoted to the same purpose. There was an inclination a year ago on the part of the Board and its advisers to pay this money through the county councils. I think the Board are prepared now to recognise that the county councils for many reasons, but mainly because there are conflicting interests to be found upon such councils, would not have been proper bodies to carry on this work with enthusiasm and energy. The fact that the Agricultural Organisation Society has been chosen for this purpose has been welcomed by everyone acquainted with the excellent work carried on by that association for many years past, and in

  1019
  desiring now the reorganisation of that organisation and in endeavouring to speed up the work which it is doing. I for one, as a member of the committee of that organisation, am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman all possible support.
  I want to turn to another group. I prefer to group these subjects, because I am suggesting that expenditure which is found under one bead would not be necessary if a larger expenditure had been made under another. I desire in the same way to group the headings of Agricultural Research and Diseases of Animals, the additional expenses in connection with which are to be found partly under sub-head (a) and partly under sub-head (g). I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must welcome the fact that farmers and agriculturists generally have shown themselves sufficiently alive to their own interests and to the future development of agriculture in the country to put research at the head of their demands for Grants under the Development Fund. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has not in the past shown itself always favourable to the development of science in connection with agricultural practice. Since the appointment of Mr. Middleton a different atmosphere has prevailed at the Board in this respect, but the Board has complained in days gone by that that enthusiasm for expenditure on science has not been reflected in the counsels of agricultural societies. I do not think you can say that now, and when we find agricultural organisations generally leave the question of Grants out of the Development Fund with every confidence to the Board, asking them to apply them to purposes which they are prepared to recommend, I think it is only fair they should be acquainted with the objects towards which the Board desire to apply the money, and that they should be acquainted with the particular institutions or societies amongst which the money is to be distributed. There appears to be a certain reticence on the part of the Board in disclosing to the various organisations their exact intentions. A question was asked the other day as to what purposes and institutions the right hon. Gentleman proposed to allocate the sum of £30,000 which he has obtained from the Commissioners for the purposes of research. Many of us are very much interested to know what is to be done with this money, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us the information this afternoon, it will afford
  1020
  some satisfaction to the farmers and others who have so loyally and trustfully left this matter in the hands of the Board.
  It is only fair to point out that we in this country are even now far behind other countries in the expenditure of public money upon matters connected with agricultural research in all its departments, and, when we have serious out-breaks of highly contagious diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, swine fever, and other similar diseases—particularly those which also affect human beings, as anthrax and tuberculosis do—we are entitled to ask whether, if a larger amount were spent upon research into the nature and source of these diseases, the large sums which the public are paying at present through taxes and through rates by way of compensation where animals have to be slaughtered wholesale, might not be to a large extent saved. A Departmental Committee recently reported upon swine fever, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it transpired in the course of the evidence taken by that Committee that the experts themselves had very little precise scientific knowledge of this disease. In fact, just to give an illustration, the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are insisting upon twenty-eight days as the period for isolation in connection with this disease, but his own expert advisers—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this is going a good deal too wide. This is a Supplementary Estimate, and this amount of money has been granted to the Board of Agriculture for a specific purpose. The only matter that can be discussed is how this money is proposed to be spent within the limit of the terms of the Grant made by the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: My difficulty in dealing with that is that the Board, up to date, has been extremely secretive on the subject, and I am unable to criticise what might be the distribution of the fund, because up till now the President has not vouchsafed to us the exact purposes to which it is to be applied.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can elucidate that by putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him to define how the money is to be spent.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: While I am prepared to adopt the Chairman's suggested method of dealing with the matter I must

  1021
  say it makes it difficult to discuss the various possible objects to which the right hon. Gentleman may devote the money from the point of view which some of us would like to do. But putting it in the form of an interrogatory, may I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to allocate any part of the fund, or whether he proposes to obtain further funds, for the purpose of conducting researches into the nature and means of conveyance of such diseases as swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, and tuberculosis. That is my first question. In that connection I will only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the evidence taken before Departmental Committees of the Board of Agriculture shows that the bulk of work in this connection is being done by Continental countries and not by ourselves. I should also like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply any part of this money to research into what is known as the Isle of Wight bee disease, a disease which ravaged many parts of the country last winter and last spring, and the effects of which were only partially saved us by the exceptionally fine summer season.
  I also desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is devoting any part of this Grant, and, if so, how much, to the experimental station at Rothamstead where work, unparelleled in the civilised world, has been carried on since Sir John Bennett Lawes started it many years ago, with regard to manures as applied to various crops. I ask the same question with regard to the department of agriculture of Cambridge University, where, as many hon. Gentlemen are aware, most magnificent work has been done, largely through the efforts of Professor Biffen, during the last ten years, in connection with new types of wheat which would have a higher value to the baker and the country, and, therefore, command higher prices if raised by our farmers. I should also like to ask the same with regard to the work of Professor Priestley, of Bristol University, in connection with the electrification of crops, a subject regarded with some little amusement and, indeed, ridicule, when first mentioned a few years ago, but now admitted to be a most useful work, and likely to be applied with economic value in the early future.
  There is one general question I should like to put the right hon. Gentleman in regard to these grants, and it is: Is it the
  1022
  policy of his Department to make large block Grants to various well-equipped institutions, in order to carry out work of a specific kind, rather than to make small sporadic Grants to county councils and other institutions not so well equipped to carry on the same work with, as I venture to think, nothing like the same valuable result. It seems to me there is likely to be a very great waste of public money unless the Board is prepared to concentrate on those institutions, which are properly equipped for the purpose, a sufficient Grant to enable them to conduct their work satisfactorily. On the other hand, if various small bodies and institutions have small Grants which cannot enable them to employ persons of sufficient knowledge and experience, those Grants will be very largely wasted, as the work they carry on will be of very little public benefit. I am bound to say it is extremely difficult under the ruling of the Chair to criticise the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, as I should like to do, but in any case I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with these Grants from the Development Fund, whether he is prepared, as time goes on, to take the agricultural community into his full confidence in the matter, and, when he receives a large block Grant from the Development Commissioners, he will acquaint the House and the farmers throughout the country with the express purposes to Which he proposes to apply it.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I want to ask about the additional £2,500 required under Sub-head A for the administration and work of the Small Holdings Allotment Act. I should like to inquire how much of this money is being used for the six additional Small Holdings Commissioners appointed last year? I want to ascertain whether the country is getting sufficient value for this money. I will take it that this sum is being used for the payment of these additional Commissioners. I want to know how much is actually being paid and whether this covers the whole of their expenses for the past year. When they were appointed the then Secretary of the Board of Agriculture was asked what would be the total additional cost of the Board in consequence of the appointment of these Commissioners, including the outside assistants and clerical staff. They were appointed about the 15th May last. The answer was that the total additional cost for salaries would be £3,600. Six months

  1023
  after the appointment we have a Supplementary Estimate for £2,500. Can we have a definite pledge that the £3,600 will not be exceeded? Then I come to the question of what these Commissioners have done? The six additional Commissioners were appointed in order to speed up the work of the Small Holdings Act. We were told that land was not being provided sufficiently rapidly by the county councils, and that two Commissioners could not do the work. Six additional ones were stated to be necessary, and I think here I shall be in order in remarking that if hon. Members opposite want an excellent case of "jobbery" the appointment of these Commissioners affords an excellent example. Two no doubt excellent Gentlemen—I know nothing against them—were appointed. But I see no reason why they were appointed without any examination at all except it be that one of them sat on the benches opposite as a supporter of the Government, and the other was a Radical candidate at the time he was appointed. That, I suggest, is an admirable illustration of the jobbery which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of suggesting occurs among their political opponents and of denying as applicable to their own side.
  I had the curiosity to put to the right hon. Gentleman to-day a question as to what additional amount of land had been provided as a result of the efforts of these six additional Commissioners. You must remember two Commissioners had to do the work up till the middle of May. The information is given me in regard to six months periods, and the answer shows that up to the 30th June, 1909, the county councils had provided 19,791 acres, and in the six months ending December in the same year 18,102 acres. It must be remembered that most land is obtainable in the December six months, because leases expire generally at Michaelmas, and it is easier for landlords to let or sell land for small holdings. In the six months ending June, 1910, the number of acres secured was 10,730, while up to the 31st December, 1910, the total was 16,093. Two Commissioners in the six months ending December, 1909, provided 18,100 acres, and in the six months ending December, 1910, 16,093 acres, while eight Commissioners, in the corresponding six months in 1911, provided 19,615. The six additional Commissioners, who each received £800 a year, with permanent jobs,
  1024
  as a result of their labours, succeeded in finding only 3,600 acres more than in the year 1910, and 1,500 more than in the year 1909. I want to ask whether we are getting sufficient value for this increased expenditure. Is it not a clear case of appointing absolutely unnecessary officials—a policy almost always most strenuously objected to by this House? Then I asked further about the compulsory order made by county councils, my idea being that if the Commissioners had not been able to buy a large number of additional acres they might have been able to induce the county councils to provide an additional number by way of compulsory order. What do I find? That up to the end of December, 1909, 9,750 acres were provided for by means of compulsory orders, and up to the end of December, 1910, the number was 2,033. That was the work of two Commissioners only, but in 1911, with six additional Commissioners, only 1,032 acres were thus provided, so that, with the additional Commissioners, no extra acres appear to have been provided in this way. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how it is that these men, if they sufficiently employed their time, only succeeded in providing 3,600 more acres for small holdings, while by means of compulsory order they got a far less quantity of land than was secured by two Commissioners? Seeing that something like three-quarters of the original demand for land has been satisfied, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this money which we are voting to-day will be efficiently and adequately spent for the good of the community? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a satisfactory answer on this point, I shall ask leave later on to move the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to this question.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The ruling which has been given from the Chair has rendered it rather difficult for us to discuss some of the subjects which come under the Supplementary Vote, and it emphasises the argument brought forward by one of my hon. Friends when the Development Fund was first introduced, that it would be very difficult to discuss in detail the separate matters which we desire to bring forward. I should like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman some facts with one or two of the sub-heads which appear on the Paper. I should like to ascertain what is being done in connection with this Grant

  1025
  for the bee disease. That is one of those cases where we have a very clear proof that early action of a decided character would have been very efficacious. I remember that the case of the American gooseberry mildew, with which my name was associated, met with a good deal of derision in this House when I first brought it forward, but if anybody reads the Intelligence Report of the Board this year they will see how serious the matter has become in the country, and how it could have been dealt with by earlier action. I should like to know whether, in connection with the block Grants of this character the Government are devoting definite money to definite research upon the various questions that have arisen, so that they may be dealt with thoroughly and effectually. It should not be dealt with in the shape of giving £1,000 to this college, or £1,000 to that college to be spent in general research. We really want these matters dealt with by themselves, and now that this large sum of money has come into the possession of the Department, it should exercise its right in allocating it for definite purposes. At the same time I hope that the Government will follow the practice of strengthening very much their own Research Department, so that they may be effectual judges of what is being done in the country in connection with research. The matter arose when a deputation went the other day to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with fruit. He promised a Grant to a certain institution I am interested in—the South-Eastern Agricultural College. That I gather was giving a block Grant for general research to that institution, which I am very glad of, because they cannot have too much money to spend, and it is a very good institution. Those of us who went there on that occasion did so with a special desire to obtain from the Government a promise that they would give money for the encouragement of the fruit industry itself and to deal with the pests which are visiting that, industry with great severity. We want a little more information as to the manner in which the Government are going to make use of these large sums of money which have been granted to them.
  I should like to ask, in connection with the sum for Research Scholarships, including expenses of selection, what policy exactly the Government intends to pursue? They will be very valuable if properly given, but I confess I am not aware of the
  1026
  exact policy the Government are pursuing in that matter. In reference to Sub-head G, this is practically the whole Vote for the money expended in connection with the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We are justified in asking for information on this subject. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that he has only lately come into the position of President of the Board of Agriculture, he cannot take this opportunity of stating his policy in reference to the question of foot-and-mouth disease? The country would welcome a few words from him saying that he is very determined in his official character that he will do nothing which will endanger in any way our flocks and herds. We see what an enormous sum of money has been spent in stamping out detached outbreaks, and we see what enormous expense would be incurred if further outbreaks occurred. It would be a good opportunity for him to give a decided statement that he, at all events, is not going to slacken in any way any restriction which helps to keep this fell disease from our Islands. I know very great pressure is being brought to bear on him, and that is why I should like a definite statement from him at the earliest opportunity. I observe that a certain amount of the money under the heads "A" and "B" has been spent in connection with the diseases of animals, and I desire to ask whether in connection with these Grants for research it is not time that the Government at once put in hand definite research in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. When we are spending these large sums of money we ought not to be content with what has already been put before the Departmental Committee, namely, that the Government are not yet at all assured of their ground in connection with this disease. The sooner they remedy this the better, and I ask that, having got this considerable sum of money to be spent in connection with research, some of it should be spent for this special purpose.
  Mr. MORRELL: I had certainly not intended to take any part in this Debate, but I feel that the remarks made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Randolf Baker) ought not to go without some notice. As I understood him, the hon. Baronet was making random charges of jobbery against the Government for having appointed these six additional Commissioners in connection with small holdings.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They were specific charges.
  Mr. MORRELL: In my opinion the charges were of a remarkably random character. I understood the hon. Baronet objected to the fact that some of these Commissioners had sat in this House and had supported the Government; and, secondly, that the amount of land that had been got through them did not justify their appointment. I should like to remind the hon. Baronet of the position last year, when these six additional Commissioners were appointed. At that time there were no less than 8,000 approved applicants, many of whom had been waiting for two or three years without having had even an offer of land. They had sent in their applications to the county councils immediately after the Act was passed, and they had since then heard nothing. In a few counties excellent work had been done; in other counties a certain amount of work had been done, but in at least half of the counties of England it is true to say that the Act was fast becoming a dead letter, and that the county councils had altogether failed at that time to carry out the work. I am making no complaint against the county councils in the matter. I do not complain, because it is not the business of this House to complain. We put upon them duties which no doubt they did their best to fulfil, but which they failed to fulfil. It seems to me there never was a clearer case for assisting the administration of an Act of Parliament than the President of the Board of Agriculture had at the beginning of last year. What were the duties which these new Commissioners had to perform? They had not merely to inquire into the cases of 8,000 men, who were approved by the county council, but who at that time had not been satisfied; they had also to overlook all the schemes that were being brought before the Commissioners, they had to look into the prices that were given for the land, and the terms on which it was proposed to put the men on the land. I say that considering the vast extent of work that was being done, or that ought to have been done, and that was waiting to be done under the Small Holdings Act, it was physically impossible for the two Commissioners at the Board of Agriculture, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Baines, to do the work satisfactorily or completely. The fact that all these men had been waiting, some of them for two or three years, showed that it was necessary that the Board of Agriculture should take action and should make inquiries, and the only way to do that was to appoint Commissioners
  1028
  who resided in the district and who would be able to make personal inquiries amongst the applicants themselves and from the county councils as to the reason why the applications had not been satisfied.
  Sir R. BAKER: My point was that the two Commissioners had actually done as much in certain periods as the eight Commissioners had done in corresponding periods. In the six months ending 30th June, 1909, two Commissioners actually saw to the acquiring of 19,791 acres of land, and during the last six months, during which there were eight Commissioners instead of two, the actual number of acres acquired was 19,615, or 176 acres less than was actually acquired by the two Commissioners.
  Mr. MORRELL: I will deal with that point, which is a perfectly simple point to answer.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That eight had done less than two?
  Mr. MORRELL: And the point is, that of the work that has been done, if the hon. Baronet will inquire, I think he will find that the greater part of the land that has been actually acquired has been acquired by one or two counties. If you eliminate the county councils of Cambridge, Norfolk, Gloucester, and Somerset you will find that little other work has been done at all. We have never denied that certain county councils have done extraordinary good work under this Act, but we have to deal with the counties where little or no work has been done. The hon. Baronet is putting to the credit of the two Commissioners all the acres that have been acquired in the last six months. He is really attributing to them all the work done by the county councils who had carried out their work satisfactorily. The difficulty was to deal with cases where the work had not been done satisfactorily, and it was necessary that extra assistance should be given.
  An HON. MEMBER: What were the other counties?
  Mr. MORRELL: I have not the figures with me, but if anyone will inquire they will find counties like Sussex, Surrey, Kent, the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire where little or no work had been done, although there were hundreds of approved applicants waiting for the land.
  Mr. S. WILSON: Suitable land?
  Mr. MORRELL: Yes, hundreds were waiting for suitable land all over the country. The hon. Baronet says that because the Commissioners have not already got more acres therefore their appointment is not justified. They were appointed last July.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: 14th May.
  Mr. MORRELL: They actually began work last July. They have had about six months. During that time they have had to make inquiries amongst 8,000 men, that was 1,000 each, and that alone had to take some time. Then they had to survey the ground and interview the county councils.
  Mr. STANIER: Have you not got a map of the country?
  Mr. MORRELL: They had to interview the county councils concerned. Very often one Commissioner would have to interview the committees of these different county councils, and some of these county councils only meet once a month. That alone would take an immense amount of time. I protest altogether against the assumption, which apparently is being made opposite, that the only test of the success of this Act is the actual amount of acres which may be got upon any terms whatever. I think it much more important that the applicants should be put upon the land upon fair and satisfactory terms. The important thing is that the Commissioners and the county council between them should select good men and put them upon good land. That is what these Commissioners now are endeavouring to do, to get personal contact between the Commissioners and the applicant, which was quite impossible when Mr. Cheney and Mr. Baines had the whole administration of the Act between them.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: It is not the duty of these Commissioners, and it never has been, to select the applicants. The hon. Member does not understand his own Act. That is the duty of the county council. It has nothing to do with the Commissioners. They have only to see whether the scheme complies with certain regulations which are issued by the Board of Agriculture. It is not their business for a moment to select or to see the applicants.
  Mr. MORRELL: The hon. Baronet should really take the trouble to read the Act of Parliament. It is the duty of the
  1030
  Commissioners to ascertain what is the demand for land, and what would be the demand for land if suitable land were available. For that purpose it is obviously the duty of the Commissioners to see whether the demand for land is a satisfactory demand or not—that is, to interview the men. Not only have they to ascertain the demand, but to advise the Board to take action where the county council is in default. How can the Commissioners possibly be in a position to advise the Board of Agriculture to take action if they do not know whether it is a satisfactory demand or not? The hon. Baronet should take the trouble to inform himself. Then he said he objected to the personnel of these Commissioners, because one of them had been a Member of the House and one a candidate. I should like to ask to whom he was referring. I should like him to make more specific charges against the Commissioners.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I make no charge against the Commissioners. They are most excellent and admirable gentlemen, but would they have been appointed, rather than the dozens of other applicants, if it had not been for the fact that they had both spent a large portion of their time and money in supporting the Radical party?
  Mr. MORRELL: What the hon. Member has to show, and what he cannot show, is that these men are not the most suitable men who could be found for the posts in question. Let me take one who supported the Radical party—Mr. Fordham. He is one who is objected to by the hon. Baronet.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: No, not at all.
  Mr. MORRELL: Very well, the hon. Baronet does not object. We cannot go through them all, but I give that as an instance. Everyone who has studied the administration of the Small Holdings Act knows that there is no county council which has done better work than the Cambridgeshire County Council. They have tenants who are well satisfied, they have an immense amount of land and they are administering it in the best possible way, under the most economic circumstances, and the credit of that is due to Mr. Fordham, who is one of the Commissioners whom, we are told, it was jobbery to appoint.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I did not mention his name at all.
  Mr. MORRELL: The hon. Baronet made a general, rambling charge of jobbery.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Indeed, I did not. I said two of these Commissioners happened to be members of the Radical party. They might have other excellent qualifications, but I suggest that there is no reason why they should have been appointed more than hundreds of other equally well-qualified men—a large number of land agents applied—if it had not been for the fact that they have been candidates and supported the Radical party.
  Mr. MORRELL: It is very easy to say there are other suitable men who might be appointed, but what the hon. Baronet has to show before he can prove jobbery in this way is that these were unsuitable men for the job. You may take these six men, one by one, and you will not find any one of them who is not perfectly competent to administer the Act. If you want a good instance, you could not find two better men than Mr. Fordham and Mr. F. M. Rogers, against both of whom the charge could be brought that they were originally interested in politics on the Liberal side. They are men who are highly respected in their districts and have done an immense lot of work and have a great knowledge of agriculture, and it is rather a poor thing on the part of the party opposite to make these charges in this general way without being able to substantiate them. I have inquired very carefully into the work that is being done by these men, and it is very unfair that these charges should be made against men who are working extremely hard to see that the Act is being administered in a way which will be satisfactory to the applicants who have been shut out of the land and have been waiting to get the land which they require.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: The hon. Gentleman has devoted a good deal of time to trying to refute the arguments of the hon. Baronet, and he tried to show that the six extra Commissioners have justified their appointment by the additional work they have done under the Small Holdings Act. I cannot see that the hon. Member has been able to show the House any additional work which has been done owing to their appointment. He has not said a single word to show that the applicants for small holdings are any better off or that the operation of the Small Holdings Act has been any further advanced. Therefore I think the hon. Baronet was perfectly justified, so far as the refutation
  1032
  of the hon. Member is concerned, in asserting that those appointments have not been justified by the result. The hon. Member went out of his way to make certain assertions as to the work of different counties in connection with the Small Holdings Act. One county he mentioned I should like to give a little information about in the matter of geography. I do not know what he is talking about when he refers to the North-East Riding of Yorkshire. If he could tell us where that is it might be easier for us to deal with his argument.
  Mr. MORRELL: The East Riding, I said.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Then it is untrue.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: The hon. Member's statement was certainly not true of the county council of the East Riding, and there is no North-East Riding that I am aware of, and certainly no North-East Riding County Council. But there is another county of which he spoke. The first instance he gave of a county which has failed to do its work was that of Sussex. Excellent work on the lines pointed out by the Small Holdings Act has been done by the county council of Sussex and many other counties which he mentioned by securing that applicants for small holdings should be met by landowners; and although it is true that the small holdings set up in that way do not come separately in the list of those under the Act, still they achieve the same purpose. Some county councils and many impartial people think they achieve the purpose with a better chance of success for the small holders than the methods which have been adopted, I believe, in Cambridgeshire and in other counties. What I am speaking of now is within my personal knowledge, because I have myself been approached by the county council of East Sussex on this matter, and was able to meet their suggestion by creating a number of small holdings for their applicants on my own estate; but they got no credit for that, because they are not small holdings under the Small Holdings Act. The small holders are now my direct tenants, but still the work has been done, and I think probably the small holders will have quite as good a chance of success as they would have if they were tenants under the county council itself.
  I am anxious to ask three or four questions with reference to other matters arising under this Vote, particularly matters

