Sitting of 4 June 1912

Preamble
The House met (after Whitsuntide) at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Hythe, in the room of Sir Edward Albert Sassoon, baronet, deceased.—[Lord Balcarres.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto 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 which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill,
Glasgow Corporation (Water) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Great Western Railway Bill (King's Consent and Prince of Wales' Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Keighley Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Friday.
Penwortham Bridge Bill [Lords.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Australian Agricultural Company Bill [Lords],
Birkbeck Share and Debenture Trust Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Brodsworth and District Gas Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Christchurch Gas Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Derwent Valley Water Bill [Lords],
Great Central Railway Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Herne Bay Gas Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Hove Corporation Bill [Lords],
Llanelly Rural District Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London and North-Western Railway Bill [Lords],
Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
Stepney Borough Council (Spitalfields Market) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Stockport Corporation Bill [Lords],
Swanage Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
York United Gas Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Cardiff Railway Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
National Electric Construction Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Clyde Lighthouses Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—
Trade Reports (Annual Series),—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4867, 4876, 4880 to 4885, 4887, 4889, and 4890;
Egypt (No. 1, 1912),—Copy of Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1911;
Treaty Series (No. 12, 1912),—Copy of Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Honduras, extending until 6th April, 1913, the operation of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two Countries, 21st January, 1887, 3rd to 8th April, 1912;
Light Railways Act, 1896,—Copy of an Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, reviving the powers granted by the Avonmouth Light Railway Order, 1903, in relation to the Light Railway and works thereby authorised and extending the period for the completion of the same [Avonmouth Light Railway (Revival and Extension of Time) Order, 1912];
Light Railways Act, 1896,—Copy of an Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the borough of Southend-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, in extension of the Light Railways authorised by the Southend-on-Sea and District Light Railways Orders, 1899 to 1909, and amending those Orders, and for other purposes [Southend-on-Sea Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1912];
Disputes, Transport Workers, London and Medway, May, 1912,—Report upon the Disputes affecting Transport Workers in the Port of London and on the Medway, together with the Minutes of Evidence of the Inquiry;
Board of Trade (Labour Department),—Fifteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics of the United Kingdom;
Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877,—Copy of Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Seventy-third Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland;
Fishery Board (Scotland),—Copy of Thirtieth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1911;
Local Government Board (Scotland),—Copy of Seventeenth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1911;
National Health Insurance (Joint Committee),—Copy of Table of Reserve Values for Female Insured Persons;
National Health Insurance (Joint Committee),—Copy of Table showing Voluntary Rate for Female Insured Persons entering into Insurance before the 15th day of January, 1913;
National Health Insurance (Wales),—Copy of the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Advisory Committee) Order, 1912, dated 19th April, 1912;
National Health Insurance (Wales),—Copy of the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Preliminary Expenses) Order, 1912, dated 29th April, 1912;
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Departmental Committee),—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into Foot-and-Mouth Disease;
Factory and Workshop (Dust Explosions at Factories in Liverpool and Glasgow),—Copies of Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, in the circumstances attending Explosions which occurred at the works of Messrs. William Primrose and Sons, Limited, Centre Street, Glasgow, on 10th November, 1911, and at the works of Messrs. J. Bibby and Sons, Formby Street, Liverpool, on 24th November, 1911;
Dominions Department of the Colonial Office (Dominions, No. 12),—Copy of Report relating to the Self-Governing Dominions prepared in the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office for 1911–12;
Board of Education (Science Museum and Geological Museum) (Departmental
6
Committee),—Copy of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Science Museum and the Geological Museum. Part II.;
Board of Education,—Copy of Regulations providing for Special Grants in aid of certain Local Education Authorities in England and Wales in 1912–13;
Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the Act by the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland), entitled "The National Health Insurance (Scotland) Advisory Committee Order, 1912" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the Act by the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland), entitled "The National Health Insurance (Scotland) (Preliminary Expenses) Order, 1912" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARKLOW HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Abstract of Accounts for 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Abstract of Account of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for the year 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS, 1887 AND 1909.
Copy presented of Regulation made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure under the Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council for the county of Southampton in the Fareham Parliamentary Division of the county; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
Copy presented of Statement exhibiting the moral and material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1910–11. Forty-seventh number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
THAMES CONSERVANCY.
General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1911 [by Act]; laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House; to be printed.
NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
Copy presented of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1911 by the Hydrographer [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was in a position to state whether recent negotiations have taken place aimed at bringing to an end the war between Turkey and Italy; and, if so, with what result?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Informal discussions have taken place with the desire of discovering an acceptable basis of accommodation; up to the present, no definite result of a satisfactory nature has been attained.

  International Opium Conference.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked when it is intended to lay upon the Table Papers on the subject of the International Opium Conference, including any Report made by the British Plenipotentiaries?
  Sir E. GREY: The Report of the British delegates to the International Opium Conference is at present being considered by His Majesty's Government and will be laid as soon as possible.

  Viscount Haldane.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the recent visit of Viscount Haldane to Berlin?
  Sir E. GREY: I much regret that I cannot make any statement such as the hon. Member desires because Lord Haldane did not go to Berlin at all in the Recess. It is true that following a practice of so many years' standing as to have acquired the force of habit, he spent an annual holiday in Germany last month, but he did not, while there, have any conversation, correspondence or communication with any political personage. It was, in fact, a real holiday, free from any taint of politics, though I am credibly informed that he went with a friend who by the cut of his beard was identified in Germany as being either the Prime Minister or myself.

  Miss Malecka (Petition to Emperor of Russia).
  Mr. KINGasked what has been the course of the latest negotiations with the Russian Government in Miss Malecka's case?
  Sir E. GREY: Miss Malecka is petitioning the Emperor of Russia in regard to the sentence. I have had further communication on the subject since the House rose, and am in a position to say that the Russian Government have the case under consideration, and do not think it altogether impossible for the petition to be considered favourably. The Consul and Vice-Consul have been admitted by the Russian authorities to see Miss Malecka unofficially. Her health and other conditions are satisfactory, and as the sentence will not be carried into effect pending consideration of the petition, I thought it very desirable to suspend laying the Papers that I promised, and in view of this statement I would ask the House for the present to let me do this.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the reply may be expected?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know. The petition is now under consideration. I assume it will not take a very long time, but I do not suppose I shall be in a position to give further definite information before next week.