  1033
  touching the diseases of animals. In the first place, under the note at the bottom of page 4 a rather curious arrangement is referred to, under which the payments for swine fever and other diseases of animals are made through what is well known as the pleuro-pneumonia account, although fortunately there is no pneumonia. In accordance with this method which is now in practice, it is quite impossible to discover what is the real cost of administration for any particular disease, even the diseases which give the country most trouble and are most important, such as swine fever. The Departmental Committee on Swine Fever, of which I am Chairman, tried in vain, although the Board placed every possible information at our disposal, to discover what the real cost of swine fever administration was, and efforts on the same lines were made by the Public Accounts Committee with a like result. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it might not be possible to so arrange these accounts that instead of everything being lumped together in an account which, after all, is paradoxically named, which appears to deal with pleuro-pneumonia while no pleuro-pneumonia exists, it might be clearly shown what the cost of administration in respect of the different diseases is. I do not wish to suggest that it is a matter of grave urgency, but it would be a matter of great convenience, particularly to the committees which are so frequently set up now considering questions affecting specific diseases of animals which come under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the temporary staff for swine fever business is the ordinary staff of the Board of Agriculture temporarily on swine fever business, or whether it refers to the ad hoc research work which is being carried out at the request of the Committee of which I am chairman? Further, I should like to ask whether any of this additional expenditure in connection with diseases of animals has any reference to investigation and inquiry into this disease which has suddenly come to the front, described as "Johnes disease"? I am not going to worry the right hon. Gentleman on this question, but I may say it would be a great relief to many of those who are interested in agriculture, and many of the owners of flocks and herds, if they realised that the Board of Agriculture are really taking up the matter, as personally I believe they are. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ashford
  1034
  Division (Mr. L. Hardy) called attention to the item under Sub-head G. Practically the whole cost of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is dealt with under that item, and therefore a rather wider scope for discussion is possible as to the policy affecting that disease. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to give an answer to a question put to him from time to time bearing on this matter, namely, whether the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington have changed their policy in this matter, or whether they still take up the position that they will not remove the embargo on pedigree stock until a satisfactory solution has been found as to the cause of the outbreak in this country? I have in my hand a letter from the Bureau of Animal Industry addressed to a stock owner in this country in which they definitely make that statement in regard to the policy of the Government at Washington. It is very important that our stock holders should know whether that policy still prevails under which animals were admitted into the United States after freedom from outbreak, or whether they are going to keep on the embargo until we discover the cause of outbreaks in this country and see our way to deal with them satisfactorily.
  On the same subject I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state definitely that he does not propose in any way to relax the present Regulations as to the importation of hay, straw, and fodder into this country from other countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent? He will remember that a short time ago he received a communication from the Association of Horse Owners on the subject, and that great alarm was caused to the farmers and stock owners of this country owing to an incorrect report appearing in the Press. On the occasion of the last meeting of the Central Association of Chambers of Agriculture I took a message to his Department from the association on this subject. We received a reply from Sir Thomas Elliott that we could rest assured that nothing would be done which would in any way prejudice the interests of our flocks and herds. But we should like to know definitely, if anything is to be done at all in this matter, that no relaxation will be allowed, because opinions might possibly differ as to what would prejudice and affect the safety of our flocks and herds. My right hon. Friend the Member for the

  1035
  Ashford Division asked for a statement as to the original research work which was to be conducted—part of which is allowed for under the Vote we are discussing—into foot-and-mouth disease. I understand that the present proposal is that a Commission of inquiry should be appointed, possibly in conjunction with the French Government, and that their investigations should be conducted in India. I do not know whether I am justified in making that statement, but that is the report which has got abroad. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that the great difference of climate between this portion of Europe and of India would render ineffective, or might render practically valueless, investigations conducted in India as bearing on this subject? It is manifest that anything of this kind must be conducted in a position where the animals could be localised. It would be impossible for a Commission of that kind to carry on investigations in any one of the English counties. What you really want is an island for this purpose. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not achieve the purpose, and at the same time assist the policy which his own Government has so frequently referred to of helping the inhabitants of the island of St. Helena, by carrying out experiments there? The climate is sufficiently akin to that of this country for making the experiments. His own veterinary staff are better able to carry them out on a small-sized island, and the position would render it practically impossible for any contagion or infection to be carried elsewhere through the experiments. I am not prejudiced in favour of this island more than any other, but, wherever the research is carried out, I hope it will be on an island. Then, and then alone, will the experiments have value.
  These are matters of great importance, and I think it is in the interests of his Department, as well as of the agricultural community at large, that the farmers and stock owners of the country should know what is being done. The last point I wish to refer to deals not only with foot-and-mouth disease, but with all the diseases of animals, and, in fact, all the operations carried on by the Board of Agriculture. The value of their work would be infinitely greater to the agricultural community if they could possibly see their way to furnish their reports with less delay. Even if it is not possible to publish the whole
  1036
  reports, it would be an advantage if they could publish the official figures on which their reports are based as a preliminary report. In a great many cases those of us who are in close touch with agricultural activity know these figures. We are able to obtain them many months before they are officially published. We have them for our own use, but they are not available for the general use of the agricultural community. We cannot publish these figures as official, although we know they exist, and yet the agricultural population are not able to obtain them. Therefore the value of the reports when they do come out are to a certain extent discounted.
  Mr. STANIER: There are one or two small questions I should like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture. Under the Sub-head A there is a note which says that "£2,500 is required under this sub-head, but savings amounting to £2,000 are anticipated on other subheads." Are these sub-heads to range all over the total Grants to the Board, or do they absolutely come under the one paragraph A? The right hon. Gentleman, at a meeting in the country, once stated how it was that so much money had been returned. Is this money going again to be returned? Can the money be saved under one sub-head and put on to another, or does it go back into the Treasury? I think that here the right hon. Gentleman is trying to manipulate the money so as to take it from one sub-head to another sub-head. I should like some information on that. I know it is very difficult this afternoon noon to gather information from the Board of Agriculture, but I think foot-and-mouth disease is one of the topics we can discuss. I want to ask the President of the Board if this Grant for foot-and-mouth disease includes the cost of inquiries, because I am sure there ought to be a great deal of inquiry going on through the Board so that they may be able to give information to the Committee that is sitting at the present moment. I should very much hope that they are making inquiries as to whether legislation is required to make it compulsory for ships to carry hides in a part of the hold isolated from the rest of the general cargo. That is a question first of all for the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee, but it is also very important in the case of anthrax. Is any inquiry being made as to the number of calves imported into this country from countries where disease is now known to

  1037
  exist? They come in their skins, but without their heads, hoofs, and entrails, and therefore it is undoubtedly the fact that these animals may be brought into the country with those parts of the carcase removed that would show whether the animal had any kind of disease or not.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I rise to a point of Order. For the guidance of the Committee may I ask whether, if the hon. Gentleman is allowed to proceed with the discussion as to inquiries undertaken by the general staff of the Board and not coming under the charge in any of the Votes in this Supplementary Estimate, it will be open for other Members of the Committee to proceed with the discussion on these lines? The suggestion which the hon. Member is now making is that inquiries are conducted by the ordinary staff of the Board which do not fall as sub-heads on this Vote.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is going rather outside the limits of the ruling of the Chairman in the earlier part of the proceedings.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This Estimate is in respect of salaries, wages, and expenses of the temporary staff for swine fever business. I gather that my hon. Friend was referring to that.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then comes the subhead: it is proposed to transfer a certain amount of money from the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account to the swine fever business; and, therefore, I submit that my hon. Friend is in order in objecting to the Grant.
  Mr. STANIER: This must come under one of two heads. First of all there is G, "Diseases of Animals." I maintain that it conies under that. If not, then it undoubtedly comes under the question of staff, and I submit that I am in order.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is it open to the Committee to discuss the entire administration of the Board simply because a Supplementary Vote is taken under the heading A in respect of one or two officials?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not open to the Committee to go into a general discussion. No doubt it was part of the entire original Estimate before the House.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: May we not go into the Estimate?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certain parts are taken away. There is the sum voted for the foot-and-mouth disease.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This amount does not include the investigations which are conducted by the ordinary staff of the Board. Therefore, I submit that it would not be proper to discuss this matter on the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: What staff is connected with Vote A and B? We are told that some of the Vote is for additional salaries for the staff in connection with the disease of animals, and that B is for the expenses of the above staff. Unless we know what that staff is, we cannot tell exactly which direction our remarks should take.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has already given the information to the Committee. So far as diseases of animals are concerned, it is extra amount in connection with swine fever, and not with foot-and-mouth disease.
  Mr. STANIER: I take it from the remarks of the President that I may refer to swine fever. Since I have been in this House I have had put into my hands a letter from the owner of a farm dealing with a case that requires a little more inquiry from the Board of Agriculture. It shows how very severely these swine fever Orders press on some owners of stock. The gentleman who owns this farm has a very valuable herd of pigs. They are all of the very best pedigree that can be got in this country. For forty years they have been breeding this herd, and getting them up to the perfection which they have attained to-day. Unluckily swine fever has broken out. If this herd is wiped out in the way in which the officers of the Board are now proposing it should be wiped out, the strains or pedigrees of these pigs will be entirely lost, as they cannot be replaced; and in consequence of that the owner of these pigs, who is usually able to sell his pigs for between seven and eight guineas, will only receive between 40s. and 50s. compensation if they are slaughtered. I think that it is, to a certain extent, of national importance that some of these very best flocks and herds should not be totally exterminated by these Orders under swine fever regulations; and I would ask, before the Order is

  1039
  given to destroy the whole of the herd, that the question of the isolation of the herd should be gone into by the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: It would be a very great pity if the remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Baker) with reference to the Small Holdings Commissioners were endorsed in any way in any part of this House. The Commissioners are not to be judged by the number of small holdings they have created or the number of occupiers that they have converted into small holders. It would be an absurd contention to say that the Commissioners, who have been only appointed for six or eight months, should have done a great deal more and got a great many more acres turned into small holdings. I should think that if they had increased the number of small holdings very largely they would have been doing their work in a slipshod manner, and not carrying out the duties of the positions which they have been called on to fill. What we want the Commissioners to do is not to try to turn the greatest number of acres into small holdings, but to see that they are doing their best for the tenants who undertake these acres, and that they are doing justice to those people who own the land. That cannot be done by turning a great number of thousands of acres into small holdings, and I hope that the Commissioners will not think that this House appraises the value of their work by the number of acres which have gone into small holdings. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet about these positions, I think it is putting an additional burden on Members of this House if it is always to be supposed that because a man happens to be a Member of this House, or a candidate for membership, it should be supposed that at the end of his life the Government are never to give him any appointment, however fitted he has been. The hon. Baronet admitted that the Gentlemen chosen for these appointments are in every way fit for the positions which they hold. Is the Government to say, "Because you are Radicals you shall not have the appointment and we will appoint two other men who are more worthy than you?" Such a contention is absurd and cannot be maintained for a moment.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) in his endeavour to refute the statement of my
  1040
  hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Sir R. Baker), made some very wild and rash statements. One of these was that in the county of Sussex there were several hundred approved applicants waiting for small holdings who had not yet got them. As a member of the East Sussex County Council I can assure the hon. Member for Burnley that he is perfectly inaccurate in making such a statement. The Small Holdings Committee in that county happens to be presided over by a gentleman who is a prominent member of the Radical party. He has stated publicly that so anxious have the Sussex landowners been to meet the desires of the small holders that there is very little left for the county council to do. If the hon. Member will take the trouble to inform himself of the state of affairs in Sussex, he will find that if the county council do not acquire much land for small holdings, it is because there has been no need for it, and no demand for it, because that demand has been met by the Sussex landlords. Therefore if for the future he wishes to hold up any county to blame, he had better find some other county than Sussex, and not give us some county which does not exist at all except in his own imagination, namely the North-East Riding of Yorkshire. The only point in which the hon. Member did show that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Dorset was wrong in was this, that the hon. Baronet understated that the number of Commissioners who have been put in by the Radical party were supporters of their own. My hon. Friend stated that there were two, but the hon. Member has told us that there were three.
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to Sub-head F (1) Agricultural Research. That is in regard to the proposed Grant of £11,000. I understand that as the result of a deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman not long ago with regard to research for fruit farming, a promise was made by him of a Grant of £1,000 to Wye College for research work. Is that Grant an annual Grant, or is it only to last for the year? Wye College is, I understand, directly connected with the county of Kent. The county of Sussex contributes to it, I believe. Are farmers in the county of Sussex to have an opportunity of getting the advantage of the experiments and the research work which are being carried on in connection with this £1,000 Grant to Wye College? I hope that

  1041
  that may be the case, because otherwise Sussex would be justified in putting in a claim for a contribution towards research work in their own agricultural college at Uckfield. I fully realise that the money would be better expended if it all goes to Wye College as a whole, but I should like it to be clearly understood that Sussex so far as this grant is concerned, should actually derive benefit from the experimental and other work carried on at Wye College.
  6.0 P.M.
  Captain WEIGALL: If I am in order, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is necessary to have these Supplementary Estimates, seeing that for the last five years there has been a large surplus over expenditure under the Board of Agriculture. In the years 1906–7 the sum of £129,335, and there was expended £127,260, leaving a surplus of £2,075. In 1907–8 the amount was £237,000, the amount expended £235,000, and the surplus £2,000. In 1908–9 the sum was £156,000, the total expenditure £152,000, leaving a surplus of £4,000. In 1909 the amount was £172,000, the total expended £161,000, leaving a surplus of £11,000. In 1911 the sum was £185,000, the total amount expended £178,000, leaving a surplus of £7,000. I am not a financier, and I do not pretend to be a financier, but I should like to know why it is that with these fairly substantial surpluses at the end of each financial year, it is necessary for the Board of Agriculture to ask for these large Supplementary Estimates. As to light horse breeding, I believe I am in order in discussing the methods in which this sum is to be applied. I know, Mr. Chairman, that, according to your ruling, one is not allowed to discuss the whole question of light horse breeding, but I urge that we are entitled to discuss whether the sum that is being asked for is going to be applied in the manner which will do the greatest good to the horse-breeding community as a whole. I urge that instead of advancing a considerable sum to these tenant farmers in order that they may have brood farms, it would be far better to keep this in Government hands entirely, and that we should have a stud farm where the land and climate are suitable for horse breeding.
  As the sum is so small, however, I think it would be far better that you should ensure having nothing but sound stallions in the country. The enormous amount of
  1042
  harm done now to light horse breeding in this country through unsound stallions is incalculable. In other countries the mares always go the horse; in this country the horse goes to the mares, except in the case of thoroughbreds. It would be far better for the horse breeding community as a whole if the Government said, "We are not going to allow any horse on the road until he has got a sufficient certificate of soundness from the Government." I do not know whether that requires an Act of Parliament or not, or whether it can be done by Departmental Order. Agriculturists are only too delighted to receive anything in the shape of an improvement in their finances for the purpose either of horse breeding or stock breeding, but what they also really desire is that agriculturists should receive 20s. worth of value for every sovereign expended. I feel perfectly sure, so far as light horse breeding is concerned, it would do far more good if the Government had a stud farm where the land and climate were suitable.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of general policy which must be kept for the main Vote. The only matter in order is the payment of £10,000 to the county committees. I am informed by the President that it does not involve any change of policy since the main Estimate was passed by the House last year.
  Captain WEIGALL: I hope I am in order if I urge that the £10,000 voted to the county committees will be expended in a manner to ensure that there will be nothing but sound stallions throughout the country. If you are going to get unsound stallions off the road, it is naturally going to cost you something, but it will do far more good to the light horse breeding of the country—whatever be the sum you give to these county councils—to ensure that it will be first applied to ensuring that sound stallions are procured. When you have done that you make a start in helping towards providing sound animals. I hope I may be in order if I refer to the extremely small sum on the whole that is given to this country as compared with Ireland. I find that the net amount of the total Estimate is £206,318. In Ireland it is £456,000, almost half as much again. In Denmark I see that the sum is £214,500. Although we appreciate what the Government are doing, these figures surely show that they are not doing enough when compared with what is being done for Ireland, or what is being done in Denmark. In the interests of the agricultural community

  1043
  I urge we are entitled to a very much larger sum, when we bear in mind this comparison. Agriculturists feel that they are entitled to more considerations from the Government, or, at any rate, as much consideration as Ireland is receiving.
  So far as agricultural research is concerned, here again I feel that the sum allocated is possibly not being expended in a way that will produce the greatest good to the greatest number of the agricultural community. When we see the enormous sum that foot-and-mouth disease last year cost the country it surely shows that the Government of to-day is almost putting the cart before the horse. If agricultural research and agricultural co-operation had been, or were even now started, I maintain that the sum that the country has to spend in suppressing those diseases would not be so large. In regard to the amount which has been allocated to agricultural research, I would only emphasise the point that a large portion of it should be devoted to impressing upon the tenant farmers of this country the enormous risks they run unless they are prepared to make themselves acquainted with everything connected with these diseases, and they should not cry out against regulations which every single agriculturist in the country, who values the high state of efficiency to which our flocks and herds have been brought, recognise as necessary. If a large portion of this sum to be devoted to agricultural research were used in the way I suggest, it would be productive of an immense amount of good, and agriculturists would be able to say that it was being applied in a way likely to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of the agricultural community.
  Mr. PERKINS: I feel some apprehension in regard to a note at the foot of the Estimate as to salaries, because I see it is proposed to reduce them by £2,000, or, at any rate, a saving of £2,000 is to be effected under that head. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not already somewhat under-staffed in his Department. New brooms proverbially sweep clean, but I wonder whether the broom with which the right hon. Gentleman threatens his Department is to sweep away some posts without replacing them, and if in that way the economy of £2,000 is to be effected? My reason for asking the question is that the report of some branches of the Department,
  1044
  as already mentioned in the House, are delayed, and I think unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed. I would like to give the Department credit for issuing up to time the report on crops, which came out on Saturday last, but I refer to another Department of the Board, namely, the Sea Fisheries Department, in regard to which the last available report was in 1909, and we are awaiting the reports for 1910 and 1911. Under the peculiar constitution of the Board of Agriculture there are included matters which are not agricultural, such as the Sea Fisheries. The Board of Agriculture is charged with the duty of looking after our national fisheries. I wish to urge upon the President of the Board of Agriculture very respectfully that he should give more attention than has hitherto been given by his Department to the enormously important national industry of sea-fishing. I represent a constituency which is considerably interested in the question of sea-fishing. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the District Commision which looks after the sea fisheries of southern districts has applied to his Department for a Grant-in-Aid. I will not go into the question of the Development Commissioners with regard to Grants-in-Aid, but I submit, subject to your ruling, Sir, that it is quite within the corners of this discussion to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what his Department is going to do with regard to these applications from southern distracts. Grants-in-Aid are asked by the Southern Sea Fisheries Commission, and I believe by other Commissions, for scientific investigations in fish culture. I understand, according to this belated Report of the Department, that the only Grant-in-Aid hitherto given by the Department for scientific research is a Grant of £100 made in 1908 to the Armstrong College. New-castle-on-Tyne, for fishery research work being carried on—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that that is a question for the main Vote.
  Mr. PERKINS: With every deference to your ruling, I thought in this discussion we could refer to Grants-in-Aid by the Department for scientific research.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, that will come under the main Estimates.
  Mr. PERKINS: Am I in order in referring specifically to the Grant under F, I,

  1045
  the amount mentioned being £11,000. I ask the President most respectfully to consider carefully the enormous importance to this country of the fishing industry. I ask him particularly to consider whether anything can be done as to the scientific part of that industry, and particularly as to the breeding of certain lobsters and fish which are getting scarcer and scarcer.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that lobsters come under this Vote.
  Mr. PERKINS: They are under the control of the Fishery Department, and are mentioned in the Report of the Department. Oysters are also mentioned, and I thought I should be in order in calling attention to oyster culture and lobster culture.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep those questions from the main Vote.
  Mr. PERKINS: Then shortly I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the applications that have reached him from the Southern Sea Fisheries Department, and to give sympathetic consideration to those applications, and to be good enough to let the Southern Sea Fisheries Department know, and know quickly, the result of the application which they made as long ago as 1910, and to which they got no answer.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with some of the points which have been raised. I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the matter of fish is having my attention. I am not enabled under the Rules of the House to make any announcement in this discussion with regard to the work which is now in contemplation and some of which is now proceeding. An hon. Member referred to the large surplus which had appeared each year on the Agricultural Vote, and I gather that the same point was taken by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The view held by those hon. Members apparently is that if at the end of the year the Department ends with a surplus that that is a measure of the neglect of its duty by the Department. That is altogether a misconception of the method of our financial operations. It is an absurdity to imagine that because a Department ends up with a surplus that therefore it has failed to that extent in the fulfilment of its duties. Every Department, of course, asks for rather more
  1046
  money than it expects to spend. We do not always get all we ask for, but the fact of a surplus being shown at the end of the year shows, at all events, that the Department has suceeded in getting out of the Treasury rather more than was actually required. The fact of a surplus being left over is a matter of book-keeping and nothing more or less, and has nothing whatever to do with the way in which the Department's officials and the Department itself have carried out the duties.
  One of the suggestions made was that when there was a surplus it was an odd thing to come down to the House and ask for money on a Supplementary Vote. That, again, is governed by the Rules of this House, which are well understood, and it merely amounts to this, that it is impossible to take money which is voted under one head for the purpose of another head. Of course it is possible within certain limits, but it has constantly been criticised here. It is necessary when any new expenditure is embarked on that the Minister should come down to defend the Vote which is taken in order that the policy initiated by that Vote should receive the sanction of the House, and until it has received that sanction he is not authorised to complete the whole of the transaction under that heading for the financial year. The hon. Member for South Sussex (Mr. R. S. Gwynne) asked me as to one point, which I can clear up, and that is with regard to Wye College, to which a Grant has been promised for advisory work. There are limits as to the area to which the work applies, but I cannot imagine that the Grant would be withdrawn to work conducted satisfactorily in the future. The work will apply not only to the county of Kent but Sussex as well. That would cover the advisory area, so that although Wye College is more closely connected with Kent, Sussex will get the benefit of the work undertaken by Wye College.
  The hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) asked me what was being done with regard to co-operation and small holdings. He embarked on a general discussion as to the advantage of organising co-operation before small holdings were started at all. Something is being done as regards co-operation now, but it must be done along business lines. I have no personal sympathy with co-operative movements which are purely philanthropic, and if co-operation cannot live on the spirit of co-operation I do not believe

  1047
  it is ever likely to succeed either in rural or urban areas. The organisation of co-operation in rural areas is a matter of great difficulty. There are peculiar disabilities, such as the wide area over which the population is spread, and the slowness with which information passes from one community to another, and, I am sorry to say, the natural reluctance of many of those who are engaged in the agricultural industry to combine for the purpose of co-operation, and that is peculiarly to be found in co-operative sales. It has been thought well by benevolent gentlemen in the past who are supporters of the Agricultural Organisation Society to organise societies in rural England. Any work which is undertaken over so enormous an area and touching an immense number of villages and people, could not be done by a society dependent entirely on voluntary subscriptions. We therefore applied to the Development Commission to assist the Agricultural Organisation Society to proceed with the work of educating the agricultural communities in the principles of co-operation, and to help them to form societies. That is a matter of very great difficulty indeed, and when you are covering such an enormous area you must have a large number of agents. The final scheme for the extension of this organisation work has not yet met with the sanction of the Development Commission, or, rather, they are withholding their judgment on the larger scheme until the preliminary steps have been passed, but something like £3,000 per year has been set free by them for the purposes of that society, under conditions which are very carefully safeguarded. The council is to be reorganised. It must be made a representative council, it must cover the whole of the country, and none of the money to be given is to be used for the present services, or, rather, for the addition to the present salaries of the society, except a small additional sum of £250. On those lines we are proceeding in the organisation of co-operation, and part of the Vote to-day covers expenditure under that heading.
  The hon. Member asked me what was being done with regard to the research moneys which had been put into the hands of the Board. He was good enough to say that the agricultural community were quite satisfied that the Board had the allocation of those large sums of money, while, of course, they withheld their judgment on the final allocation. I quite agree that is a perfectly fair statement of the case, and
  1048
  it leaves us free subject to ultimate criticism. On this Vote, as it is moved to-day, there are, I think, three or four subjects which he mentioned, and under your ruling I presume I am not entitled to range over the whole field. I may make a reference to the request which the hon. Gentleman made as to the research on the subject of swine fever, merely to say that a sum of about £1,000 is being spent in the current year on research on the subject of this disease. That is being provided for out of the original Vote, and therefore I do not think we can discuss it further this afternoon. The same thing applies to anthrax experiments which are now being conducted at the Board's laboratory, and for which money was provided in the-original Vote. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease research, I shall have to come to the House to ask for a Grant of a sum which I cannot name now, but which, I fear, may run into thousands of pounds, on the subject of research as to this disease. In discussing another portion of this Vote, I hope to say something with regard to that work. As to Rothampstead, I can certainly satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we are not leaving that institution out of account. We are proposing to place a sum of about £2,000 at its disposal. I do not want to give those figures absolutely, because they are subject to final adjustment. I give them now for the guidance of the Committee, and I hope that that sum will be available.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean £2,000 per year?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
  Sir H. CARLILE: It is rather a paltry sum.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It means a sum of £1,150 for new work, which will enable them to extend their staff. There is no suggestion that this amount will anything like pay for the whole upkeep.
  Sir H. CARLILE: I should say not.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is only intended to-touch the extension of new work on special lines of research which have been carefully selected. The subjects of research at Rothampstead for many years past are concerned almost entirely with soil problems and plant nutrition. I have particulars which I can give.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether, in view of the very interesting discoveries

  1049
  that have lately been made there with regard to the antisepticising of soil, there is a special Grant for that purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not believe it is necessary to make a special Grant. I think that the moneys which are placed at the disposal of Rothampstead would cover experiments of that nature. I was also asked with reference to Cambridge University, which does undertake work of a special character at the request of the Board. Their work will be devoted almost entirely to animal nutrition problems and animal and plant breeding. I do not know that there is any institution in the country better equipped for dealing with problems of that nature. One does not leave out of account that the John Innes Horticultural Institution is already doing work of this nature with Mr. William Biggs at the head of it. He is a Cambridge man, in close touch with the work already undertaken at Cambridge. The experiments at Bristol, to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion, did not receive anything out of these experiments. Something is to be paid to Bristol University in respect of those experiments in the future, but we cannot deal with that until we come to the discussion on the original Votes for the coming year. I think I have now covered the points raised. If there are any others I shall be glad to give any further information on the original Votes, when we can have a much fuller and more satisfactory survey of the research work to be undertaken during the next twelve months. On the general question of the amount of the Grants to be made, the hon. Member asked me whether block Grants were likely to be made or small sums to little institutions. As far as possible, the Board of Agriculture are in favour of large block Grants to first-class institutions, who will take on hand one large problem, rather than Grants to a large number of small institutions, who would deal with only small problems. We think it is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter to distribute the work and the money over a small number of first-class institutions, and we expect in that way to get the best results.
  From that I come to a matter of much more alarming importance—namely, the experience we have had during the last twelve months in regard to foot-and-mouth disease in this country. I do not for a single moment underestimate the great losses to which the agricultural community have been put by the outbreaks of
  1050
  foot-and-mouth disease, but I think we may congratulate ourselves on two facts. The first is our comparative immunity from the disease. When I say comparative, I mean in comparison with our experience of not many years ago, and in comparison with other countries on the Continent of Europe. Nothing is more remarkable than the contrast between our six outbreaks and the enormous number of outbreaks in Continental countries. I have been constantly pressed since I came to the Board of Agriculture to relax the restrictions under which animals and fodder are brought into this country from abroad. I should be only too glad to see the flow of animals and fodder into this country largely increased. I believe in no artificial restrictions of that supply. But there is another matter of the greatest importance which must be taken into account, and that is that we might, by allowing foreign animals and foreign fodder to come into this country, allow them to bring in with them diseases which would not only desolate, but probably reduce our flocks to vanishing point. I do not believe that those who are constantly pressing me to remove all restrictions on the importation of foreign animals and foreign fodder realise what an awful scourge foot-and-mouth disease can be even in a country like ours. I said that the contrast between our six outbreaks here and the outbreaks on the Continent was very striking. Let me give the House some figures. We have had six outbreaks. We regard that as a serious matter, and we are voting now £11,000 for compensation to owners who have suffered through those outbreaks. There has been not only the loss of money, but great inconvenience to the people in the districts affected. I must publicly give the agriculturists in those districts credit for bearing the inconvenience with great public spirit. I know how the restrictions prevent the passage of their flocks and herds to the market, and even across their own properties; but I think they have shown a very wise prudence in carrying out the restrictions rather than run any risk of spreading the disease. With the six outbreaks here I have to compare something like 23,000 outbreaks in France. I do not mean 23,000 cattle, but 23,000 farms. In Germany at one time last year there were no less than 33,000 establishments—I do not know the exact English equivalent to that term—impregnated with foot-and-mouth disease. That number had been reduced to 20,000

  1051
  before the year closed. Even in countries like Denmark, Holland, and Belgium the outbreaks ran into hundreds. I believe there were from 800 to 1,000 farms affected in Denmark, something like 1,000 in Belgium, and nearly 1,000 in Holland. That is the best information we can obtain.
  In the face of these figures I say that it would be madness on our part to allow the unrestricted importation into this country from the Continent of animals and fodder which might carry with them the risk of the spread of this dreadful disease. The right hon. Member for South Kent (Mr. Hardy) wrote me during the recess with regard to the importation of fodder. We have received at the Board of Agriculture a deputation of the horse owners, mainly of London, asking us to allow foreign hay to come in from abroad. They were suffering from the very high prices which have been prevalent during the past autumn, and which may continue for some little time. I know that they were put to very great financial loss, and it was possible that the movement—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is developing the whole question of policy. If I allowed him to do that, I should be bound to allow other Members to follow on the same lines. As I understand the Estimate, it deals with the increased number of outbreaks over the number estimated for in the original Vote, and I must ask the Committee not to travel over too wide a field.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: May I venture to make an appeal of this nature? I think I can answer for it, that if the right hon. Gentleman were permitted by you to do so, and were good enough to take the Committee into his confidence a little more fully on this most important question, no improper advantage would be taken of it by my hon. Friends or by me, in the form either of criticism or even of prolonged comment. But the matter is so serious that it would be a great relief to the Committee and to people outside to hear a little more detail on the subject, and if you would allow it to be given I would take care not to abuse your permission.
  The CHAIRMAN: The statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman will prevent that of which I saw the possibility, and in these circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman might proceed.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am much obliged to you and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for extending to me a freedom which is withheld from the rest of the Committee. I had no intention of straying from the Estimate; but I think the whole question of foot-and-mouth disease is raised when we have to pay such a very large amount for compensation out of this Vote. With the permission which you have given me, I would like to say a word or two more about the restrictions which we have found it necessary to impose and to preserve. I was remarking that the horse owners stated their case to us at the-Board of Agriculture, asking us to allow foreign hay to be imported into this country. I quite realised the losses from which they were suffering, but I had also to keep in mind that in satisfying them, in giving them relief possibly to the extent of 30s. a ton, on I do not know how many tons, I might have been subjecting the agricultural community to very great risks. When they were first seen, I think they were under a misapprehension as to-the extent to which our restrictions went. I repeat here publicly exactly what I said in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that I cannot see my way at present to open our ports to hay to come in from abroad so long as there is such a great prevalence of this disease, which might come in with it. I know that blindly to shut our ports would be a very restrictive and very impolitic policy on our part. But we know very little about this disease or about how it is carried. In Denmark I have heard the theory that it is carried by roots; some people think that it can be carried only by animal produce of various kinds; others think that it comes only by fodder. But when we consider the mysterious way in which the disease has appeared in various parts of the country, we are driven to the conclusion that not one of these theories really fits the case. Because of the loss which has occurred in England, by those who require foreign fodder and by those who are subject to the restrictions in this country, it is our bounden duty to do everything we can as rapidly as possible to ascertain something more about this mysterious disease.
  The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Courthope) suggested that we might take an island. I do not like his suggestion of St. Helena. I think it very hard on St. Helena. St. Helena receives a few visits from mail steamers which pass there on