  India (Police Torture—Sentences).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a case of torture by the police in the province of Sind, in which a sub-inspector of police, a jemadar, and two constables were charged with and convicted of causing hurt to a woman in order to extort a confession; what were the facts upon which the charge was based; and what were the sentences imposed by the additional sessions judge of Hyderabad, Sind?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Secretary of State has seen a newspaper report of the case, but has not yet received official information. The sentences are said to have been as follows: For the sub-inspector, six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 100; for the other three, twelve months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 50, twelve months' rigorous imprisonment, and one month's rigorous imprisonment respectively.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Will the India Office consider whether they can give us full details of these new torture cases, the number of persons tortured, and who is the superior officer over these four head constables?
  Mr. LEWIS: I think that does not arise out of this particular question, but I shall be glad to communicate the request of my hon. Friend to the Under-Secretary.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the Secretary of State any reason to suppose that this is other than an isolated and exceptional case?
  Mr. LEWIS: I have no information on that subject.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that eight directors and chief officers of insurance companies and collecting societies have been appointed to the Advisory Committee under the National Insurance Act, Part I., and that only one representative has been selected from the industrial insurance workers; whether the National Combined Staffs Insurance Committee, a federation of insurance workers representing over 12,000 men, has asked for
    10
    representation on the Advisory Committee; and what steps will he take to secure the co-operation of the insurance workers included in this organisation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton on 15th May. The eight members of the Joint Advisory Committee referred to were appointed not in their capacity of employers of agents and collectors, but as persons responsible for the management of societies which will include large numbers of insured persons and therefore will possess special knowledge required by the Advisory Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Industrial workers will have full opportunity of presenting any information or advice through the spokesman referred to, or by interviews or correspondence with the Commissioners, and will not be prejudiced by not having a number of direct representatives on the Advisory Committee.

    CONTRACTING OUT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked in what cases and to what extent classes, persons, or nationalities in the United Kingdom have availed themselves of the right to contract out of the benefits provided by the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge to what contracting out provisions the hon. Member refers, nor have any representations been received from any classes, persons, or nationalities asking for such contracting out provisions.
    Sir J. D. REES: Were the Irish exempted wholesale from the various provisions of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think the Irish were exempted at all. Insurance in Ireland is as operative as insurance in the other parts of the Kingdom.
    Sir J. D. REES: To the same extent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.

    SOCIETIES APPLYING FOR APPROVAL.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he will state how many registered friendly societies there are in England and Wales, and how many of these have as yet applied to be approved under the National Insurance Act; (2) if he will state the number of societies which have as yet become

    11
    approved under the National Insurance Act; how many have applied for approval; what number of employed persons; and what proportion of the whole compulsorily insurable population do such applications represent; and (3) if he will say how many unregistered friendly societies and other benefit clubs in England and Wales have come to the knowledge of the Insurance Commissioners through the medium of ministers of religion or otherwise, and how many of these have as yet applied for approval under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of registered friendly societies is 6,197. The number of unregistered societies, so far as ascertained from replies to the circular issued by the Commissioners and otherwise, is 2,198. I cannot give at present the number which have finally decided to seek separate approval. Some have lodged rules, others have expressed a definite intention of applying for approval, others have stated that they are considering the question. Many societies are amalgamating with other societies or affiliating as branches of existing organisations. This is particularly the case with rural societies, as central county societies and similar organisations are now being formed which may embrace many hundreds of such societies. I hope to issue before the end of this week a first list of societies which have been approved.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the hon. Gentleman state how many societies have actually applied for approval?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot at the moment. Part of my answer is directed to that part of the question. It is difficult to know what exactly applying for approval means. It may have any range, from a notice that they are going to apply until the full lodging of the approval. Perhaps in a few days' time I can give more information.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: What number of employed persons have applied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer at present. I shall be able to answer at the end of the week when the White Paper is issued.

    Customs and Excise (Appointments).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the constant changes and uncertainty in appointments upon the laboratory and chemical
    12
    staff of the Customs and Excise inspire much uneasiness and alarm amongst the Civil servants concerned; and if he will publish the Regulations under which such, appointments are made and transfers effected.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No representations have been made to the Board of Customs and Excise indicating that any general uneasiness and alarm exists amongst the officers employed in the central laboratory and chemical out-stations. Officers are now seconded to chemical duties for definite periods instead of for undefined periods; but no officer ever had a right to remain permanently on chemical duties, and every consideration is being given in the manner of removal expenses and choice of new stations. Any necessary appointments or transfers are made in the ordinary manner, and there are no special Regulations on the subject.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if Sir William Smith has taken over the duties of chief constructor at the Admiralty to which office it was announced in October last that he had been appointed; if not, will he say who is now performing those duties, and when will Sir William Smith's appointment become effective?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Sir Philip Watts is still performing the duties of Director of Naval Construction, and future arrangements are under consideration.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that the appointment is inoperative?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that future arrangements are under consideration. Beyond that I cannot go.

    NAVAL POWER (MEDITERRANEAN).
    Mr. KINGasked what measures are intended to strengthen our naval power in the Mediterranean?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 10th May to the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin, in which I stated that the strength of the naval force in the Mediterranean had not yet been settled.

    Enrico Malatesta (Sentence).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has been able to investigate the facts connected with the conviction and sentence of Enrico Malatesta; and whether he has come to any decision on the recommendation that the accused should be deported?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the case of Enrico Malatesta and has decided whether he is to be deported?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): This prisoner has applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. Pending the decision of the Court thereon the case is out of my hands.