  1053
  the way from the Cape to England. If St. Helena were a great station for experimenting in foot-and-mouth disease it would be impossible to allow the free discharge of the steamers when they arrived at Southampton, and I am quite sure that the Cape would prohibit them from landing animals at Cape Town. The difficulties that arise in regard to St. Helena arise in regard to nearly all our islands. We might take an island off the West of Scotland, but I am sure that Scottish agriculturists would view any suggestion of the kind with alarm. We might take an island off the West Coast of Ireland, but I do not know a single Irishman who would not be up in arms against such a proposal. The idea of having an island anywhere near England or Wales or near any of the British Isles has occurred to us, and has been well considered, but the conclusion we came to was that the risk was really Hot worth while. The reason why we held India to be a most suitable place for the conduct of these experiments was that in India there is an enormous amount of foot-and-mouth disease, and the restrictions which are possible in the United Kingdom are not possible there; therefore the scientist has a large field over which he can work. I also found that the Indian Government were ready to co-operate with us in investigations of this nature. I am informed by my scientific advisers that foot-and-mouth disease in India is exactly the same disease as foot-and-mouth disease in England. Therefore, the investigations into the nature of the disease and the capture of the microbe himself is just the same problem in India as in England. The restrictions which it may be necessary to impose in one country or in the other is quite another matter, but until we have caught the microbe and know something about his habits, his appetite, and the surroundings in which he prospers, we can do very little along scientific lines. The arrangements I have made will enable us to get the best scientists in India, with two or three of the best men we can procure in the United Kingdom, to prosecute an inquiry in India. I hope When I bring forward the original Estimates for 1912–13 to have a Vote which will provide for the whole expenses of this Commission. There are bound to be expenses, but I think it will be a profitable undertaking.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to put this work in hand? We regard it as very urgent.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am now proceeding with the selection of the scientists Who will go to India. I hope they will very soon be free to go, but I would rather wait a month to get a first-class man than take anybody who is being offered at the present moment. I think we shall have a, Commission which will thoroughly satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. An inquiry was also made with regard to another disease about which nothing appears on this Vote, therefore I can say nothing with regard to it, except that we are providing for the work to be done by our present staff, and investigations are already going on at the Board's laboratory under the control of the chief veterinary officer of the Board.
  The hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir Randolf Baker) asked me whether the Small Holdings Commissioners were doing work at all commensurate with their salaries, and whether their appointments were not political jobs. Let me take, first, his idea of a political job. There were six Commissioners appointed. Of these the hon. Baronet selected Mr. Fred Horne and Mr. Frank Rogers for his especial condemnation.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not condemn the men in any way. I condemn the Government for making the appointments. The two are very excellent and admirable gentlemen, but I said that, in my opinion, they were no better than many others, and their attainments were not more than equal to many others.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad to-know that the hon. Baronet thinks so well of the ability of those who have been named. I think a third name was added. Supposing there were three Liberals out of six; would the hon. Baronet say that that is not a fair proportion? Does he definitely assert, either that these men are incompetent, or that they are chosen partly because they were Liberals; or does he wish that the whole of them should have been Conservatives?
  Sir R. BAKER: Not at all. What I said was there was no system of examination of any sort. You might have thrown these posts open to examination, or given them to actual officials of the Board. So far as I can see, they have no special qualifications; none other than the qualifications of hundreds of other men in this country, except the fact that in the case of two of them they had been Radical candidates.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; then the case which the hon. Baronet wishes to make is that if we appoint two Liberals who have been Radical candidates it is a job, but if, in the course of appointing lecturers under the National Insurance scheme, we appoint two men who have been Unionist candidates it is not a job! That is the narrowest party view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two jobs."] I see: if you appoint a Liberal it is a job, and if you appoint a Unionist it is a job. Are you then going to rule out both political parties? The suggestion made by hon. Members was there are hundreds of men more competent. I have seen the work of the Commissioners. They are popular in their districts. They get on well on the county councils and the Small Holdings Committees, and they are trusted by the agricultural community and the small holders. I have no reason to believe that they do not do their work as well as any other men who could have been selected for these appointments. The hon. Baronet says they were not selected by examination. Does he seriously suggest that a body of Commissioners desired for posts of great responsibility, should all be selected by examination? There is not another country in the world (outside China) that would have put at the head of a Department, or at any branch of a Department, men on those conditions. Entrance by examination is a very good thing for the Civil Service, but to suggest that these men, men of mature age, should sit down to papers like undergraduates and try to get a first or a second class is preposterous.
  Sir R. BAKER: There is another system beside sitting down and writing papers. You can examine applicants, and in the case of the small holdings' agent you could ask questions to see whether the men were at all suited for the purpose. You could select a number of persons and examine them, and discover whether their knowledge of the work was sufficient or not.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Then there is nothing between us. That has been done. They are doing a large amount of work. They are doing it admirably. To say that there is no necessity for it is ridiculous. There are still unsatisfied applications in this country for over 130,000 acres. I believe that there is something like nearly 9,000 unsatisfied applications at the present time. These Commissioners have given assistance to the county councils,
  1056
  and there is scarcely a county council in the country who would not admit freely that the Small Holdings Commissioners have been of great assistance to them. The work they have done in the last six months is not to be measured by the test of the hon. Member. In that six months of their work, I venture to say, they have reduced the friction rather than increased the friction of the administration of the Act. Take one set of figures. The hon. Member said that in the last six months of 1911 the number of purchasers under compulsory orders have gone down from 1,100 to 400 in comparison with the corresponding six months of the year before. That is a measure of the absence of friction. It means friendly negotiation. It means doing in a very large number of cases what in the six months of the previous year had to be done under compulsory orders. I believe the Small Holdings Commissioners are making smoother the course of the administration of this Act.
  Mr. SANDERS: What negotiations have the Commissioners had with the landowners or with the occupiers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not say that they have gone down and driven bargains with the owners who sell the land, but they have had a great deal to do in reducing the friction under which the Act is worked. They have had communications with those who are selling land all over the country, as I know from my personal knowledge. They may not write official letters, but that does not prevent them carrying on friendly discussions in the most suitable way with those concerned all over the country. In a large number of cases they have, I know, facilitated the extension of small holdings, and they have been able to assure those dealing with the land that many of their fears were illusory. The Small Holdings Commissioners have very large powers. They shall, says the Act, ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings, or would be a demand, if suitable land was available, and the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Act, to satisfy that demand. Under these powers alone they are able to carry on an amount of discussion and negotiation which is of the greatest service to everybody concerned. I feel that the Small Holdings Commissioners are doing their work well, and that this House will be certainly well advised in making their work easier, rather than in discounting it by abusing their reputation.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his remarks dealt with a suggestion made, I think, when I was not in the House. I have had considerable experience of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman so well presides, and I entirely agree with what he said. It is no indication of lack of energy, no indication of want of good work on the part of the Department, that it does not show in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred either that the sum originally asked for has been a sum in excess of what was wanted or that there has not been a time or opportunity since the money was granted to spend it all. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that under a well-known rule of Parliament it is impossible for a Department to apply moneys which have been granted from one purpose to another purpose; to transfer them from one Vote to another. The right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate position of having been at the Treasury. Therefore now he comes to be at the head of a Department, he will be able the better to appreciate how Ministers are occasionally, as heads of Departments, lead into the use of somewhat strong language about the principles, policy, and methods of the Treasury. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has entirely thrown off the old Treasury coat and has donned the agricultural smock, and that he is going to take Liberal views of these rules.
  I would venture to suggest to him that he would do very admirable work for any Department, and for the Government generally, if he can see his way to secure for the heads of Departments some wider discretion for the transfer of moneys that has been clearly voted by Parliament, and that when the expenditure under these heads has been sanctioned, if he can without breaking the Rule—to which I entirely subscribe as to the approval of Parliament in regard to certain public works—arrange for wider discretionary powers. He will help the Department, and also hon. Members, because these Supplementary Estimates are a great nuisance to Ministers. I do not object to them now. They serve the Opposition admirably, and enable us to show how much we know of the various subjects that occupies the Government. I am speaking now of a livelier recollection of days gone by than of recent experience.
  I heard with the greatest satisfaction what the right hon. Gentleman said about the research work which he told us that the Department is engaged in. There are two diseases that do not attract much notice.
  1058
  It would be an unqualified blessing if we could know something about them, and approach them in a more scientific manner than hitherto has been possible to deal with them in. In regard to that terrible disease, the foot-and-mouth disease, I listened to all that was said with unqualified satisfaction. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has already given the clearest proof of his courage and strength in dealing with great questions of this kind, and we—we speak not exclusively, of course, for the agricultural interests—are grateful to him for the work that is already done, and for the strong steps he took when he came into office. We are grateful to him for what he has said today. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison of the outbreaks of this disease in France. I say that we should be foolish indeed if we were by any slackness in administration to part with the incalculable benefit which we derive from our geographical situation. The fact that we are an island, and that we have not great, immense artificial boundaries as they have in other countries, means to us all the difference in the world between the spread of this disease, and its being rapidly checked when it occurs.
  7.0 P.M.
  Let me say that it is not only to our geographical position that we owe our superiority over other countries. It is a fact that Minister after Minister, when he goes to the Board of Agriculture has realised that nothing but the strongest administration will save the country, and that nothing else will be tolerated but the maintenance unbroken of the traditions of the office. A Minister finds there a system inaugurated by the Board of Agriculture which has not got an equal, certainly not a superior, in any part of the world. A system by which it is possible to immediately deal with any outbreak when it occurs. While entirely agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that our position with regard to other countries is infinitely better, whilst realising that it is due to our geographical position, it is also in no small measure due to the system which the Board of Agriculture have carefully and wisely developed, and the administration to be found in the Department. I hope that what we have heard from the President of the Board means there will be no relaxation of the regulations which are now in force. I am dealing with the work he has done and is doing in regard to the risk we run from imported fodder, etc. I know very well that to check imported fodder is a serious thing to breeders

  1059
  and raisers of cattle, but this difficulty is not to be compared with the difficulties which we are immediately confronted with by outbreaks of the disease when it once gets out of hand. That is what occurs more easily by this method of communication than by any other. The President told us that we know very little how this disease is conveyed. We know it is conveyed in many different ways, but there is no way so fertile in its reproduction as when the disease conveys by the importation of fodder or any other products to which the President referred. Therefore I hope that what he has said to-day means that he is going to hold a very strong check on anything of the kind in order that the public may be kept clear at all events until such time that we know something more about the scientific side than we do at present. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman stated when dealing with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what my right hon. Friend desired to say, and what has been urged both in and out of this House again and again by hon. Members. The responsibility for the fitness of a man for a particular office must rest with the Government. If these men are unsuitable it will be soon discovered, and the Government must be responsible. What we are entitled to ask in regard to those appointed where the work is of a technical kind, is that men should be selected not because they are politicians first and experts or something eke afterwards. In regard to these Small Holdings Commissioners, I listened to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say as to the justification of their powers. Their powers are very wide, but I would ask him to be good enough to ascertain whether these Commissioners think it to be their duty not only to inquire as to available land, but to go about urging men who hitherto have not thought it necessary to do so, to apply for small holdings. It is no part of their duty; no such power is conferred upon them by Statute, nor in any part of the section to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I venture to say it is most undesirable that these gentlemen holding these important positions should consider themselves entitled to go about advocating small holdings in their areas and urging people to apply for them. Their business is to find land and to adjudicate
  1060
  upon the matter, and for that they possess the fullest power, but there is nothing that justifies them to canvas as it were for the extension of small holdings. We are very grateful to the President of the Board of Agriculture for the statement he has made and for the information he has given us. With regard to the question of disease, we look to him with very great confidence to maintain the high traditions of his Department and the general interest of agriculture by taking effective measures against what would be the greatest disaster that could overtake this country.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I wish to ask a question with regard to the veterinary surgeon staff of the Board of Agriculture. It is very difficult to judge from the paragraph in the White Paper how the additional salaries are made up. They are there put down as £500, but having regard to the note which is below, it turns out they are not less than £2,500, and I suspect that a very large part of that is for those six additional Commissioners. I ask whether in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the veterinary surgeon staff attached to the Board of Agriculture is sufficient? Of course, I am quite aware that if there was only one outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease it might be, but I am credibly informed that if it happened that there were four or five outbreaks in different places there is not a sufficient veterinary staff to deal with them.
  The CHAIRMAN: That can only be raised upon the main Estimate, and not upon the Supplementary.
  Mr. SANDERSON: If I am not in order in dealing with that matter perhaps I may communicate with the right hon. Gentleman privately. There is another matter to which I wish to call his attention, and that is whether he could not reduce the additional salaries of some of the staff by relaxing the vexatious provisions as I think, existing in some parts of the country with regard to the removal of swine. I understand that in certain special swine fever areas, when pigs are taken to market and unsold, it is impossible for them to be moved again for a period of twenty-eight days.
  The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a matter for discussion on the main Estimate.
  Mr. FELL: There is one point which impresses us in the East Anglian country and that is the question of agricultural

  1061
  research and experiment. I wish to enter my protest against what I consider to be the unsympathetic tone taken by the Government in regard to research. In the sugar beet growing trade of this country—
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be in order to discuss the question of reseach in connection with sugar beet when the main Estimate has nothing to do with sugar beet?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Supplementary Estimate does not deal with the matter in the Vote, but with the reasons for the increase.
  Mr. FELL: The Supplementary Estimate is for Grants to colleges and institutions, and if I am assured that none of these are conducting experiments in regard to sugar—
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the point of Order I can give that information. The amount asked for to-day in these Estimates does not cover sugar. In the large areas covered by the greater scheme of research it would be necessary to deal with sugar, but so far as this is concerned there is no Grant for sugar.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £400."
  In response to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am not in any kind of way taking advantage of his great kindness in giving us information in reference to the steps taken in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and if he will allow me I wish to congratulate him upon the first stand he has taken—I am only going to say a few words upon the question raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood the attack, if I may so call it, which was made upon the appointment of those six additional Commissioners. My hon. Friend did not say there was anything against the character of three of these six gentleman, but he said there was nothing about these three gentlemen which was different from any ordinary three men of similar position, and it was rather extraordinary that these particular gentlemen should be selected when, as far as the ordinary world knows, their only qualification was that not only have they been Radicals, but certainly two of them have been Radical agitators. I do not wish to mention any names. One
  1062
  of them was only known to fame from having been a tenant of the late Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and having expressed very strong views upon the tenure of land in England. I venture to say that is not a proper person to appoint to a judicial position because he is already a partisan upon the question of land tenure. If you are to appoint someone who is to hold a judicial position you should appoint someone who has not committed himself to any particular set of opinions, therefore I think my hon. Friend had a considerable amount of justice on his side in making the complaint he did make. Of course no one for a moment would say that because a man happens to be a Radical in politics, he should not be appointed either by this or that party, but his first qualification should be some qualification known to the world, for the post to which he has been appointed. So far as my experience goes, at least one of these Commissioners does not answer that description. My hon. Friend said that the result of the appointment of these three gentlemen did not tend to expedite matters. As far as I understood the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, it merely amounts to this, that there were a large number of people who desired small holdings; but the real question is, Do the people who desire them get them any quicker because we spent something like £3,000 in six months upon salaries of additional Commissioners?
  I am inclined to think my hon. Friend is right in thinking we have not got value for the money. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the report of the London County Council upon the question of small holdings, which points out that it is impossible to obtain a small holding and erect buildings except at a rent at which people cannot live. I do not often agree with the London County Council, but on this particular question I do agree with them. I think they were right. With regard to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long), I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not take advantage of it, and will not endeavour to obtain the power of moving money from one Vote to another. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are extravagant enough and quite anxious enough to take the spending of money from the control of Parliament, and to exercise their own judgment upon matters which, in my opinion, ought to be left entirely in the control of Parliament. I have, for the sake of better argument provided myself with the actual Estimates of

  1063
  the year ended 31st March. I turn to the Board of Agriculture in order to see whether there was an increase on the original Vote of the previous year, and I find there is an enormous increase already, and that this is an increase upon an increase. We are now asked to vote another £500 on an original Estimate, which in itself was a very considerable increase. I find the original Vote was for £93,041, whereas the year before it was £82,763, therefore we have already voted an increase of £10,278. Why on earth should we now be asked to vote a further increase on an item which is in itself an increase of £10,000 as compared with the year before? I shall have something to say upon that particular item. The items I wish to refer to are agricultural research and agricultural co-operation. I hope that the money under these two heads will be judiciously spent, although I am rather afraid it will be thrown away. Though I sit for an urban constituency, I happen to be one of those wicked people who own a little land,
  and I hope something will be done in the direction indicated by these two sums, though I am not at all sure that the granting of it in this way is likely to conduce to the desired result. I moved this reduction because I wish to strike a warning note in the ears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that this country will not stand this continual increase in salaries and wages in every Government Department. We are told that the expenses are increasing, and that the cost of living is higher, and at the same time we have to put our hands in our pockets as taxpayers to find increased salaries and wages and new posts for different gentlemen whose appointments, in my opinion, are unnecessary. Therefore, in the interests of economy, efficiency and the taxpayers, I beg to move this reduction.
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by £400."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 83; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES.

  [7.20 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Newman, John R. P.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, J.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Bridgeman, Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Butcher, John George

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bottle)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cave, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, Laming

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. A. Fell.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clough, William

  Barnes, George N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barnston, H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cotton, William Francis

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Beale, William Phipson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leach, Charles

  Radford, G. H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lundon, T.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dillon, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, Michael

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Doris, W.

  McGhee, Richard

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowlands, James

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sheehy, David

  Gill, A. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Glanville, H. J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Snowden, Philip

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molloy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Harold John (Derby)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Worrell, Phillip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hackett, John

  Munro, R.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hinds, John

  O'Domell, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Hodge, John

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  O Malley, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Keating, M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

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

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,000, 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, 1912, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have one or two questions to ask upon this Vote. I find that Item F, for paper supplied to Public Departments, shows an increase of £32,000, notwithstanding the fact that the original Estimate showed an increase of £18,000 last year. This item in the last two years shows an increase of £50,000, and that is
  1066
  an extraordinary amount upon an expenditure of £265,000. The explanation given is that this additional amount is required to meet unforeseen liabilities, owing to the length of the Session of 1911. We have already this evening been unfortunate enough to have to spend a certain sum of money owing to the increase in the length of the Session for reporting and other services, and now we find that not only were we put to all the inconveniences of a long Session, but the country has had to pay extremely large sums of money for the very doubtful benefit of keeping Parliament sitting for eleven months out of the twelve. There is a further charge for administering the Insurance Act. I would like to ask whether that includes the cost of the actuary who made a report upon the Buntingford Friendly Society. I presume it does. The rest of the items are in connection with the business of the National Telephone Company. I do not so much object to that except on the

  1067
  ground that it was well known the transfer was going to take place, and it shows rather a want of business aptitude not to have made sufficient provision for the paper which would be required. The extravagance does not end here, because we have to pay under this Supplementary Estimate £4,000 for additional binding, and I find the original estimate was £1,000 higher than the estimate for 1910–11.
  This Government which came into office upon the cry, among many of us, of administrative economy is continually piling up every possible expenditure. You find large increases even when you come to such items as binding and printing. We have a Supplementary Estimate of £6,500 for miscellaneous small stores for public Departments. The original estimate was £74,000, whereas the year before it was £63,000, so that there was something like 15 per cent. increase on the original estimate before we come to the Supplementary Estimate. I presume the increase of £4,500 for the Parliamentary Debates was entirely owing to the unfortunate long Session, and I would appeal to the Patronage Secretary to bear in mind the large sums we have been required to spend owing to the length of the Session, to turn over a new leaf, and let us adjourn early so that we may not only save the money of the taxpayers, but save the time spent on discussing Supplementary Estimates, and also our health and temper. The Government have not acted up to their promise when they came into office to exercise economy. I do not consider the explanation given of the Supplementary Votes by any manner of means satisfactory. I should like to know why it is necessary to have such an enormous increase in the papers as £32,000, or in binding as £4,000. There is, it is true, a little tiny saving. You save £2,000 on the original estimate for books and maps, but we are now asked to put that £2,000 back in order that no one can say there has been any saving at all. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he and myself were the only advocates of economy in the House, and I am just showing him a few things to which he might attend.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE (Eastbourne): We heard this afternoon at question time that £10,000 was being expended in printed matter in connection with the Insurance Act. That is a very
  1068
  large sum, and I am sure the House must realise a considerable portion of it has been spent unnecessarily. Amongst other literature which has been issued and circulated concerning the Insurance Act is a report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by Mr. Watson on the Buntingford Union Association. I do not know why, after the Bill became an Act, this matter should be dealt with so fully or for whose benefit. During the Debates there was an enormous number of different friendly societies, large and small, quoted, and the benefits which they were able to give were referred to; but apparently of all these the Buntingford Association was alone picked out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a lot of public money wasted in publishing this report.
  Mp. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. There is no sum in the Supplementary Estimate for printing, nor is any of the paper which was used in presenting the report to which the hon. Member refers included in the Supplementary Estimate. I therefore submit it is not in order to discuss that matter on this Vote.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: May I ask, then, under what Estimate it comes?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was all included in the original amount, and no further Estimate is needed.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: There are liabilities for increased prices of paper. Naturally, if there is an increase in the price of paper, it comes under this heading.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I call the Committee's attention to the note on page 19, which deals with another portion of the Insurance Act Estimate. The note says:—
  "In addition to the above, expenditure will be incurred by various Government Departments for office accommodation, rates, stationery and printing, postage, etc., and defrayed from their Votes."
  When we come back to the Vote now under consideration the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed us that the £10,000 was included in that Vote, though whether it was for the Buntingford Association or not I cannot say.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: All the paper for the Papers presented to Parliament were under Vote K, and no Supplementary Estimate is required.
  The CHAIRMAN: In any case, it seems to me it is not in order on a Vote for printing to discuss matters of policy.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: My object was to point out that it was extravagant. A certain amount of printing incurred at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite unnecessary, and should not have been done. This Report was wholly unnecessary at the time, and has been of no benefit either to the Bunting-ford Association or to the public generally. That association was merely quoted for the purpose of endeavouring to prove the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in regard to a certain argument.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that matter can be discussed on a Motion to reduce the Vote for the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is some administrative act for which the hon. Member wishes to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: We say there is a large amount for paper and printing which has been unnecessarily spent, and in order to discuss that we must refer to the reason. I think the responsibility rests upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show why he gave the order and why he has wasted the public money.
  The CHAIRMAN: If that argument held good, it would be possible to discuss every other Department in the State in connection with this Vote, and, obviously that would be a reductio ad absurdum.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Ten thousand pounds has been spent at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his subordinates in regard to the Insurance Act. Surely it cannot be said to be unreasonable to raise one point with regard to that £10,000.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to ask for a little more explanation with regard to Sub-heads F, H, I, J and N. It is said these additional amounts are required to meet unforeseen liabilities. How much of this has been used for administering the Insurance Act? I understand the Financial Secretary to say it did not include paper. It cannot include much binding. It cannot include books and maps for public Departments. Then we come to the miscellaneous small stores for public Departments. It is important, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) pointed
  1070
  out, to remember that we have already had a sum of £500 for incidental expenses under Class VIII. It cannot be that administering the Insurance Act requires an increased Vote for the Parliamentary Debates and records. In going through these items, I cannot see which include matters for administering the Insurance Act, and I think the Committee should be told at the earliest possible stage what is the amount already spent for administering that Act, seeing that finance is the whole background of the matter, and we want to know from the start to finish exactly what has been expended. It is important that the expenditure in connection with the Act should be kept straight from the very first moment, and, therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will give us the actual figures with regard to the items included in this Vote, as, without those figures, a great number of hon. Members will feel that the information forthcoming is wholly insufficient to meet the importance of the case.
  Mr. FELL: I think it is very unfortunate that an item of £49,000 should be explained in the way it is in this Vote. We cannot tell, for instance, whether it represents the cost of paper or the increased price of paper. It may be, or it may not be, a matter of bad Estimates. We were, told that the estimate does not include the paper relating to the Buntingford Society. I should like to know does it include the advertisements and circulars issued by the Commissioners when, calling the meetings to be addressed by lecturers, as that may affect the votes some of us will give on this question. I should like to know, too, how far it affects the meetings convened in Scotland and Ireland. I protest very strongly against expenditure on the circulars calling these meetings, and I shall, if necessary, move a reduction of the Vote as a protest against it. Then, again, we have been told that some of the expense is in connection with the transfer of the National Telephone Company, and I must confess I do not see why that should appear in this Vote at all.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to refer to the item for books and maps for public Departments. That shows an increase from £47,000 to £49,000, a very large sum for Departmental publications. I have reason to believe it is largely attributable to reports and pamphlets issued by experts of the various Departments, and particularly of the Local Government Board. Those reports and pamphlets very often

  1071
  contain elaborately decorated diagrams which are extremely well produced. Their production might be justified if there were any great sale for the publications, but, as a matter of fact, there is an exceedingly small demand for them, and I think the House should, in the interests of public economy, bring pressure to bear on the various Departments, and particularly on the Local Government Board, to prevent their experts, as a matter of departmental vanity, publishing Blue Books with expensive diagrams. Then there is the item for "miscellaneous small stores." That shows a proportionate increase of 9 per cent., and, I think, the House is entitled to learn from the hon. Gentleman something of the details of these stores.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The expenditure under this heading appears to be of a most unsatisfactory character. Supplementary Estimates are matters of great difficulty to most hon. Members, and those under the headings we are now dealing with appear to be of a very evasive character. Our attention is called to the length of the Session. I should like to know how long hon. Members are going to use that as an excuse, because, since the time I have had the honour of being in this House, it seems to have become an understood thing that we shall sit for eleven months in the year. I think it would be advisable, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would realise that these items cannot any longer continue under the head of Supplementary Estimates of expenditure. Under various items I do not think that the Government can hope to escape from very severe censure for their extravagance. I should like some explanation as to the actual proportion of the increased price paid for paper. Has paper increased in value to such an abnormal extent as to justify the outlay under this heading? I should like to ask, further, whether the increase of business in connection with the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Inland Revenue have been of such abnormal dimensions as to justify this increased demand? Until I came into this House I had always believed that the Radical party were the exponents of economy, but I am now beginning to hold the opinion that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is one of the few individuals who is really desirous of carrying out economy and of assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that direction, although a more extravagant
  1072
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe, never sat on that bench. There is an item in connection with the Parliamentary Debates which, I think, shows an increase of something like 60 per cent. on the original Estimate. We were called upon earlier in the evening to ratify a decision come to by the Commissioners, of whom, I think, Mr. Speaker is Chairman, in connection with that Department; but here we have another item showing an increase of £4,500, and I think we are entitled to some explanation of the details.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is only one question I wish to put, and that is with regard to the amount provided in the Supplementary Estimates for stationery and printing for administering the Insurance Act. We cannot, of course, discuss the administration of the Department, but I think we are entitled to know which of the various Departments has spent the sum of £10,000 which is asked for for extra printing and stationery, and we ought to know under what heading it has been spent. There will be a discussion later on regarding the administration of the Act, and, in order to make it intelligent, we should know which Departments are responsible for this expenditure. There is nothing to show at present whether it is the Treasury, the Insurance Commissioners, or any particular set of Commissioners that have been guilty of what may prove to have been extravagant outlay. We ought to know whether this includes the charges for posters announcing meetings; we want, in fact, to be able to judge what have been the activities of the Department.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The first question put to me was that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who asked me if the Estimate included any charge for paper for the Buntingford Society Report. The answer is in the negative. The paper voted in Subhead K for papers presented to the House covers that, and there is no necessity for any Supplementary Vote in connection with it. That is also a reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne. That hon. Member complained that we had expended £10,000 in explaining the Insurance Act, but this is not a Vote for that purpose. It is a Stationery Office Vote. It represents stores drawn from the Stationery Office for various insurance purposes, and it includes paper, binding of books, stores, and other matters which are included in

  1073
  the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked me if the extra cost of paper was due to an increase in the price of paper. That is so. The cost of paper has gone up. It is the custom of the Stationery Office not to make running contracts, but to make short contracts. The result has been due to the going up of paper by something like one-tenth of a penny, which is largely due to good trade, and it has cost the Stationery Office something like £7,000 more than was asked for.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it due to the shortage of foreign imports or not?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think so. All the paper that is bought by the Stationery Office is bought from manufacturers in the United Kingdom. I was asked the question whether the Supplementary Estimate includes any money for advertisements. It does not include any advertisements or printing, but I suppose it does include the cost of any paper for posters. The hon. Member for Yarmouth asked for an explanation of the note in connection with the business of the National Telephone Company transfer. It is stationery and stores and books to be used now that the company is taken over by the State. It was impossible in 1910 to estimate how much of this extra paper would be wanted. It is thought that this additional sum will be spent by the 31st March, upon such stores. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst) asked which Departments dealt with, books and maps. This item is largely made up by the expenditure of the Admiralty, not of the Local Government Board. The Admiralty have been issuing text-books for dockyard hands, and revised text-books for men in the schools, especially in the gunnery and torpedo departments.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do they contain diagrams?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That I cannot answer. I think the hon. Member will agree that the expenditure is a good one, seeing that it is for seamen engaged in the Royal Navy.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether it would be possible by way of footnote or otherwise that the expenditure in the several Departments under this head
  1074
  should be given, for some of them are very extravagant, and some are not so extravagant.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have only been for a fortnight at the Treasury, but before any other Supplementary Estimates are produced next year—I hope they will be very few—I will gladly consider that suggestion. The Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh) asked me how much of the Estimate was due to the increased price of paper. It was £7,000.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is the price of paper all included in this Vote?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes. It is all included in this Vote. As to the Parliamentary Debates, the Estimate was for 120 days, which was supposed to be a normal Session of Parliament. The increase is an increase on a regular scale. There is no question of any arbitrary increase one way or the other, and it has been largely produced by the all-night sittings and the sitting right up to Christmas. As to the questions on the Insurance Act, all the money of this Estimate of £10,000 represents the stores issued by the Stationery Department to the four Commissions under the Insurance Act, and to the Board of Trade for the second part of the Insurance Act. The items represent something like £7,000 for paper, of which it is estimated that £4,500 relates to the sick part and the Insurance Commission work, and £2,500 to the second part and the Board of Trade work. The rest is made up by the necessary books, bindings, small stores, type-writing machines, and the necessary apparatus to equip, so far as the Stationery Office equips, the offices of the four Commissions and the extra required by the Board of Trade. It is roughly estimated that of the £4,500 of new paper, which will be required before the 31st March, not more than £600 or £700 will be required for the actual leaflets. The rest will be for the ordinary work of the Department—circulars, and so on. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a Committee dealing with the whole question of the House of Commons' publications, which was designed to produce still greater economy, has been reappointed this year, and that the Committee presented an interim report last December, which has

  1075
  been before me in my new Office, and I hope that some of their recommendations we shall be able to put into immediate operation.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I quite follow the explanation of the hon. Member as to the expenditure on paper, typewriting machines, and the necessary equipment for the Insurance Office. That I do not care much about. What I want to know is what is the total amount in this Estimate which should be debited to the Insurance Act? It is all very well to say about £7,000. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to distribute that into £4,500 for the sick portion, and £2,500 for the Board of Trade administration. I want to know not how the £7,000 is distributed, but what is the total amount which is to be found in these five several headings which is due to the passing of the Insurance Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought I had already given the answer to the hon. Member for Colchester this afternoon. £10,000 is the Supplementary Estimate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to Move, to reduce Item F (Paper for Public Departments) by £1,200. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for answering all the questions. I am sorry that I am not altogether satisfied with any of them. The first item provides for an increase of £33,000. The original Estimate was an increase of £25,000. That makes an increase of £58,000 on a sum, voted in the year 1910–11, of £225,000. That is to say, that in one short year there has been an increase of 35 per cent. in the cost of paper. The hon. Gentleman says that is owing to good trade. Of course, everything has gone up, but if I had been asked the reason I
  should have given another reason of a totally different character, one which would not have been so pleasant to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. ASHLEY: What is that?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The bad administration by Government Departments. At any rate, that would be one reason. I think the Committee ought to take some note of this extraordinary increase in the cost of paper. Why we should spend something like £250,000 on paper, and why we should spend it in this particular year, is beyond my comprehension. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman, because he was not at the Treasury at the time, but why is it that his predecessor could not have foreseen, with some degree of accuracy, what the cost of paper was going to be? The hon. Gentleman said that the Stationary Office did not make their contracts very far ahead. If he was under the impression that there was going to be such good trade owing to the advent of the Radical Government, he should have made his contracts a long way ahead. In all commercial undertakings we do not wait until an article is rising before making our contracts. We make them beforehand. Apparently that is not the procedure in this Office. I therefore beg to Move a reduction—item F be reduced £12,000, first as a protest against extravagence, and secondly, to mark our sense of their want of judgement when they knew that trade was good, and that it would increase the price of paper, they did not make their contracts a long way ahead.
  Question put, "That Item F (Paper for Public Departments) be reduced by £12,000.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [8.12 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cave, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Licker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Barnston, H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bird, A.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Boyton, James

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Butcher, J. G.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Fell.

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Hackett, J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Alden, Percy

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hogge, James Myles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  King, J.

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Leach, Charles

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lundon, T.

  Sheehy, David

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherge)

  Cowan, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Snowden, P.

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Doris, W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Molloy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Furness, Stephen

  Munro, R.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gill, A. H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Dowd, John

  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce Item H (Binding, etc.), by £2,000.
  This item of £4,000 is an addition to an addition. The original Vote provided for an increase of £1,000 over last year, and this Vote brings the increase up to £5,000 on the item of binding. The Secretary to the Treasury will probably say this item shows an increase because there has been a very large number of papers and documents, which are totally unnecessary,
  1078
  which, owing to the length of the Session, and from a variety of other reasons, had to be found. For a party pledged to economy this is an increase which cannot be justified. Last year the expenditure was larger than it has ever been with one exception, and then the expenditure included a certain amount of money which was raised by loan. The actual sum raised by taxes for the year we are now discussing is the largest that has ever been raised in the history of this country.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to know what records have been bound. I take it the ordinary Blue Books and so on are not bound except one copy for each Department, and the ordinary Parliamentary Papers are very limited in number. Therefore I suppose the only item for which the account is increased is the binding of the volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I suppose are supplied to all the 670 Members. Is that so, or are there any other Papers which are bound in that respect? Even taking the whole 670, I do not think the binding of the extra volumes can possibly account for £4,000. Surely it was estimated that the last Session would last to some date like the middle of August at least. Does the Secretary to the Treasury mean to say that £4,000 was spent on the binding of the OFFICIAL REPORT for October, November, and part of December! If not that, what was the binding? The telephone directories are not bound. I have had one or two copies. They come unbound and they very soon go to pieces.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should think the probabilities are that the Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment, by their own practice, answer the question they have put. I should imagine that the speeches of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment (Mr. J. Hope), and certainly the speeches of the hon. Baronet who proposed it, would be responsible for almost every item of extra expenditure under this head. If we knew the amount the hon. Baronet has cost the nation, it is a moral certainty that it would be a remarkable sum. If the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield are so anxious to reduce expenditure, there is a way they can reduce it, I am sure, by more than the amount of the increase on the Estimate on this occasion. It is not necessary for me to point out the way, for I am sure it is self-evident to all hon. Members.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Member will give me information as to how I can reduce expenditure, I shall be glad to receive it. This is an item for binding. How can I reduce the expenditure on binding? In what way have I contributed
  to the expenses for binding? I think the hon. Member must have made a mistake. He must have been thinking of the reports of speeches.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The more speeches you make the more binding has to be done.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot see that the duration of my speeches can have any effect on the cost of binding. If the hon. Member can give me any advice as to the way in which I can reduce, not only this expenditure but other expenditure, I shall be extremely glad.
  Mr. FELL: There is one explanation which possibly has not occurred to the hon. Baronet. This is the first item in which the word "etc." occurs. I think when we get an explanation we shall find that the additional expenditure is accounted for by the word "etc."
  Mr. MASTERMAN:I am afraid I cannot ask the Committee to accept the explanation that this expenditure has been confined to the binding up of the hon. Baronet's speeches, or other speeches. That does not come under this Vote. The binding referred to here includes various items. I think all the expenditure given in this Estimate is for items which of necessity were unforeseen. They are practically only three in number—old age pensions, the takng over of the telephones, and the Insurance Act. In the case of old age pensions a considerable proportion of the expenditure has been due to providing loose-leaf ledgers to pension officers, largely owing to increased work. It was quite impossible in November, 1910, for those who made the original Estimates to know what would be required for the Insurance Act. Practically a new Department has been started with different branches, and all that Department has to be fully equipped with ledgers and miscellaneous other things.
  Question put, "That Item H (Binding, etc.), be reduced by. £2,000."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 162.

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  [8.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymout)

  Butcher, John George

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bird, Alfred

  Cave, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Barnston, H.

  Boyton, James

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droitwich)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  McNeill, Ronald, Kent (St Augustine)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Nield, Herbert

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlet, Hon. William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hills, John Waller-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Pollock.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Dowd, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hackett, John

  O'Malley, William

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Alden, Percy

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Sullivan Timothy

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beck, Arthur

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hodge, John

  Radford, George Heynes

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hogge, James Myles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Horne, G. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, Henry George

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Clancy, Join Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clough, William

  Leach, Charles

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Short, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lundon, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Snowden, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Delany, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacVeagn, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dillon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Doris, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molloy, Michael

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Munro, Robert

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Gill, A. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nuttail, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, to reduce Item I (Books and Maps for Public Departments) £500. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has handed me the original Estimates, and I see that out of all the Estimates under this Vote
  1082
  the only one in respect of which a credit was taken for a reduction was this one of books and maps for public Departments, that is, save a small reduction of £300 under another Vote, But in order to keep the Estimates down the Government

  1083
  apparently took credit to themselves that they were able to make a reduction of £2,000 in this item. It is a curious thing, if the Government did intend to reduce and hoped they would be able to reduce this item by £2,000, they are able now to come to the House and ask for the exact replacement of this £2,000. I could understand a sum of £1,500 or some other figure, it might be more or less, but this is asking the Committee to replace by the exact sum the amount for which credit was taken in the Estimates for 1910–11. Without giving us any more information we suddenly find that this credit which they expected to be realised has not been realised. We have not got any figures of the exact amount by which they failed to realise their anticipations, and we are asked to replace the exact sum of £2,000 and not a specific sum by which the Estimate has been in fact increased. That is very unsatisfactory indeed, and accordingly, I move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £500.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that I have given an explanation of this in my first explanation to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that he will agree with me that the increased Estimate in the Supplementary Estimate is really dealing with circumstances which could not be foreseen, with the possible exception of what I understood the Committee as a whole approved, that is the increased cost of books for the Admiralty. The Admiralty, in connection with their scheme for the improvement in the education of the sailor, have had to expend a certain amount on textbooks, especially on gunnery. That accounts for about half of the increased
  surplus Estimate. The rest is made up of the books and maps required by the Insurance Commissioners, which could not have been foreseen, and—
  Mr. POLLOCK: What maps?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell you the maps that are required, but there are the various books that are needed for the equipment of the Commission, and there are also additional books which were required when we took over the National Telephone Company.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see why the Insurance Commissioners should be provided with maps. I do not know what they are going to gain by maps, or how they are going to give 9d. for 4d. by having a map. It is an absolute waste of money. When the Insurance Commissioners go down with the benevolent intention of giving 9d. for 4d. all they want to know is who is bound to come in. They do not want any map to find out who are the employers. The ordinary postal guide I should have thought would be sufficient, or an "A B C," as my hon. and learned Friend suggests. The explanation given is most unsatisfactory, and is a different explanation from that which was first given. The first explanation was the increase was due to books for the Admiralty, and now it appears that only part of it was for the Admiralty.
  Question put: "That Item I (Books and Maps for Public Departments) be reduced by £500."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shoe, Major M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, J. F. P.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bird, A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Boyton, J.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Cave, George

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Sanderson.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Alden, Percy

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayward, Evan

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon., S.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hughes, S. L.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Byles, Sir William pollard

  Keating, M.

  Rowlands, James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

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

  Clough, William

  Leach, Charles

  Sheehy, David

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lundon, T.