    Suffragist Prosecutions.
    Mr. KINGasked whether a warrant is still out for the arrest of Miss Christabel Pankhurst; and whether, having regard to the punishment passed on others charged with the offence for which she is sought, all proceedings against Miss Christabel Pankhurst will be dropped?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the sentences passed on 22nd May on Mrs. Pankhurst and Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence; and whether he is prepared to recommend a mitigation of the punishment imposed?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has come to any decision respecting the transference of Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst and Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, now undergoing sentence of nine months' imprisonment in the second division in connection with the movement for the political enfranchisement of women, to the first division, as has been frequently done with political offenders and ordinary criminals in the past?
    Mr. McKENNA: In consequence of a communication made to me yesterday by the prisoners' solicitor, I am consulting the judge in this matter.

    South Wales Colliery Riots (Cost of Police).
    Sir J. D. REESasked what has been decided regarding the debit of the cost of sending the London police to Tonypandy?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to a question put by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras on the 27th February. The expenditure referred to will be defrayed from Imperial funds, and money has already been voted for the purpose. No part of the expenditure will remain as a charge upon the Metropolitan Police Rate.
    Lord BALCARRES: Does that mean that it is finally decided to abandon the Expenses in Aid of Police Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, it has nothing to do with that. I think that particular Bill referred to the cost of the military.

    London Postal Service (Appointments).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether during the present year learners in the Central Telegraph Office have been compelled to accept appointments in the London postal service, owing to an official intimation that they could not be appointed in the central office within the limit of two years as laid down by the Select Committee; whether, notwithstanding this action, an advertisement has appeared in the current issue of the Post Office Circular inviting the provincial staffs to volunteer for prospective vacancies in the Central Telegraph Office; and whether he will state the causes which in January and February of this year made it necessary for these learners to be practically forced to accept an appointment with a lower maximum and now allow an appeal to the provincial staffs for recruitment?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As it seemed probable early in the present year that difficulty might arise in appointing some of the learners in the Central Telegraph Office within two years, it was thought right to offer them vacancies which happened to exist in the London postal service, though they were not told that they could not be appointed within the two years. They were under no compulsion to accept the offer, and the few who did so might have elected to wait for later vacancies in the Central Telegraph Office. The additional vacancies now being filled by transfer from the provinces had not then occurred, and were not foreseen.

    Poor Relief (Disfranchisement).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Government have yet come to a decision regarding the case of those persons who will be disfranchised as a result of receiving poor relief in consequence of the dislocation arising out of the recent coal strike; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I can only say at present that the matter is still under the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest day for making claims to be put on the register is 20th August, and that is getting rather near?

    Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information regarding a dispute between the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company and the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, or other body representing the employés on their ships, as to the proportion of white seamen which should be carried upon their ships?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am aware that certain questions have been raised by the Seamen's Union with regard to the manning of vessels belonging to the Company named.

    Ganjam (Uriyas and Telegus).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked how many out of the total number of members of the district board, talug boards, municipalities, and union panchaits, in the districts of Ganjam, were Uriyas, and how many were Telegus, in the years 1903, 1909, and the present year, and how many of the members of each race were appointed by nomination and by election, respectively?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The returns showing the working of local and municipal boards in the Madras Presidency do not contain the information desired by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked, in view of the fact that the majority of the
    16
    population of the district of Ganjam are Uriyat-speaking, and in view of the fact that the proceedings in the law courts are conducted in a language which is foreign to them, what proportion of the litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) resorting to the district munsif's court at Aska in the year 1910 were Uriya-speaking and Telegu-speaking, respectively?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Secretary of State has not the information asked for regarding litigants, and it appears from a reply recently given to a question in the Madras Legislative Council that the Madras Government has not statistics on the subject.

    CUBA.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House regarding the state of affairs in Cuba?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): On 22nd May His Majesty's Minister at Havana reported the outbreak of negro risings in different parts of Cuba. In the last telegram on 28th May he stated that they appeared to have been suppressed except in the province of Santiago. Up to that date British subjects and property had not appreciably suffered.

TERRITORIAL FORCE (PADDINGTON RIFLES).
Mr. STRAUSSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the reason for the disbandment of the Paddington Rifles without notice and without proper inquiry in face of the complimentary expressions by the Colonel and by the Territorial Force Association on the efforts of the Local Committee, and has he considered the disastrous effect this precedent will have, not only in losing about 600 fighting men, but in discouraging other local committees in their efforts on behalf of the Territorial Forces?
The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In September of last year the General Officer commanding the London District strongly recommended the disbandment of the present 10th Battalion the Paddington Rifles, and the raising of a new battalion at Hackney in its place. He based his recommendation on the following grounds: that the

17
numbers attending annual training were very small, and that the battalion was not efficient; that the strength had been and continued to be far below the establishment, and that though every endeavour had been made to increase the numbers there did not appear to be any prospect of any substantial improvement in this respect. The Army Council fully considered the matter, and in view of the inefficiency of the unit, and the fact that the numbers of all ranks attending camp in the years 1909, 1910, 1911 for the full period of fifteen days were only 227, 208 and 187 respectively out of an establishment of 1006, decided that there was no alternative but to disband the unit, and transfer the 10th Battalion to an area where there was a good prospect of raising an efficient unit of adequate strength.
Mr. STRAUSS: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Undersecretary of State for War, I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House I shall raise this question.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can state the number who attended camp during the three years referred to for the period of eight days, instead of the extended period of fifteen days?
Colonel SEELY: I have not got the figures for the three years, but I remember that the number at the last camp was approximately 393.
Sir H. CARLILE: Would not that be about 50 per cent. of the whole strength of the battalion?
Colonel SEELY: It would be less than half—not very much over one-third of the establishment.
Mr. HARRIS: May I ask whether any notice was given to the local Territorial Committee, and whether the Army Council will not allow the local committee to place their case before them?
Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the question, a letter was written to the County Association so long ago as 28th November last. As regards the second part, the Secretary of State has stated to the County Association that he will be glad to meet them at three o'clock on Monday, though I can no longer hope that the decision will be reversed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can tell us what the business will be next week?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The usual statement will be made on Thursday. For the information of the right hon. Gentleman and the House I may state now that on Monday next the Second Reading of the Trade Union (No. 2) Bill will be taken.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has accepted the report of Sir Edward Clarke respecting the Port of London dispute, and, if so, what action is to be taken; whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Watts, assistant manager of the Port of London Authority, to the effect that the body are more determined than ever to have nothing to do with the men now on strike, and whether, having regard to the fact that the Port of London Authority was created by His Majesty's Government to represent all the interests involved in the Port and also those of the general community, by what right and by whose sanction is Mr. Watts entitled to make such a statement; whether the Cabinet Committee that is inquiring into unrest has suggested to the London Transport Workers the formation of a Joint Board to deal with disputes; whether a similar proposal was made to the employers, and, if so, what were the replies; and in the event of a refusal by one or both sides, what steps do the Government intend taking towards the settlement of the present trouble and the avoidance of future trouble in the Port of London?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not now in a position to make a statement, but on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House I hope to be able to do so. I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to reply now.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Hector Morison, esquire, for the Borough of Hackney (South Division).
BILL PRESENTED.
  REGISTERED ACCOUNTANTS BILL.
  "To provide for the registration of professional accountants in Great Britain and Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Sir FREDERICK Low; supported by Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Radford, and Mr. Winfrey; to be read a second time upon Friday, 21st June, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
SUPPLY.— [FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLASS I.—DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £55,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."—[Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have a few questions to ask the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote (Mr. Wedgwood Benn). First of all I would like to congratulate him upon the fact that, at any rate, this Session—I was going to say for the first time in the history of the Government, but I am not quite certain whether that is correct—this Vote shows a decrease. I do not know whether that is to be attributed to the activities of the hon. Gentleman in view of the old adage, "New brooms sweep clean." There is a decrease of £12,965 which, I think, is satisfactory. It is not a very large decrease, but still we have to be thankful in these days for small mercies. At page 29 there is an item of £6,000 for the "Provision of reception room in Agency House" at Cairo. That sounds to me to be rather a large amount, especially in these days when reception rooms should be kept to the smallest possible size, and when money should not be lavished in ostentation and luxury. Why spend £6,000 on a reception room? It is not in the ambassador's house, but in the agent's house. Who is the agent, and for what does he want a room which is to cost
  20
  £6,000? I think if we are to exercise a little economy, we might commence it in this direction and cut down the cost of the reception room. Probably in order to do that, I shall move the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
  We come now to Dakar, which, I understand, is in Senegambia, and I see that £250 is given for the provision of a tennis court. What sort of a tennis court is it? Why do you want to pay £200 for it? I should have thought that these officials would occupy their time looking after their duties instead of playing tennis, and therefore, I think, that that item should be taken away. For the provision of stable accommodation at Petropolis there is an expenditure of £735. I do not disagree with that. I think that horses are much nicer than motors, but in these days of motors I do not know why we should spend money on stable accommodation, if, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board informed me once, I am archaic in my mode of progression. There is a big item here of £22,250 for the erection of a new Legation House at Sofia. I do not know whether building is expensive in these parts, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will give a satisfactory explanation of this item. There is an item of £395 for installation of hot and cold water supply, baths, etc., at Seoul. Is this a new supply? Had they no bath and hot and cold water before? Why are you going to spend £395 on it? It may be said that these are small points, but that is not so, because unless this House keeps a check on these matters of expenditure the tendency of hon. Gentlemen opposite is to have an easy time, and when a Consul wants a tennis court or a hot-water bath on most modern construction it is much easier to say "yes" than to refuse it. We do not object to expenditure that is really necessary, but to the extravagant expenditure that is incurred in these matters. At page 31 we have—
  "Urgent and unforeseen works and works and alterations of a minor character. Maintenance and repairs: maintenance and repair of building and state room and chancery furniture (including new works of a minor character not exceeding £20) and charges attendant thereon, including the maintenance of grounds and gardens at certain missions, the supply, renewal, and maintenance of plate, the supply of safes and furniture, coal, gas, oil, etc., to certain offices, allowances to certain ministers, fees to local architects and superintendents, and other incidental expenses."
  All this comes not to a few thousand pounds, as might be thought, but to £36,794. This is a very large sum, and we should have more definite information