  Snowden, P.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dillon, John

  M Micking, Major Gilbert

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Doris, W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Molloy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Munro, R.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gill, A. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough):

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nuttall, H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Dowd, John

  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, the reduction of Item J (Miscellaneous Small Stores for Public Departments) by £5,000.
  When we were discussing just now, I put a question to the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury asking him to give the Committee some details of the very considerable increase. I pointed out that the increase amounted to 9 per cent., which is the largest proportional increase with the exception of the following item, due to the exigencies of the Autumn Session. On the original Estimate for these Miscellaneous Small Stores, I find an increase for the current year as compared with the previous financial year of £11,000; that is to say, in respect of small items such as, I presume, sealing wax, or pens, or red tape, we have got not only the
  1086
  enormous sum now of over £80,000, but we had an increase last year on the previous year of 18 per cent., and an increase again at the end of this financial year of another 9 per cent. I think it is due to the Committee that we should have some better explanation than the somewhat vague one which the hon. Gentleman previously gave to the Committee on the subject.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other items besides sealing wax and red tape provided for in this Vote. A large number of these so-called small stores represent the purchase of things of very considerable value, such as typewriting machines, calculating machines, duplicating machines, the numbering of stamps, and such like

  1087
  apparatus, which are provided through the Stationery Office. I have to repeat my defence, which I made on a former Supplementary Estimate, that the main bulk of the expenditure is due to two main causes, first, to the equipment of the four Insurance Commissions for the four parts of the United Kingdom, for which we had to practically supply a new Department with all that is necessary; and, secondly, in the taking over of the telephones by the Post Office a large amount of supplies had to be provided.
  I understand that the main part of the remaining amount of the Estimate is due to general increases in the requirements of the Admiralty, due, I suppose, to the extension which has taken place in recent years. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will see his way not to press the Motion for a reduction.
  Question put, "That Item J (Miscellaneous Small Stores for Public Departments) be reduced by £5,000."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Flannery, S. J. Fortescue

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, J.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cave, George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Major Morrison-Bell.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Delany, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dillon, John

  Hughes, S. L.

  Alden, Percy

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Keating, Matthew

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Furness, Stephen W.

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Leach, Charles

  Brady, P. J.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lundon, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lyell, Chas. Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gulland, John W.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hackett, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Clough, William

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Cowan, William Henry

  Hayward, Evan

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hinds, John

  Molloy, M.

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

  Hodge, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Mooney, John J.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Munro, R.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Reddy, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Neilson, Francis

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Webb, H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shortt, Edward

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Guest.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, that Item N (Parliamentary Debates and Records) be reduced by £100.
  I move this reduction, and I hope, and in fact I believe, the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory explanation, so that it may not be necessary to press the matter to a Division. I desire to ask a question which is largely on a matter of proportional arithmetic. The last Session, so far as I recollect, began about the 7th or 8th of February, and lasted until 19th August, which is, roughly speaking, about six months. The Autumn Session, on which the blame for this increased Vote is thrown, lasted from 15th October to 19th December, a period of two months. Six months were apparently estimated to cost £7,500, or at the rate of £1,250 per month. At the same ratio the charge for the two extra months would be £2,500, whereas the additional sum asked for is £4,500. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us what are the reasons for this extra £2,000. I have no doubt they are very good reasons, but we have not yet heard them. After all, the reporting of the Parliamentary Debates is a matter which lends itself more or less to an average calculation. Some nights are much longer than others, to the great sorrow of all of us, but on an average it works out to some sort of figure which could be fairly easily calculated in advance. The suggestion I wish to make is one that I hope the hon. Member will bring to the notice of the Committee appointed on Friday last to advise Mr. Speaker with regard to the reporting of these Debates.
  All who take an interest in the work of the House will have felt the difficulty to which I wish to refer. Very often in the course of a debate references are
  1090
  made to speeches made by various Members of the Front Bench on the one side or the other during the preceding Session, and one wants to turn up a particular speech in a hurry. At present it is very difficult indeed to do so, because there is no index to the Parliamentary Debates of last Session. Therefore, if you want to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, you have to start at a date that you think is approximately correct, and turn up the index to that volume. If you are wrong you must go to the preceding or the succeeding volume. This you have to do while the reference is urgently wanted. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility, when we are voting increased sums of money for the better reporting of the Parliamentary Debates, to produce an index of the previous Session some time before the present moment? I do not know whether that is a question for which this item ought to have been increased. Perhaps if more money had been voted it would have been possible to have done what I suggest. It cannot be a matter of very great difficulty, because the indices for the separate volumes are already complete. It is only a matter of collating them and forming them into one general index. I make this suggestion in perfectly good faith, believing that it will conduce to the convenience of Members in all parts of the House, and I hope it will receive a reciprocal echo from the hon. Gentleman when he replies.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member, I should not be in order in discussing it on a Supplementary Estimate, but I will take note of it and see if it is possible to deal with it in any way.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman bring it to the notice of the Committee appointed to advise Mr. Speaker in this matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see if anything can be done. I am not sure for the moment under whose jurisdiction such a change would be. As to the necesity for the Supplementary Estimate, it is largely a mechanical matter, depending not on the Treasury at all, but on the number of days and nights that Parliament chooses to sit in the year. The payment for the reporting staff is not included in this Estimate at all. The whole of this payment is for printing, paper, indexing, and otherwise preparing and binding the Parliamentary records. The original Estimate made in 1907, perhaps under somewhat optimistic conditions, was for an average Parliamentary year of 120 days, and on that basis the Estimates have been prepared since. Whether it may be necessary to revise that Estimate another year, we shall have to consider. To that 120 days a certain number of days have had to be added, and also a certain number of nights. Therefore, automatically, the amount of this Vote has gone up. I hope that that explanation will be satisfactory to the Committee.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Member, whom we all congratulate on having received promotion for his undoubted ability, has shown by the speech he has just made that he is not very well acquainted with the subject with which he has to deal to-night. I admit that it is very difficult for him, having been in office only a fortnight, to answer the very pertinent questions that have been raised. But what the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that there is an increase of £4,500, or 60 per cent., on the original Estimate. With the greatest possible deference and respect, I do not think it meets the case to say that the average was fixed in 1907. I believe we sat for a great deal more than 120 days in that year, and in any case we are now in 1912. It is a very poor defence. I am very unwilling to go into details, because I recognise the difficulties under which the hon. Gentleman is labouring. But £4,500 must have been called for to defray some definite costs, and we have not been told under what headings that cost has been incurred—whether it is for books, or for paper, or anything else. When we remember that £4,500 would pay for eleven Members of
  1092
  this House, there ought to be something to show for it. Instead of being told that it is an automatic increase, we ought to know the exact items on which it has been incurred. Failing a satisfactory answer, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division as a protest against undue extravagance for which no reason has been given. It may be said that these Supplementary Estimates are a matter of course, and that we are supposed to sit here and listen to evasive answers from the Treasury Bench. Since hon. Members opposite so often talk of economy it is surely their duty to help us in these matters, and not to consent to vote large sums of money without a word of explanation.
  Sir J. SPEAR: In supporting the Amendment for reduction, I submit that there is a great deal of unnecessary duplication of records, entailing a very serious waste of public money. Every morning we get a Blue Book giving a record of the proceedings of the previous day, which record is very valuable. In addition to that, we get a parcel of papers, which most of us throw at once into the waste-paper basket—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which is a duplicate of the Blue Book. Surely there is no necessity for the two publications. On this Vote we have an increase of £47,000, which is a serious sum, after all, and tells of radical extravagance. I say to hon. Members opposite that it is our duty to see, if we can, that this duplication of accounts ceases in the public interest, and I cordially support the Motion for the reduction.
  Mr. SANDERSON: The hon. Member opposite explained to us that the reason for this increase is that the amount was fixed in 1907 at £7,500, and that it has gone up by no less than £4,500 last year in consequence of the extra number of days on which we sat. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to these facts: that in 1910–11 the total amount of expenditure was £7,500; in 1911–12 the total amount we are asked to spend is no less than £12,000, a rise of £4,500. Do hon. Members think that this expenditure is caused solely by the fact that we sat a few more days in 1911 than we did in 1910? According to my recollection there was not very much difference between the sittings of the two Sessions. We had an Autumn Session in 1910 just the same as in 1911, though it was not quite so long. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not

  1093
  given us any explanation for such an enormous rise by merely saying that the sittings last year were longer than 1910. I associate myself with the Noble Lord, and unless we get a further explanation of this very extraordinary rise, I shall vote against it if my hon. Friend goes to a division.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman opposite said earlier that a fixed sum was settled some few years ago based upon a normal length of a Session of 120 days. He has again repeated that argument. Has he forgotten that on the very first page of these Supplementary Estimates there occurs the item of an increase of pay to the official reporting staff of £2 per day per man for each sitting of the House beyond 150 days? On that first item the hon. Gentleman explained that the normal sittings of the House lasted 150 days. He said that period had been fixed by a Commission over which Mr. Speaker presides. How is it, then, that on one Vote we are told the normal Session is 150 days, and that on the next Vote we are told that the normal Session of the House is 120 days, and that this Estimate is based not upon 150, but 120 days? It is evident that both of these statements cannot be correct. There must be some mistake somewhere. Someone has bungled. Is that the proper way to conduct the business of what was once the greatest Assembly in the world? I am surprised at the conspiracy of silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Until the present time we have not been honoured with the presence of hon. Members opposite. They have been content to leave the spending of the nation's money in the hands of the Ministers. Now, however, that the hour is getting later the opposite Benches are gradually filling up, yet there is not a single hon. Member who dare get up and explain and support the gross extravagance of His Majesty's Ministers. There is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Sir William Byles)—he is a great economist. He is not willing to rise in his place and attack the expenditure. He has listened to this Debate, he is competent to make a speech—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Baronet's observations are not strictly relevant to this Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am simply endeavouring to comment upon the extraordinary effacement of hon. Members
  1094
  opposite, but I will not persevere. I have said quite enough. The explanation of the hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory. It is, in fact, no explanation at all. He has given no reason whatever why we should vote this sum, which is an increase of 60 per cent., and, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that nobody opposite dare support it, I shall vote against it.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The cost works out at about £63 a day. We reassembled last year on 24th October, and Parliament rose on the 15th December. If you take the number of extra Parliamentary days that are possible you cannot make it fifty. Even if it had been fifty, the amount is not as large as £63 per day, and for a normal Session of 150 days it would be less. If you take it at that, you cannot make this figure more than £3,000, and perhaps not so much. When the Financial Secretary gives us this information he is, I suppose, under a serious handicap owing to the fact that he has not been long in his present office. I urge him to look into this matter, because his information is not so complete as no doubt he would like it to be. If the figure really is £3,000 we ought to know what this £1,500 from some other source is for. Reckoning on 150 days, I do not think it is possible to make the figure more than £3,000, and therefore we ought to have fuller information.
  Major MORRISON - BELL: May I qualify the suggestion that was made in the course of his speech by the hon. Member who spoke of the great duplication of Parliamentary Papers, that we ought to put them into the waste-paper basket. Hon. Members opposite repudiated that, and the hon. Member for Salford at once said he did not put his Papers into the waste-paper basket. I do not think that we on this side put all our Papers into the waste-paper basket, much as we are overwhelmed sometimes with them. I think it is only right and fair that we on this side should voice the opinion that we are as keen on Parliamentary matters as hon. Gentlemen opposite. We ought to have some more information about this increased Vote from the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, because, if I may say so, he has been very well treated by hon. Members on this side. They have accepted his excuses for these Estimates very easily. The last Estimate, he said, was for typewriting, the next is because we sat for more than 120 days. I think

  1095
  the Committee is entitled to some more information owing to the very large amounts already passed sub silentio, and therefore I desire to reinforce the request made for some more information upon this subject.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the remarks made with reference to myself. This is purely an automatic increase of so much per day as distinct from the other. The original Estimate was for 120 days. Last year we sat for something like 170 days, and a good many nights as well. Not only had we an Autumn Session, but we had very short holidays and an almost unprecedented record of sittings, except upon the Budget. As we go on sitting, the cost for printing automatically goes up. None of the expenses for Parliamentary Papers referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite come into this Vote at all. It is for the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the amount is necessarily limited or increased by the number of Parliamentary days of the Session.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the reception given to my suggestion with regard to the Index. It ought not to pass the resources of civilisation to have that done. It is two months now since the end of the last Session, in which the Index might have been produced. I hope if the hon. Gentleman is in the same position and occupies his present office next year we shall not have to make the same suggestion again. I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman for details, but I do think that our sense of duty compels us to seek for more information. He said it is purely a question of arithmetic. I do not care by what kind of arithmetic it is tested, the plain fact is that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman in his explanation and the figures of the Vote will not balance. He says the first part was based on a Session of 120 days. That was in 1907. No one expected that there was going to be such a spasm of activity for legislation in the Liberal party as has taken place since. He says the Session was prolonged to 170 days. That is an extra fifty. If 120 days is to be taken as costing £7,500, or, roughly, £62 10s. a day, then the expenditure upon the extra fifty days and nights is not £62 10s., but £90. Were there no late sittings in July or in the early part of the Session?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They cost exactly the same as this. There are nights to be added, including all-night sittings, and also the amount spent, at the request of hon. Members opposite, upon the unemployment portion of the Insurance Act.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Now the hon. Gentleman has given us an explanation, which really does appear to explain to some extent the increase, but I am sure he would not wish the Committee to believe that the cost of the proceedings of the Committee upstairs will account for the extra cost involved in this Vote. I sat on the Committee upstairs, but I do not remember that we had more than seven or eight sittings, and I am quite certain the Reports of the Debates upstairs would fill but a small part of the volume. His explanation goes some way, but it does not go far enough to explain this increase, and under the circumstances I feel compelled to divide. I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman so hard, but, after all, his position on the Treasury Bench is as the representative of the Government.
  Mr. HOHLER: I asked the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, did he not obtain that information as to the cost of reporting the Debate in Committee upstairs at the last moment, from somebody sitting at the back of this House, and has he not been offering explanations up to that wholly unfounded in fact? I ask him whether he will give reasonable and proper information founded on fact as to how this increase really occurred? We are now told that the increase is due to the printing of the Unemployment Debate upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain what it was he said. I understood it was in reference to what happened upstairs. Perhaps some Gentleman on the Labour Benches will give us an explanation. Was the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the increase the reporting of the Committee upstairs? Is there any further explanation to be given to the House in regard to this most unreasonable increase?
  Mr. E. GRETTON: Is there any charge in this item connected with the Insurance Act? I think there was an additional copy of the Act printed for the convenience of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is entirely for the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the hon. Member tell me where the cost relating to the Insurance Act is to be found in these Estimates?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it comes in on a Vote we have already passed.
  Question put, "That Item N (Parliamentary Debates and Records) be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 178.

  Division No. 12.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fell, Arthur

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, H.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hills, John Waller

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hohler, G. F.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bird, A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, James

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Thynne, Lord A.

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Morrison-Bell and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Alden, Percy

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Leach, Charles

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Furness, Stephen

  Lundon, T.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brady, P. J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John William

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hackett, J.

  Martin, J.

  Carr-Gomm, M. W.

  Hancock, John George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Clough, William

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, John J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Munro, R.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hinds, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hodge, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Delany, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, W.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Doris, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Pointer, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Shortt, E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Radford, G. H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Snowden, Philip

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Reddy, M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Rowlands, James

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Howard.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wardle, George J.

  Original question again proposed.
  Mr. FELL: There are many hon. Members present who did not hear the explanation which has been given of these various items, and, consequently, they are not aware of the fact that this £47,000 includes payments on behalf of those posters of such an objectionable nature which were
  issued from the Treasury, and which we object to entirely. On that ground I beg to move a reduction of this Vote by £100.
  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,900 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 81; Noes, 181.

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescus

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, H.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hohler, G. F.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bird, A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyton, J.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cave, George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Major Morrison-Bell.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Delany, William

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Devlin, Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dillon, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Doris, W.

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

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cotton, William Francis

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rowlands, James

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Martin, J.

  Scott, A. MacCailum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sheehy, David

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, E.

  Hackett, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molloy, M.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Munro, R.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wardle, George J.

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Dowd, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Joyce, Michael

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Keating, M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, Michael

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, IRELAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "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, 1912, 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."
  Mr. CLANCY: I was delighted to find a Vote recommended by the Development Commissioners for any useful public purpose in Ireland. The first item concerns the provision of dredgers, and I wish to ask for what sort of harbours these dredgers are intended. For some years past some of us have been asking for money for the purpose of dredging some small harbours on the East Coast of Ireland. I need not now argue the necessity for a provision for that object. I merely
  1102
  wish to ask whether these dredgers to be provided by this Vote are intended for those small harbours or not?
  10.0 P.M.
  Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland a question with regard to the class of dredger which the Government are about to purchase for this sum of £4,250. Has consideration been had to the difference in the harbours around the coast of Ireland so far as regards the draught of the dredger, and will she be fitted with modern appliances? Further, I would like to know, will this dredger be available in parts of Ireland where hitherto private energy has been expended in dredging narrow shoals and channels of harbours and rivers which give admittance to inland ports in Ireland. Everybody is aware that some of the harbours on the east coast of Ireland are readily silted up by the tide, and that makes it extremely expensive for the small population surrounding that particular locality to keep the harbour mouth properly dredged. In many instances the amount necessary for that expenditure has had

  1103
  to be augmented by grants from the local authorities, and sometimes from the private means of those who take an interest in that particular locality. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that, although the work has been done in this manner in the past, in future the Government dredger will be available for all localities, whether or not the apparatus and machinery is on the spot owned by private individuals, because if this dredger is provided out of public funds it is only natural for every small harbour in Ireland to expect, and even demand, that her services shall be at the disposal of the local authorities. I have in my mind along the coast of Antrim and Down many entrances which are constantly being silted up and where, at considerable expense to the local inhabitants, a fairway has to be dredged sometimes by means of obsolete machinery, and it would certainly add very much to the prosperity of those parts of the coast if small vessels, colliers, and fishing fleets were given the facilities which could be provided by the use of this Government dredger. The important fact has to be borne in mind that the Government have only one vessel—at any rate I have no knowledge of any Government dredger assisting us in the northern ports or on the county Down coast. The right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as Vice-President of the Department may have some familiarity with that part of the coast, but the real point is this: we hope from the outset there will be nothing partisan in the way in which this vessel is allowed to carry on her work, and I trust we may have an assurance from the Vice-President that the most deserving cases, irrespective of locality will receive attention, and that he will not allow any pressure brought by the Nationalist party to weigh with him in the slightest degree, so far as granting the services of this new dredger is concerned. Now I pass to the second item, and I wish to ask a question with regard to agricultural research and advisory work for which a Grant of £2,400 is being invited. I do not at all object to the money being obtained for the purpose, but a short time ago it was stated in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman had vetoed a much larger sum of money being obtained for equally important work in Ireland. How is it that this sum of £2,400, inadequate as it is for the purpose, is put down in the
  1104
  Vote by the right hon. Gentleman who was instrumental in preventing us getting a much larger sum for the same purpose—a much larger sum which would have done justice to the case?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to what he is referring?
  Mr. DILLON: If this subject is raised I suppose we shall be at liberty to discuss it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not at present seized of what the subject is.
  An HON. MEMBER: Nobody else is either.
  Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, under the scheme of Sir Horace Plunket, a very much larger sum of money would have been voted in order to develop Ireland's resources and that the right hon. Gentleman did all that lay in his power to prevent it being granted.
  The CHAIRMAN: That clearly would not be a matter for discussion under this Vote.
  Captain CRAIG: Of course, I bow to your ruling at once, but I must confess at the same time it surprises me that the right hon. Gentleman has whitewashed himself by putting down such a small sum for work admittedly requiring ten times the amount in order to carry out the necessary experiments. That is all the moral that I would draw from the smallness of this sum and the largeness of the sum that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for refusing to Ireland in the first instance. I hope he will be able to give us some explanation on the subject, inside the rules of order in this Committee, in order to satisfy what is in Ireland a very natural desire to get to the bottom of the Department's ideas on this very important subject.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not confine the activities of this dredger to the East Coast of Ireland, because I would point out to him, as he no doubt already knows, that there are many small harbours on the West Coast which are equally deserving of attention, such as that at Sligo, as there are on the East Coast Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of how much he is going to