  21
  than is given in this summing up. We are informed in a foot-note that—
  "the Vice-Consul at Madrid receives £50 a year, the Registrar of the Zanzibar Court £25 a year, and the Translator at Lisbon Legation £20 a year for acting as local superintendent of works."
  These seem, to be very modest salaries and come to less than £100 altogether, and, therefore, do not account for much of the item. For these reasons I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £6,000.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I wish to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of London in reference to the reception room in Agency House, Cairo, not only on the merits of this particular proposal, but also taken in conjunction with the rest of the Estimates which have been submitted, and the way in which the Government are proposing in many cases practically to put up new offices. I submit that in several of these cases no case has been made out that the construction of new offices and buildings is necessary or that the sum asked for is not in excess of the requirements. Anybody who has been to Montenegro and recollects the old Legation House will certainly consider that some justification is required for the expenditure of £3,250 on the adaptation of that house. We have rebuilding of the Constantinople Embassy House at Therapia £20,200. I quite admit that it is some time since I was there, but when I had the pleasure of going there and seeing the different Government buildings belonging to the different nations whose Embassies have summer residences, it struck me that the summer residence of the British Ambassador compared favourably with the summer residences of the Ambassadors of other nations. I do not suggest that in fourteen or fifteen years it may not have become necessary to spend a considerable sum of money in improving the Embassy House. All I am asking is that the Minister in charge should give some justification for the expenditure of such a very large sum of money as £20,000. I come next to the completion of the new Legation House at Mexico, a sum of £14,470. Then there is the erection of a summer residence at Ramleh, in Egypt, for the Agent and Consul-General. I think this is the first occasion, certainly the first I have noticed, of a proposal for a summer residence in Egypt. I understand the matter was under the consideration of the Committee last year. Then there is the erection of a new Legation House in Sofia; another new Consulate at Changsha, one at Dairen (£7,500), and the rebuilding of
  22
  the Vice-consulate at Hakodate. And I would call the attention of the Committee to the very considerable sum which the Government are asking it to authorise for these new buildings, offices, and residences in different parts of the world—places whose names many of us cannot pronounce. I would ask the Committee at the same time to remember that at many, if not all, of those places there have been for a very large number of years buildings and offices which have fulfilled their purposes with more or less satisfaction. I should have thought that a Government which prides itself on the economy of its administration would have used greater circumspection in submitting estimates of this character. The last item to which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) referred is the sum of £36,794.
  We do not know how that money is going to be spent; for all we know, it might be an estimate submitted for the purposes of the Secret Service Vote—we have no means of knowing. If only in the interests of good accountancy, I think we ought to have some particulars of how this money is to be allocated. I certainly have very strong objection to voting such a sum to be scattered by this particular Department, probably one of the most extravagant Departments of the administration, among such varied purposes as repair of buildings, the improvement of Chancery and State Room furniture, the maintenance of gardens, and the maintenance and renewal of plate, and then bringing in such matters as fees to architects, without telling us the class of architects or of what nationality they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I have always felt, when I have seen some of our buildings abroad, that it has been a great misfortune not only in the interests of the buildings themselves, but even more in the interests of the architectural profession in England, that we do not more often employ members of the Institute of British Architects to put up some of our buildings in Continental capitals. Then we have allowances to certain Ministers. I do not know whether that is in accordance with previous practice—I have not been long enough a Member of this House to speak on the point—but I think it a very pernicious practice, whether new or old, and the Committee have certainly a right to detailed particulars of how this sum of £36,794 is to be spent.
  Mr. SANDYS: I do not know whether the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) intends to go to a Division, but if the answer of the Government is unsatisfactory and he does divide the Committee I shall certainly support him. The hon. Baronet has given us in the course of his speech a very interesting résumé of various items which are to be dealt with this afternoon under the particular Vote which is under discussion; and he has raised some questions which in my opinion are of very considerable importance. In some instances, no doubt, the actual sum which is involved is not large, but the principle which the hon. Baronet has stated, and which he has emphasised on many previous occasions, is an important one, namely, the necessity of taking every opportunity of investigating so far as possible, in the very limited time at the disposal of Members of this House for this purpose, the actual way in which public money is being spent. It is a matter of very great regret to me that hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House very rarely indeed effectively criticise the manner in which public money is being spent. They are perfectly silent, taking no part whatever in these important discussions, and merely sit there ready, when opportunity occurs, to follow their leaders unquestioningly into the Lobby, not for the purpose of economy, not for the purpose of restraint upon the expenditure of public money, which is so necessary in these days, when every year there is an enormous increase in the general expenditure of the country, but in order merely to give an unquestioning party vote in support of those to whom they give unquestioning obedience. I am not going to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) into all his observations, very just observations, with reference to these various sums which are asked for, and which are to be expended in different parts of the world. In the course of his speech the hon. Baronet ranged over the British Empire, and he dealt with the erection of buildings and so forth from China to Peru. But one or two points occurred to me in the rapid survey I was able to make of these various items when I came to the House this afternoon. There are one or two items which the hon. Baronet did not deal with, but on which I think I am justified in asking one or two questions in view of the rather remarkable demands which are being made upon us in respect of this particular Vote. I am rather sur-
  24
  prised that the item to which I am about to refer escaped the attention of the hon. Baronet, because he has a remarkable way of hitting upon those items in which there is anything of an extraordinary or exceptional character, and of at once drawing the attention of the Committee to the details in order to elicit an answer from the Minister in charge of the Vote. I see that the sum of £150 is asked for the erection of a new kitchen and covered way at Boma. I should be very sorry if I were asked to give an accurate statement of Boma's exact situation. It shows the difficult position the right hon. Gentleman must find himself in when he has to deal with the erection and maintenance of these buildings situated in all parts of the world.
  We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult situation, but, at the same time, we say we are entitled to make these inquiries as to the definite allocation of those sums of money, in order that he may satisfy us that it is being spent in a proper manner, because these small sums, to which perhaps sufficient importance is not attached, do represent very large principles. It is our duty whenever occasions like this arise, and it is, unfortunately, only very rarely that they do arise, to examine the details, so that we may see that the money is being properly spent. I notice that this sum of £150 for a kitchen and covered way is a re-Vote. I would like to ask if hitherto the domestic business of this residence has been carried on without a covered way. Why is it necessary now. It seems to me that in a country of that kind with such a climate a covered way is perfectly unnecessary. Since they had the opportunity last year of building this covered way how have they done without it for the past twelve months. I pass to the Vote (No. 6) for the erection of a new post office and prison at Casa Blanca. Why should we, the representatives of the British people, be asked to sanction the allocation of a considerable sum of money for the construction of a prison. I think we shall require some very definite information as to the necessity for a prison at this particular place. As I understand it is situate in Morocco, and it appears to me to be rather extraordinary that our money should be required for the purpose of constructing a prison there. No doubt a new post office will be a very desirable addition to the amenities of life at Casa Blanca. I have no doubt it is extremely necessary

  25
  under the changed political circumstances, and in the increase of trade which will, no doubt, result from the change of administration which I understand is taking place in that country, and that the post office will afford greater convenience for the native population which will probably use it. As to the second item, I think it is most undesirable that in this particular country we should vote money for the building of a prison until we know exactly who will be put into the prison and under what form of trial those prisoners are to be condemned. The question of a tennis court at Dakar has been very effectively dealt with by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, and it will certainly be interesting to the House to learn why it should be necessary to make this expenditure of £250 for the provision of this court in order to afford exercise to the British subjects in that locality. I think it was the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, who referred to the erection of a new summer residence at Ramleh. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, before deciding on the construction of this new residence at Ramleh, which happens to be a place I have—
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no money in the present Vote for the residence at Ramleh.
  Mr. SANDYS: I am sorry. As it had been alluded to by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, I thought I should perhaps be in order in making some additional observations on the question. I am glad there is no money provided for a heating apparatus at St. Petersburg, and I should have strongly criticised it if there were. I think we are entitled to ask why we are asked to consent to a sum of money amounting to £500 being allocated to the acquisition of new sites in China, Japan, and Corea. The sum seems to me rather moderate for the purpose, but at the same time we are justified in asking where those sites are actually situated, what they are being acquired for, and whether a careful investigation has been made as to whether the sites chosen are the best that could have been selected taking everything into consideration. We all know that on previous occasions, unfortunately, the Government in their purchase of sites for the purpose of erecting Consular and Diplomatic residences have not chosen as wisely as they might. I have many cases in my mind of places which I have visited, and where it is quite evident that the sites
  26
  for Consular and Diplomatic purposes have been singularly ill chosen. I do hope, with the selection of sites for which this money is asked, we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the best possible advice has been obtained, and that he will give some indication as to why it is necessary that those new sites should be selected. I quite agree with the observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City and the Noble Lord the Member for Bath as to the large sum of £2,500 which we are asked to sanction for "Urgent and unforseen works, and works and alterations of a minor character." I think it is the duty of the Government to make their calculations as carefully as possible, so that we may not be called upon to pass Votes of this character, in which we grant large sums of money without knowing to what purpose that money is to be applied. I therefore strongly support the request of my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman should give us some indication, even though it be of a very general character, as to what he anticipates will be the ultimate employment of this money. With regard to the "maintenance and repair" item to which allusion his already been made, I notice there is an increase of nearly £1,000 as compared with last year. The Vote includes items of a very varied character—maintenance of grounds and gardens at certain missions, the supply, renewal, and maintenance of plate, the supply of safes and furniture, coal, gas, oil, etc., to certain Consular offices, allowances to certain Ministers, fees to local architects and superintendents. It is very unsatisfactory that all these items should be lumped together, and that we should be asked to vote so large a sum as £36,794 without any definite allocation being made to the different items. As the sum has been brought down to the very pound, the items have evidently been worked out in detail, so that the hon. Gentleman will be in a position. and I hops he will do so, to give a full and adequate answer to the remarks made by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath.
  4.0 P.M.
  What are the "allowances to certain Ministers?" That is a very vague statement. Who are the Ministers who are going to receive some additional allowances which are not to be given to other Ministers? On what ground are these special sums of money to be allocated? The use of the word "certain" implies that some Ministers are not to receive these allowances. On what grounds have the

  27
  "certain" Ministers been selected? With regard to "other incidental expenses," that is a very unsatisfactory way of rounding off a demand of this character. The hon. Gentleman may not be able to say what those other incidental expenses are, but he will be in a position to give particulars of the items to which I have referred, and we shall then be able to make our own estimate as to what the other incidental expenses will come to. The next item is "Maintenance and repair of certain cemetaries abroad, including the pay of custodians." It is very desirable that we should keep up these cemetaries for which we are responsible in various places abroad, but why has the expenditure under this head increased? It is only a small increase, but we are entitled to criticise any increase and to demand an explanation. Under sub-head "Rents, insurance, etc.," there is a sum "including China rents," for which £3,835 is asked. I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain what those China rents are. There is a substantial increase in the whole amount under this head, the figures being £8,233 as against £7,851 last year. Is that increase in regard to China rents, or is the sum for China rents a stationary figure? Is the increase on "rents, municipal, and State taxes, etc.," spread over all the items named, or has there been an increase on one particular item, and, if so, which? According to a note in reference to certain expenditure in respect of buildings in Persia and Siam, for which provision is made in this estimate, a portion is recoverable from the Indian Government. Has it been recovered from the Indian Government? I do not like the word "recoverable." There is a certain implication of doubt which requires some explanation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will state exactly how much is recoverable from the Indian Government, whether this sum has been, as a matter of fact, recovered in the past, and whether he has every belief that the Indian Government are prepared to accept their responsibilities and pay the sum as it becomes due in respect of these particular buildings. I do not presume to detain the Committee any longer, because there are other Members more qualified than I am to discuss these questions, and also because I hope that hon. Members on the opposite side will break through that rule of silence which Appears to be imposed upon them in regard to these estimates. [HON. MEMBERS:
  28
  "No, no."] I am only referring to the general course of these Debates on previous occasions—for it has certainly been characteristic that most of the criticisms in regard to public expenditure has come from these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is a subject on which we all ought to be deeply interested. I do hope some hon. Members opposite will take the opportunity of intervening in this Debate, and of putting some questions in regard to the expenditure of public money. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his reply, will be able to give a satisfactory explanation, but, as I said, if the explanation is not satisfactory, I shall certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London if he takes this matter to a Division, as I hope he will do. I trust also that some support may also be forthcoming on a Division from hon. Members on the opposite side.
  Sir J. D. REES: When I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer enter the House just now I hoped that a mood of glorious repentance had come over him, and that he, the ringleader in the riot of expenditure, had come here to hear these criticisms, and to see if he could in any way assist in, or, at any rate, contemplate, such reductions as may be suggested. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friends who have preceded me—at any rate in general, if not in every detail. I will endeavour, with such knowledge as I have of the different items, to run through them, and to make brief remarks upon them. I would pass over the new kitchen and covered way to the kitchen at Boma, if it happens, as it may be, that this is required in order that the Resident's dinner may not be, cooled before it reaches his table. I think that is possible from what one knows of places similarly situated, so I will not delay the time of the House, which we are all anxious to economise, by making any remarks on it. When we come to Cairo I must say that since I can remember a very expensive and elaborate Residency for the Consul-General has been built, not in the time of the present Government—I am not making any remarks about that—but the building is an extremely sumptuous building, and I confess I cannot understand why now—for I presume the Government are responsible for this particular Vote—the sum of £6,000 is required simply for the provision of a reception room.