  1105
  charge for this dredger, and whether for a harbour which has been built entirely out of private funds any charge will be made at all? I have in my mind a harbour on the West Coast, built about fifty years ago at a cost of nearly £30,000, the owner of which paid for it entirely out of his own pocket. He built it entirely for the use of the fishermen, and he now keeps it up entirely at his own cost. The harbour is in constant danger of silting up. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether, in a case such as this, where a man, without any profit to himself, but to the benefit of the community, has spent this large sum of money, this dredger will be allowed to be used by this estate free of cost.
  Mr. DILLON: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on Sub-head R (Agricultural Research and Advisory work). Before I ask that, may I say in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) that he seems to be in a state of ignorance on this subject. He seems to be under the impression that the Grant to which he alluded, and which cannot be brought under this Vote under the rules of Order, had to do with the same subjects as are contained under another head. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I am far more in order than was the hon. Gentleman. I did rule him out, but he continued the subject all the same.
  Captain CRAIG: May I say to the hon. Member that every ruling of his on any measure will be treated in exactly the same way.
  Mr. DILLON: That matter is out of order, and has no relation whatever to the subjects dealt with under Sub-head R. The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, what is the nature of the technical advice and assistance which it is proposed to give in the suppression of cattle diseases under this sub-head? The machinery at present in Ireland for the suppression of cattle disease is very ineffective. It is a matter of enormous importance, and I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication as to whether this means a general revision of the machinery for suppressing cattle disease, particularly that disease of which we heard so much earlier in the Debate on the Vote for the English Board of Agriculture, namely, swine fever. I am inclined to think sometimes that what is said here by English Members in regard to the English Board of Agriculture is quite true, that the experts really
  1106
  do not understand what swine fever is. There is a great deal of difference of opinion on the subject. The question is of far more importance to Ireland than it is to England, because the industry is a larger part of our agricultural industry than it is in England. A great deal of investigation is required before an effective system for the suppression of swine fever can come into existence. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication as to what is contemplated under this particular Grant.
  Mr. J. GORDON (Londonderry): I should like to know if the Grant of £6,645 asked for is for the purpose of recouping the Development Fund for money which have been taken out of it. In the note to "Q" it says:—
  "This plant has been acquired for the purpose of dredging small harbours. This expenditure is to be met by a Grant from the Development Fund."
  Then under "P, Appropriations in Aid," it says:—
  "The increase of £6,645 is due to Grants from the Development Fund to meet the expenditure incurred under Sub-heads Q and R."
  In the first place it appears as if that expenditure was to be met out of the Development Fund, but from the bottom of the page it appears as if it were to meet the expenditure already incurred. Is the Development Fund to be at the cost of these two sums? Is the Development Fund to be drawn upon to meet these two charges, and if it has been drawn upon, is the sum now asked for to recoup that fund for the moneys taken from it?
  Sir J. LONSDALE: I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will inform the Committee whether anything has been done during the past year to make research in regard to the disease known as red water in cattle. I ventured to put a question to the Chief Secretary during last Session pointing out that a loss of no less than £200,000 a year is sustained by Irish farmers in consequence of this disease, and that the authorities seemed unable to cope with it. The Chief Secretary on that occasion said that inquiries were being made and that every step would be taken for the purpose of obtaining a possible remedy for the disease. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if any steps have been taken in that direction. It is a very serious matter, and one which is exciting a considerable amount of attention amongst the farmers, especially in the North of Ireland. I myself had a deputation of farmers which waited upon me in

  1107
  the last few months pointing out the terrible loss they were sustaining in consequence of the neglect of the Department to suggest some remedy whereby this serious disease might be met. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman has not yet taken any steps he will certainly do so in the immediate future.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me, for the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig), who has excited my suspicions with regard to this dredger, rather than for my own, to what religious persuasion it belongs.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Up to the present time the Department has been very much handicapped by the want of a small dredger. We have a large dredger which is and has been extremely useful. But the real necessity was a small dredger with a draught of five or six feet to go into the small harbours on the coast, east and west. The hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) gave a very good illustration. Balbriggan Harbour was quite silted up not long ago. It became necessary to clear it, and it had to be done by spade labour. A small dredger can run into a harbour like that and clear it in a very short space of time, whereas it took, I think, two months to clear it by spade labour. That is the object the Department has had in getting this small dredger. We have been fortunate in getting it through the Development Commissioners. They have done a great many things for Ireland, and will do a great many more. At all events this supplies a real want. It cannot be in two places at one time, but I can promise that every part of Ireland will have the same claim and will receive the same consideration. I have never known any charge of partisanship against the Department in the administration of the great sum of public money which they have to administer. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman, knows, much of the Department's funds are administered through county funds, and not through the central Department at all, therefore partisanship is quite impossible. The funds are disposed of automatically to the county committees, which are elected by the county councils, and it will be a pretty stiff puzzle for anyone to explain how the funds of the Department could be allocated in a partisan way.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any single instance of the larger dredger ever being in any harbour except those where the majority on the board were Nationalist?
  The CHAIRMAN: The larger dredger does not come on this Vote.
  Mr. RUSSELL: At all events I have explained the intention of the Department in securing the small dredger. There is a small charge, I admit, but the local authorities have cheerfully paid it up to the present time. As to the second question, I will give a list of the advisory purposes. First of all, we are asking for a seed-testing station in Dublin, a thing which was very much required, and it will be of great service to the farmers and traders alike for investigation of diseases of plants and root crops, the chemical analysis of manure and veterinary advice in regard to the suppression of diseases of cattle. These are the purposes for which this money is expended. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the amount was small. If the amount is small, I am not to blame for the smallness. It is not nearly what we require, and we shall have to get more. I am not-responsible for the amount. I asked for a very much larger sum, and the Development Commissioners have granted this sum to begin with. We must try to make the best possible use of it. I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that swine fever is increasing. I agree with him that the veterinary officers of the department in Dublin, or anywhere else, have no definite idea as to its cause. It is exceedingly difficult to deal with, and in future it will require more attention devoted to it. There are many other diseases to be investigated. One we are investigating specially is braxy in sheep. It is very prevalent in the county of Wicklow. There was a specific found for it, but the Professor in Aberdeen who discovered it died, and the secret was lost. We are labouring now to find a specific for that disease, and I think there is hope of achieving good results. These are the things we are doing with this money. We are investigating as to the most suitable time for spraying. We have erected stations in the west of Ireland for that purpose. We could not do with £2,400 if we had not the funds of the Department to supplement that amount. This is only part of the money spent on research work. Large sums are going in the same

  1109
  direction. In reply to the hon. Member for South Derry, I would ask him to understand that the figures given are the Treasury figures. The original Vote was £29,910. The revised Vote shows £6,555 for research and advisory work. All the money that comes from a Development Commission has to go through Committee of Supply, just in the same way as other Votes.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: I think it is desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to the matter of red water which affects the interests of the farmers in Ulster.
  Mr. RUSSELL: We have at least two inspectors making inquiries now and studying this disease. There are all sorts of "cures" for it in the North of Ireland, but no real remedy has yet been found. It is being investigated in the veterinary laboratory in Dublin. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not being lost sight of.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell of the work which is being actually undertaken at the present moment with regard to the further investigation of this terrible scourge of red water which is causing such a great amount of loss and hardship to the agricultural interests in the North of Ireland. I congratulate him heartily, and hope that satisfactory results will be forthcoming soon. With regard to dredging, the right hon. Gentleman admitted quite frankly that the North of Ireland, especially the North-east coast of the constituency which I have the honour to represent (North Down), has not been so favoured with the attentions of the Board in regard to dredging as it might be, and he asks us to have faith in the small dredger which will be employed in the work. I hope that this faith will be justified speedily by works, and that we shall soon have the pleasure of seeing the small dredger, which this Vote is to enable the Board of Agriculture to acquire, at work in the harbours on the coast of Down.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: I am very glad to hear about the purchase of the small dredger. The Department had no doubt a large dredger which it placed at the disposal of local authorities at a reasonable figure, but this was in many cases absolutely useless because there was not sufficient water in very small harbours to admit the large dredger. I believe that
  1110
  the small dredger will be able to get round to these harbours and do the work which, in certain cases, as at Balbriggan, was done with spade and shovel, a mode of work that was very expensive and unsatisfactory. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how he is dealing with the scourge of contagious abortion which prevails so much among cattle in Munster at present.
  Mr. SANDYS: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the small dredger. The Department was in possession of a large dredger that could not operate in these small harbours in Ireland, which, small though they are, are nevertheless of great value to the fishing communities in these localities. Now the right hon. Gentleman is providing a small dredger with a draught of only five or six feet, which will be able to operate in small harbours where the large dredger could not be used. It has been stated that in these small harbours operations for the purpose of clearing them have been carried out by means of spade work. It seems to me that an operation of that kind must be extremely unsatisfactory; and, in fact, with my experience of small English harbours around our coasts, I cannot recall an instance which has come under my personal knowledge where operations of the kind described by the right hon. Gentleman have actually taken place. I think it is a very desirable thing that the Government should have taken this matter in hand, and that they should have provided a small dredger of this character, which will avoid the extremely unsatisfactory operations which the right hon. Gentleman has described as having taken place in these small harbours, which are of such importance to the fishing and seafaring community. I am sure that every Member of this House will welcome the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman, and the definite pledge he has given that in the allocation of the sphere of duties of this new dredger which the Board has provided political influence shall have no place. The statement will have been received with peculiar gratification, because, so far as past experience goes, it seems to create a precedent which has not been very apparent on previous occasions—a precedent which we may all trust will be acted upon in future. The right hon. Gentleman also stated in the course of his observations that the £2,400 which is being allocated for

  1111
  agricultural research and advisory work was going to be used for various objects which he described in detail. First of all investigations are to be made into the various diseases of crops and of cattle, the chemical analysis of manures at present employed in Ireland, and also—which is very necessary—some portion of the money is to be devoted to an investigation of the milk supply. When I was in Ireland some time ago, I understood that considerable difficulty had been experienced in various parts of the country owing to the serious shortage of the milk supply during the winter months. That is a subject to which we might well apply a portion of the money. There might be an investigation as to whether the farmers, at any rate in the West of Ireland, are employing the best methods in regard to the care of cows, and a portion of the money might be allocated in that direction. One question which I wish particularly to address to the right hon. Gentleman is as to whether any part of the investigations to be made will take place at the Agricultural College at Athenry. It appears to me most desirable that experiments should be carried out there.
  Mr. RUSSELL: It is not an agricultural college.
  Mr. SANDYS: I refer to the institution at Athenry which is devoted to agriculture, and it appears to me that the experiments could be carried out with greater safety owing to the fact that the institution is so splendidly protected by the force of police. The experiments could there be carried out under favourable conditions, and no doubt some satisfactory results might be obtained. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it would not be advisable, in view of the extreme interest which the inhabitants of that neighbourhood have displayed in that agricultural institution, that those elaborate experiments should be carried on in that particular institution.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Estimate is somewhat defective. For instance, we are told in the second item that there has been no amount given hitherto for the purpose of research. I looked through the original Estimate for the current financial year, and I find that there is a Grant of £6,000
  1112
  towards experiments and research in connection with tobacco growing. When a statement like this is put before the Committee, we ought to have the whole facts, and not part of them.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Tobacco is not a matter of research. This House has given £6,000 per year for five years for the purpose of ascertaining by experiment whether tobacco can be grown as a commercial speculation. That is wholly different from agricultural research.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It may be very difficult to define the word "research," but the right hon. Gentleman has already in his footnote attempted to do so as regards those particular purposes for which he wants the grant of money. If those purposes are well covered by the word "research," certainly the large sum that is being expended on tobacco-growing experiments can be far better covered by the ordinary acceptation of the word research than a good many of these purposes. All I ask is that you should put your Estimate, as is done in the case of the Board of Agriculture, as "for the purpose of agricultural experiments and research," and then the House of Commons will be properly equipped to deal with it. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at his disposal with the help of this Supplementary Estimate an enormous sum of money for those purposes. I wish we had such an amount to dispose of in this country I would like to ask when he refers specifically to swine fever under what heading in this particular Estimate are we to find any reference direct or indirect to swine fever. I am glad to observe that Ireland has been comparatively free from this disease, and I am sorry to see that there is any recrudescence of it. He does mention in an explanatory note that some of his research is in connection with cattle diseases. Swine fever is not a cattle disease. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some details to show what portion of this money is actually applied to cattle diseases, and to what cattle diseases, and what portion is being applied to what he has mentioned as the most expenditure, namely, that on swine fever.
  I may mention for the instruction of the House that in the original Estimate for the year Ireland is given £10,000 for expenses in connection with swine fever. I should like to know how that money is being expended, because the number of cases of

  1113
  swine fever in. Ireland has been very small. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I do not know why my Irish Friends should call me to order. I only ask before you request the House of Commons to give you an extra amount to say what you have done with the money you have already got. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to two diseases from which he states that in Ireland stock at present suffer. One of them is braxy in sheep, and he tells us that there is a great deal to be learned about it. There is a great deal to be learned about every disease of stock in both countries. As regards braxy our Department has already carried out very extensive researches. Before Parliament votes a large sum of money for fresh researches in the neighbouring country, I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture. He will probably then find all the information he requires with regard to this disease. I think the time has come when we might collaborate to a much greater extent, not merely with Ireland, but also with our Colonies, so that there should not be a waste of public money in carrying out the same work in different parts of the Empire. Reference has been made a red water in cattle. It is common knowledge that that is a serious disease in South Africa and that researches in this disease are there being carried out at considerable expense. Surely we need not duplicate this work. We ought to make a large Imperial Grant in order that this kind of research might be conducted in a proper way by duly qualified persons with sufficient funds for the purposes of the whole Empire. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that he has done one thing that we have not in this country. He has provided a station for testing agricultural seeds, thereby setting a good example, which I hope our own Department will soon follow.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not in order to argue against the whole of the Vote on the ground that a cognate and more deserving object has been slighted and ignored?
  The CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the practical point when it arises.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I will come to the practical point. I wish to protest against this Vote on the ground that the shocking treatment which Sir Horace Plunkett—
  The CHAIRMAN: I can put the hon. Member's mind at rest if that is the practical point. I shall not allow it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In these circumstances, without giving reasons, I protest against the whole of the Vote.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand that this is a Vote for various purposes of agricultural administration, such as investigation into cattle diseases, testing seeds, and the like. Surely, before public money is voted for such purposes, it is competent for an hon. Member to comment on the administration of those investigations, and to show that that administration might be better conducted! If my hon. Friend can show that under a better system of administration—if there had been less partisanship, for example — these various agricultural works might have been better carried out, surely it is competent for hon. Members to do so. We cannot have efficient control over public money unless matters of that kind can be gone into. These are the things that really matter. We cannot tell by looking at a Paper of this kind whether seeds are tested in a right way or investigations properly conducted. The real control of this House over administration is over the administrators, not over the details of how seeds are tested. [An HON. MEMBER: "A point of Order!"] If you wish to interrupt, interrupt. Do not simply make a noise.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is putting a point of Order.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am trying to show that the control of this House must be exercised, not over the particular way in which an administration is carried out, but over the administrators. If one can show that the administration is badly conceived in regard to a broad question of that kind, we have a useful discussion—much more useful than asking question in regard to swine fever, about which I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman knows very much. The speech of the hon. Gentleman did not give me very much information. It would have been much more to the purpose if my hon. Friend had been allowed to comment on what is really a great question of administration, without the solution of which we cannot control the administration of this or any other matter.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): If I were to accept the view of the Noble Lord, a rule which has been for generations in existence in regard to Supplementary Estimates would be destroyed. Supplementary Estimates would then be on exactly the same basis as the main Estimates.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I bow to your ruling, but I was anxious to ask one very simple question that you or the right hon. Gentleman could answer. He said that this was a matter that was dealt with by a Grant from the Development Commissioners. He also said, what was rather new to me, that the Development Commission Grants all came separately before this Committee, and are voted separately. I do not understand what opportunity this Committee has of reviewing the whole policy of the Agricultural Department in relation to the Grants made or assistance given by the Commission. On this occasion we are bound to restrict ourselves to the precise point dealt with in the Grant. On the Development Grant we are bound to consider, I suppose, the general policy of the Development Commissioners. What point, then, is there on which you can take the two together?
  Mr. RUSSELL: So far as I understand, the proper opportunity for discussing them would be on the Departmental Vote.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I only want to say that £4,250 is rather too little to pay for a dredger, unless it is a small one—and I had occasion lately to buy one—and I would like it to be perfectly clear that it is not second-hand. Otherwise I think it is money badly spent.
  Sir H. CARLILE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he applied to the Development Commissioners for a larger sum. Under these circumstances, what explanation did those administering the fund give when they declined. The time of the House has been, under the circumstances, taken with a trivial matter.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Waterford asked the Vice-President of the Department what was being done in regard to the question of abortion in cattle. We heard, last Session, of the reply of the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that the English Agricultural Board was devoting its attention to this particular question. Could the right hon. Gentleman inform us what progress has been made by
  1116
  the English Board in regard to that investigation? There is no cattle disease from which the Irish farmer loses so many cattle.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask how much of the money under Item A, "Agricultural research and advisory work: to meet a proportion of the expenditure on the testing of agricultural seeds, investigation of plant diseases, chemical analysis, and technical advice and assistance in suppressing cattle diseases," is expended in the investigation of epizootic abortion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kilbride) stated that this particular disease is at present very prevalent in Ireland, and is causing very great loss to the Irish farmers. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that this disease is also extremely prevalent in England, and causes great loss to the farmers in the dairy business in my own county and other counties as well. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kilbride) said that some hon. Member on these benches had stated that the Board of Agriculture in England had found some remedy for this disease. I do not think that is absolutely accurate. The Board of Agriculture in England has gone to considerable trouble to find out the origin of this disease and what steps should be taken to prevent it, but so far as I know I do not think they have come to any definite conclusion. I am glad of the admission of the hon. Member below the Gangway, for here in England we are under the impression that we are suffering from this disease being imported from Ireland into England. There is, as everyone knows, a considerable sale of cattle which hon. Members below the Gangway want to get rid of, and they send them to England, and they are not adverse to taking the money of the Saxon in payment for these cattle—
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: On a point of Order, is my hon. Friend in order in imputing disease to cattle from Ireland, which may have a very serious effect on the industry of our country. I must protest against a charge which might very seriously injure the cattle trade of Ireland.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not really a point of Order. I am sure the hon. Baronet will be careful.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should be only too sorry to do anything to harm my hon. Friend or anybody by anything I said. I may point out to my hon. Friend that the question was raised by the hon. Member