  29
  From what one knows of the foreign representation in Cairo, it does not need a room as big as Westminster Hall, or something of the sort, to accommodate the representatives. Neither, I think, are they in the habit of meeting for round table conferences at the house of the British Consul-General. This provision of £6,000 is, I think, at the very least worthy of some explanation at the hands of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote. I confess I see nothing here to vindicate the need of this expenditure. At first sight it looks an extremely expensive item.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset made certain remarks upon the provision of a post office and a prison at Casablanca. He made no objection to the post office, but he did not like the prison. If this prison is really occupied by any person convicted of an offence, it is extremely possible that he will immediately be released upon petition from those who are interested in him. For that reason I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and to ask for an explanation as to why a prison is necessary in Casablanca? It seems to me that those particularly qualified to spend their time in prison in these days are least likely to get there, or, if they get there, are most likely to get out. For this reason the item certainly requires explanation. Why is the British Government going to provide a prison in a remote and solitary locality like this? There is a sum of not less than £3,500 for the purchase and adaptation of a Legation House, including an electric light installation, at Cettinjé. Why is this required in an Arcadian, mountainous region like Cettinjé, where the inhabitants get up when it is light and go to bed when it is dark, a place where there is no night business, and which is, in fact, about the most absolutely remote, and least urban place in which even the British Government is represented? I can imagine no place that less needs an installation of electric light, unless, indeed, it is to show the Montenegrins some illumination at night, in which case I should suggest that the expenditure should very properly fall upon the Prince—I think he is called the King now—rather than upon the British Government. There can be no place, even in the wide limits of the British Empire, where I should imagine this expenditure is less required than in this village of Cettinjé, situated as it is upon a mountain. Coming to Constantinople,
  30
  for my part I cannot regret that in all parts of the world the representative of Great Britain is the best housed. I am not inclined at all to regret that. Nor, as a Member of Parliament, should I grudge the expenditure on that head, particularly in Turkey. I think it is desirable that our Ambassador should have, as he has, not only a fine palace in Constantinople, but an agreeable country residence upon the Bosphorus at Therapia. Nevertheless £20,000 seems to be a fairly large sum, because it must be remembered that this house is only a very short distance from Constantinople. It is not a place necessarily occupied for any great length of time by the Ambassador and his staff. I think the estimate of £20,000, and the provision in the present year of £5,000, which I notice is the final allocation, and will complete the matter, a rather large provision. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman for an explanation of this large provision.
  The next item I would mention is the erection of a new Legation House at Sofia. It would not be in order to criticise the estimate of £22,000, because that must have been already passed in a previous estimate—in fact, the estimate is a slightly altered one. It seems that £10,000 will be expended in the present year, leaving a further amount of £5,000 for the future. I do not think that any very magnificent buildings are required at Sofia. I am inclined to think that our representative there, who I hope is the best housed—I feel very certain he is—will continue to be that. At the same time this is a rather large provision, £22,000 for a house, which is positively palatial in a place like Sofia. I should like to be assured that this estimate has really received some criticism and some attention, and that it has not been adopted as it is; that the Government are assured that £10,000 is really required, and that it is necessary that the scheme should be carried out on its original and rather extreme lines. The next item refers to Persia. It is the sum of £625 to provide for the deepening of the water kenats at Gulahek. I raise no objection to the house which is an extremely modest one. It is a little change to the hillside from the heat and dust of Teheran in the summer. I raise no objection, I say, but it certainly would appear that the water kanats should be kept clear at less expense. It appears to me that a man ought to be sent down to

  31
  clear out the man-holes, which should always be kept in working order in Persia, where these kanats are an ordinary feature of the irrigation of the country. It should hardly require so large a sum as £625 in any one year for coping with this. At the same time it must be admitted that the place is not much more than a very good garden and a small modest house. I would not therefore like to criticise too strongly or severely an item like that, nor would I say much about the servants' quarters for the Consular buildings, because in the East servants are accommodated away from the house, particularly the kitchen which is often some distance from the house. For that reason this expenditure may be really justifiable.
  I notice an item for additions to the Supreme Court buildings and Consular offices in Shanghai. £3,000 are to be spent out of an Estimate of £4,000. I really venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if I might, that, seeing the present fluid condition of everything in China, seeing that nobody knows what will happen there, what will be the future situation of Shanghai, or what will be our future position in Shanghai, that the Government might well consider whether this is a moment to spend £3,000 on a Supreme Court, when the very jurisdiction of that Supreme Court may possibly disappear as soon as those additions are completed! The same remark applies to the acquisition of new sites in China, Japan, and Corea, though the application probably applies in larger measure to China. Really we have no guarantee at all at this moment that China may not adopt a land policy—well, really something like that which was suggested—I do not say necessarily with the concurrence of the Front Bench—to the electors of North-West Norfolk. In the present state of affairs in China no folly would be too great. Everything is in a state of absolute disorder, and you might find some raids taking place, and those concerned saying to those in occupation, "This land was bought by the British Government for £500; we will give it to you for occupation for 500 pence; that is our policy." There is nothing to prevent that. At a time like this it is worth considering whether money should be spent on the acquisition of sites, at any rate in China, whatever may be the case in Japan and Corea, where I do not particularly fear that the land policy advocated in North-West Norfolk will be adopted.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: They have got the Single Tax already in China.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am very obliged to the hon. Baronet for informing me and the House on this point. I needed the information, that the land system of China is comparable, in fact identical, with that which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Norfolk recommended to the intelligent electors there. Then comment was made by my hon. Friend below me upon the Item of £2,500 for urgent and unforeseen works of a minor character and alterations. It does seem a large amount to lump together, but, nevertheless, when you consider the field to be covered perhaps it is not one of the items calling for adverse criticism. For my part, I would not myself press criticism, although I agree with it upon that point. Coming to Item B, "maintenance and repairs," I shall endeavour to avoid referring to subjects with which my hon. Friends who have preceded me have already dealt, but I should like to say with reference to the maintenance of grounds and gardens that in many of these entries we are dealing with tropical countries and a garden in a tropical country is an exceedingly expensive luxury. It is not like a garden in this country. No doubt the labour is cheap, but then you have to get very much more of it, and when you come to the question of irrigation you are up against an exceedingly expensive item, and I hope the hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench who for the time being has the burden of State upon his shoulders wilt agree with me that this item for gardens should be nicely scrutinised in this Estimate.
  The next Item is the "supply, renewal and maintenance of plate." There was a time when Ambassadors leaving this country took with them, at the public expense, magnificent services of silver. I do not suppose in these days these services of plate are supplied or renewed at the public expense, but I should like to know how much of this large item of £36,000 is for the supply, renewal and maintenance of plate. Also, I should like to know what plate is provided, whether it is electro-plate or silver, and how far the ancient custom has been kept up. I think that matter is worthy of the attention of the House in the interests of economy. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by some of my friends in regard to the allowances to certain Ministers, not in the least with the object of