  1117
  below the Gangway. He told us there was a lot of this disease in Ireland, and that cattle in Ireland were suffering a great deal from it, and it was only in reply to that that I informed the hon. Member below the Gangway that our cattle had suffered by it. It is because I know that this is a disease which has increased very much in the last three or four years, and no researches have found a remedy for it, that I am desirous of asking whether some of this money is to be spent endeavouring to find a remedy. The hon. Member for North Down suggested co-operation between the two Boards of Agriculture, and I think that was a most valuable suggestion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that he will be able to do something to meet what is an extremely dangerous disease, which is causing much devastation not only in Ireland, but also in England. This is a matter which stops the milk supply, and it deserves the very serious consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: We are labouring under the disadvantage of having a Minister who, unfortunately, is not well acquainted with the duties of his office, and we have not had the opportunity of questioning the Minister, who has been a long time at the Board of Agriculture. We have not received any information upon the subjects we desire information upon. I have risen to ask one particular question in respect of the £2,400 for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to the testing of agricultural seeds. The hon. Member for Wiltshire suggested that there should be collaboration, but is there collaboration? Hon. Gentlemen behind me are desirous that England and Ireland should be entirely separate countries, but we are desirous that there should be collaboration in every Department. We think they should carry out these researches jointly, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us information on this point.
  And it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

CASE OF MR. WILLIAM BALL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the case of William, Ball, about which there have been a number of questions asked and answered during the last ten days. Some Members of the House may remember that this man was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with hard labour for breaking two windows at the Home Office. At the same time that he was sentenced a number of women were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, but not to hard labour, with the result that most of these women, whose sentences were simply for a week or a fortnight, had really the special treatment. It was laid down by the late Home Secretary in the Regulations which he issued, and which, I understand, the House approved of, for dealing with this kind of prisoner. This man Ball was in prison for, I believe, somewhere near seven weeks. After the first two days, during which he refused to take the ordinary prison food because he had been refused the special treatment, for five and a half weeks, I understand from the statement of the Home Secretary, he was forcibly fed. Before his discharge from prison his wife made an appeal to the Home Secretary for permission to have her husband medically examined for the purpose of insuring him. That was refused. She, of course, being only a poor person and not knowing what the effect of imprisonment might be on her husband, wished to take that precaution. She wrote to inquire as to his state of health, and the answer was given that he was in a normal condition, and no word of warning was conveyed to his wife that his mental power was breaking down. During these five and a half weeks there is evidence given in the right hon. Gentleman's own answer that the doctors and the attendants began to note some failing in his mental powers, with the result that, slowly but very surely, the man was going off his balance. In answer to our questions the Home Secretary apparently takes the stand that the man had to be forcibly fed, that he had to be kept in the division for hard labour, and the new rules did not apply to cases where hard labour was attached to the sentence. I understood the Home Secretary to say in the first place that no application had been made

1119
by him to be put in any other division, but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the man did apply to the prison authorities—
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No.
Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think my memory has deceived me in the matter. The man applied to the prison authorities to be put into the division where he would have special treatment; but, not receiving it from those to whom he applied, he sat down to write a petition. He had seen the governor before that. After sitting down to write his petition he gave up the task. I am not saying that he appealed directly to the Home Secretary. What he did do was to appeal to the people in whose charge he was in the prison, and his appeal was refused. I have read the rules in regard to prisoners. I am not an expert and I am not a lawyer, and I do not profess to understand legal phraseology, but I am told that there is no division known under the prison rules lower than the third division. I have read section 243a, and I cannot find anything there which says that the prisoner sentenced to hard labour shall not come within this category. But I do see quite clearly that a man whose previous character is good, and who has been convicted and committed to prison for an offence not involving dishonesty, cruelty, indecency, or other serious offence, may be allowed by the Prison Commissioners such amelioration of conditions as may be prescribed under this rule. We have taken it for granted that that included the whole of the prisoners who might become chargeable in accordance not merely with this Regulation, but with the promise of the Home Secretary, which I quoted to-day. I want the House to understand that after five and a half weeks' forcible feeding—whether the man shifted the tube so as to be more comfortable I cannot say—he became mentally ill. The prison rule is that whenever a prisoner is in a dangerous condition of health his friends should be communicated with. The friends of this man were never communicated with beyond that his wife was told that he was in a good condition of health. He was allowed to get worse, until at last he was declared by the prison doctors to be insane, and without communication to a single friend he was
1120
tumbled off to a pauper lunatic asylum. I do not think that anything more disgraceful than that has happened in our prison annals. Surely his friends ought to have been allowed to bring in an independent man to try and find out the cause of insanity. I have read over the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman last week, and I think the House smiled when the doctor's report was read out to the effect that the man had allowed his mind to dwell too much on "Votes for Women," etc. I think that was a very trumpery manner of dealing with a very serious matter like this. Everyone here knows that if any of us take up a strong attitude of mind on a political question, it is nothing to laugh at that we should hold that kind of view, and I do not think that if we were used in prison in the fashion that this man was used that it ought to be laid to our views rather than to our treatment. I do charge the prison authorities with deliberately and of set purpose not calling in any independent medical man to examine this man. For anyone outside a prison you have to get a quite independent man to certify him before he can be removed, and all kinds of precautions are taken. But in this case they say that this man was never mentally sound. They never went to his friends. Anyone acquainted with the certification of pauper lunatics knows that before you can get a man or woman sent away you must call up the friends and have evidence as to his or her mental condition. In this case no one was called up at all. The doctors have the impudence to say that this man, who was thoroughly healthy, was not quite mentally right. Here is what the man's father says about the matter:—
"Having seen the Home Secretary's reply concerning the state of William Ball's mind, I. his father, aged 83 years, and still conducting my own business, most emphatically deny any weakness of mind. In his younger days he was considered one of the best of swimmers, he was champion runner of the Midlands, and has never had medical treatment of any kind for the past twenty years. I have six sons and six daughters, all of whom are healthy and strong, the youngest being twenty-eight years of age. My mother had all her faculties at the age of ninety-three, and I certify that insanity has never been known in any of our family."
Yet we have the prison doctors having the impudence to say that this man, with this record, did not quite have his mental balance. I think it is too bad that the Home Secretary should allow his officials to treat a man in this manner. Even up to this moment there has been no independent examination of the man, and I feel that the House of Commons ought to take into account the very humblest man

1121
or woman that is in prison. They have no one to speak for them. When a man is in prison we know that the officials have to carry out their duties, and that there are often prisoners who are very difficult to deal with, but at the same time we here have to see that the man or woman in prison receives absolute justice. This man has not had justice, but gross injustice, done to him. The object I have in raising the question is to ask the Home Secretary definitely and distinctly to give us a pledge that, as soon as this man recovers his full capacity again, we shall have a full and impartial inquiry into the whole circumstances of his treatment while in prison. I do not think the House ought to be satisfied with anything less than that. The facts ought to be thoroughly ventilated and we ought to have a pledge that on no other occasion shall a man, whatever his offence, be certified merely by the prison doctors without his friends being called in. Also we ought to have a pledge that these political prisoners, whatever the magistrates sentence them to, shall receive special treatment. The nephew of a Minister who sits on those benches assaulted one of his colleagues. He receives special treatment in prison, and other men, committing not such grave offences as that, have been subjected to the same treatment as this man, and this man's offence was a protest against that. If once it gets out that there is one law for the man who belongs to the Transport Federation, as this man did, and another for Lady Constance Lytton and Hugh Franklin, the nephew of a Minister of the Crown, the common people will want to know where justice has gone to in this country. Anyhow, I hope the Home Secretary will take steps to prevent anything of this kind happening again, and will grant us a full and impartial inquiry into the whole circumstances with which this man was driven mad.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I suggest to the Home Secretary that this is a very grave matter, and leaves, on the face of it, a very serious stain upon the reputation of prison officials, either for want of sympathy, or from want of humanity, or both. Take a broad outline of the facts. This man is sent to prison for an offence, though really it would make but very little difference if it were a more serious offence, but an offence which in the view of the Government themselves and of the whole of the House is without moral turpitude; he is then subjected to treatment extending
1122
over five weeks, which, not suddenly or unexpectedly, but slowly and by degrees drives him out of his mind. Sixteen days before be was released the prison doctors began to notice that something was wrong, but they apparently made no change in the treatment, but went on with forcible feeding just as before. I am aware that it is a most difficult question as to what you are to do with a man who refuses food. I quite sympathise with the difficulty there is in meeting a case of that kind. I should say the proper way is to let the man refuse food and starve himself. But that, I am aware, would not commend itself to a great many people. When a man's mind is failing, which is the most serious failure of health that can happen to a man, prison discipline should be relaxed immediately, and such steps should be taken as are necessary to save his reason. Evidently it is an outrageous and a disproportionate penalty for any offence that has been laid to the charge of this man that he should be made insane and his whole prospects blighted, because even if he recovers from insanity, it lays upon the man, necessarily and inevitably, a most terrible stigma which can never be effaced. No one will quite trust a man who has been insane in the way they will trust an ordinary person. Therefore, it is a most serious injury, and apparently altogether disproportionate. The right hon. Gentleman takes a point of a very technical character, that the man was sentenced to hard labour, and therefore was by Statute precluded from the particular relaxations which have been provided in similar cases. But the particular relaxation which was all important in this case has nothing whatever to do with whether a man is sent to hard labour or not. It was to let him have his food furnished from outside. There is no connection between the two ideas. Nor is the right hon. Gentleman right in what I think is in his mind, that it was not open to him to interfere unless the prisoner asked him to. Mr. Stead was moved from an ordinary prison and treated as a first-class misdemeanant, almost immediately after his sentence, rather against his will, and certainly without any application from him. It would have been perfectly open to the Home Office and the proper authorities to interfere and move the prisoner from the hard labour class if they had chosen to do so. I would like the House to consider what would be said if this had happened to a political prisoner in Russia. What a peroration

1123
ration it would have made for those hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House in criticising the attitude of Russia. How it would have been pointed out that this poor man had been sent to a dungeon by an autocratic Government, and had in five weeks after being sent gone out of his mind. But the point is this. This case has happened, and I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if confidence is to be restored in the prison administration there ought to be a full and independent inquiry. I quite understand that the prison doctors have made their report, but no one can really think that the report of the officials attacked is a satisfactory answer. We must have an independent inquiry by independent medical men, and also by some persons of legal training, capable of conducting it. An independent inquiry is essentially necessary if we are not to be stamped with the stigma that in our prison administration there is serious inhumanity.
Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. Having been the one who brought this question before the House, and having special reasons for being specially interested in it, being one of the medical men in this House, I rose but the hon. Member (Lord Hugh Cecil) was called upon to speak, and no doubt he spoke very clearly on the point, but he has spoken about five times already on various subjects in the House. I would like to know whether, in calling upon Members, you intend to discriminate between classes of Members of this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the clock, he will see that that answers his observation.
Mr. McKENNA: I admit that the hon. Member (Mr. Lynch) was the first to raise this question in the House, but if I am to reply at all I must rise now. I am bound to say my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) stated the case in a very moderate speech, and, although I cannot admit the accuracy of all his facts, I certainly have no complaint at all with the character of the case he has made. But I am afraid I cannot say the same of the Noble Lord's speech. He obviously showed, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he has given no attention to the facts of the case. He has taken it up as a mere means of making some sort of attack against this Government. He has devoted
1124
no serious attention at all to a mastery of the facts of the case. He said, first of all, that Mr. Ball was sent to prison for an offence without moral turpitude. I do not know why he should assume that the magistrate who convicted Mr. Ball of the offence of breaking windows and sentenced him to a period of imprisonment with hard labour had taken an erroneous view of Mr. Ball's offence.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Mr. Ball fell within the First Lord's definition of what moral turpitude was?
Mr. McKENNA: The First Lord did not undertake to give in the course of his speech a summary of the offences which involve moral turpitude. It certainly is not open to the Noble Lord to criticise the judgment of the magistrate or to suppose that he did not give attention to the facts of the case. It is not open to him now to criticise the magistrate and to say that he was wrong in giving the prisoner a sentence of hard labour. The prisoner was convicted on 23rd December, and on coming into prison he declined to take food. The Noble Lord says that for five weeks he was subject to treatment which steadily but surely drove him out of his mind. What is the treatment to which the Noble Lord refers? Artificial feeding. Would the Noble Lord suggest that a prisoner refusing to take food should not be fed? Does he suggest that? The Noble Lord may some day have to stand in a position of responsibility himself. What is his answer? Does he suggest that he would not feed artificially a person refusing to take food?
Lord HUGH CECIL: If the right hon. Gentleman attaches any importance to my opinion, I would certainly have detained the prisoner without offering any food and without forcing him to eat until his health became affected by starvation, and then I should have released him.
Mr. McKENNA: I would suggest to the Noble Lord that it is not quite so easy to determine as he supposes. The moment when a prisoner reaches the condition when his state of health is injured, and it is not safe to go on starving him, is very difficult to determine. I would remind the Noble Lord that artificial feeding takes place, and has taken place, without any injurious consequences for years. Here is one case already quoted in the House, in which a person for

1125
two and a quarter years is in prison without Buffering any injurious consequences whatever. As everybody who is familiar with the treatment of lunatics knows, it is a very ordinary symptom of lunacy that a person refuses to take food in the ordinary way. There is not the slightest evidence, after years of experience, that artificial feeding has any tendency to drive a person out of his mind.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: It does him good.
Mr. McKENNA: It is very uncomfortable, and I can assure the hon. Member that the prison authorities use it with reluctance. But as an alternative between allowing a prisoner to starve or feeding the prisoner by artificial means, every prison authority and every manager of a lunatic asylum is bound to take the latter course. I am bound to say that the health of the prisoners committed to their charge is maintained. The Noble Lord went on to say that the prison authorities proceeded with artificial feeding after the prisoner's health was affected. What are the facts? Forcible feeding was continued until 29th January. On that date the prisoner of his own motion said, "I think I have stuck it pretty well." He took his ordinary dinner in the ordinary way. That was the condition of mind of the prisoner at the time that he was fighting the authorities, that he had stuck it pretty well, but after five and a half weeks he was going to take food in the ordinary way; and he was fed in the ordinary way for no less than a fortnight, from 29th January until he was discharged on 12th February, and it is not suggested that during that period, when his mental condition was getting rapidly worse, that it could have been through the effect of artificial feeding.
The Noble Lord raised a technical point with regard to the sentence of hard labour. May I remind the House of the actual law on the subject. According to Section 6, Sub-section (1), of the Prisons Act (1898)—
"Prisoners convicted of an offence either on indictment or otherwise, and not sentenced to penal servitude or hard labour, shall be divided into three divisions."
It is there clearly enacted—
And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Co-operative Societies.
  Co-operative Societies.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Kent Coal (Site and Mineral Land Values).
  Kent Coal (Site and Mineral Land Values).
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances (Scotland).
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances (Scotland).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  REGULATIONS.
  REGULATIONS.
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  LECTURERS.
  LECTURERS.
  Second Division and Assistant Clerks.
  Second Division and Assistant Clerks.
  Threatened Coal Strike.
  Threatened Coal Strike.
  Civil Service Writers (Customs and Excise).
  Civil Service Writers (Customs and Excise).
  New Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.
  New Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Public Appointments (Ireland).
  Public Appointments (Ireland).
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Police Protection (Ireland).
  Police Protection (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Technical Schools (Ireland).
  Technical Schools (Ireland).
  Fish Landing, Blackwater, County Wexford.
  Fish Landing, Blackwater, County Wexford.
  Afforestation (Ireland).
  Afforestation (Ireland).
  Revision Court (Monaghan and Fermanagh).
  Revision Court (Monaghan and Fermanagh).
  Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum.
  Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum.
  Development Fund (Ireland).
  Development Fund (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FLOATING DOCKS ("DREADNOUGHT" SHIPS).
  FLOATING DOCKS ("DREADNOUGHT" SHIPS).
  COAL RESERVES.
  COAL RESERVES.
  MINE-LAYERS (CONVERSION OF CRUISERS).
  MINE-LAYERS (CONVERSION OF CRUISERS).
  BATTLESHIP GUN PRACTICE.
  BATTLESHIP GUN PRACTICE.
  SEAMEN'S RATIONS.
  SEAMEN'S RATIONS.
  COASTGUARD PENSIONS.
  COASTGUARD PENSIONS.
  NAVAL CANTEENS.
  NAVAL CANTEENS.
  Territorial Forces.
  Territorial Forces.
  War Office Clerks.
  War Office Clerks.
  Home Defence (Statistics).
  Home Defence (Statistics).
  Classification of Army Horses.
  Classification of Army Horses.
  Authorised Cadet Units.
  Authorised Cadet Units.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Civil Service Pensions.
  Civil Service Pensions.
  Army Reserve.
  Army Reserve.
  Moneylenders' Circular Letters.
  Moneylenders' Circular Letters.
  Board of Education (Junior Examiners).
  Board of Education (Junior Examiners).
  School Attendance (Wet Weather).
  School Attendance (Wet Weather).
  Veterinary Service (India).
  Veterinary Service (India).
  Imperial Homes Reunion Association.
  Imperial Homes Reunion Association.
  Nairobi.
  Nairobi.
  Sleeping Sickness.
  Sleeping Sickness.
  British Soudan (Lado Enclave).
  British Soudan (Lado Enclave).
  Marriages in British Colonies.
  Marriages in British Colonies.
  Lord Lieutenant (County of London).
  Lord Lieutenant (County of London).
  Home Rule Bill.
  Home Rule Bill.
  Infantile Mortality.
  Infantile Mortality.
  Cut-out on Motor Cars.
  Cut-out on Motor Cars.
  Tuberculosis (Notification).
  Tuberculosis (Notification).
  Illegal Trawling Prosecutions (Scotland).
  Illegal Trawling Prosecutions (Scotland).
  Motor Car Industry (Canada).
  Motor Car Industry (Canada).
  Colliers' Wages.
  Colliers' Wages.
  Unemployment.
  Unemployment.
  Steamship "Belgic" (Emigrants to Western Australia).
  Steamship "Belgic" (Emigrants to Western Australia).
  Women Post Office Clerks.
  Women Post Office Clerks.
  Central Telegraph Office.
  Central Telegraph Office.
  Second Division and Assistant Clerks.
  Second Division and Assistant Clerks.
  Post Office Stores (Ireland).
  Post Office Stores (Ireland).
  Postal and Telegraph Services (Military Men).
  Postal and Telegraph Services (Military Men).
BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM.
Petition of Alexander Henry Leith for leave to lodge a printed case; read, and ordered as prayed.