  33
  diminishing them, but only with the object of finding out what they are. I believe I would vote for every one of them, because it is extremely important that our Ministers abroad should have every comfort they require. They deserve it, and I should be the last man to vote against their allowances; but, as I say, I should like to know what they are, because then the Committee would have an opportunity of comparing the allowance made to one Minister with that made to another, and of deciding in its generosity, which knows no bounds, that the allowance made to one Minister should be made universal in its application, and that this sum of £36,000 should be immediately doubled.
  Coming to the item for "maintenance and repairs of certain cemeteries abroad," I should like to ask whether the cemetery of the Crimea, is included. It is a very desirable thing that it should be kept in a proper condition. I found myself that it is kept in very good order, and I should like to know whether that is one of the items referred to in this Vote. As regards other cemeteries I do not know what they are, but I think our efforts should be directed to keeping our Ministers and staffs out of the cemeteries and making them comfortable in their Embassies. The next item is "China rents," referring, no doubt, to the country, not to the substance, but the item is ambiguous, and I should be glad to know what China rents, amounting to £3,835, really are. Then as to Appropriations-in-Aid, "rents, sale of old materials, etc.," £l,238. I can understand how rent is an expenditure, but it is difficult to understand how the sale of old material is an expenditure. [An HON. MEMBERS: "It is receipts, not expenditure."] Then this receipt is disguised under an unusually ambiguous official designation, and it seems difficult to make out what it is. I think it would be better and clearer if these amounts were deducted from the totals above, and then it would leave no doubt in the mind of those called upon to look into these matters as to what they really mean.
  Then there is the final note in reference to commitments for certain expenditure in respect of buildings in Persia and Siam and a sum recoverable from the Indian Government: I should like to know if this is expenditure upon the Legation at Teheran. I refer to item 14. I believe the Legation was built at the expense of the Indian taxpayers, but I was not aware that repairs were divided between the Indian
  34
  and British taxpayers, and I associate myself with the desire of my hon. Friends to have information upon that subject. I apologise for having been so long in referring to these items, but I have not referred to one subject with which I have not some personal acquaintance, and for that reason I hope the House will pardon me for having ventured to take up so much of its time. I say, in conclusion, that every item in these estimates is worthy of attention. The public expenditure has rushed up with such appalling, dangerous and disastrous rapidity in the last four or five years as to amount to a danger and disaster of the first magnitude. What will happen in consequence of that and further commitments and the unfathomable expenditure to which the Government has committed the country I, for one, cannot think, but dealing with the concrete subject before the House it is obviously the duty of Members, if they have any knowledge of the particular matters in these estimates, to endeavour to the best of their ability to urge the Government to practise economy, which appears to be, even if they had every other virtue, one to which they do not make the slightest pretence.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I shall endeavour to reply as briefly as I can to the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite upon this Vote. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) raised, I think, the most important point, that is expenditure in connection with the Agent's House in Cairo. That is the item of £6,000 for a reception room. The hon. Baronet is well aware that the position occupied by the British Agent in Cairo is different from that of the representative of any other country, and it is very important that the house he occupies, which is not an Ambassador's House, as the hon. Baronet seemed to imagine, but an Agent's House, should befit the dignity of the position; and I do not really think that the hon. Baronet would wish to reduce the Vote in respect of an addition which is so essential for the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the British Empire.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What did he do before? Where did he receive those people before this room was built?
  Mr. W. BENN: This addition is necessary in order to bring the house up to date. It is important that our Agent should have a house suitable to his condition in Egypt.
  Sir J. D. REES: When was this house built? Were there not additions recently?
  Mr. W. BENN: That may be so, but it does not affect the matter. It is essential that the house should be in keeping with the dignity of the British position in that country. If hon. Members opposite wish to reduce the prestige of the British Agent in Egypt they are, of course, quite right in moving a reduction. The hon. Member also referred to the tennis court at Dakar, for which there is an item of £250. As the hon. Baronet knows, it is an extremely unhealthy position, and it is very important that proper provision should be made for the health of the Consul at that place. A more important point raised and dealt with by hon. Members opposite had reference to Sub-head B for maintenance. It is quite true that this figure of £36,000 is lumped together in this Vote, but it is equally true that all the details are subject to the inspection of the House at the Public Accounts Committee, and the reason they are not sub-divided in this Vote is that it is practically impossible to form any heads under which these maintenance charges could be properly valued. The matter has stood like this for many years, and I am not aware that anyone ever proposed to subdivide the items under Sub-head B. The item is for cleaning, papering, painting, and repairs, and all the charges which necessarily fall upon the Office of Works in connection with the maintenance of buildings included under this head. There is a slight increase. The Legation House at The Hague has been renewed, and extensions have been made in the servants' quarters at Tokio, for which provision was made.
  The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys) raised one or two questions which I shall endeavour to answer. The Consul House at Boma had to be enlarged because the Vice-Consuls from various other stations find it necessary to come to Boma. It is quite true this particular item has been repaid from last year, but the reason is that unfortunately the Office of Works Vote was not taken in this House until last August, and there was not sufficient time to get suitable tenders. If this Vote is given by the Committee this afternoon, as I hope it will, hon. Members may rest assured that this money will be spent in the course of the present year. The hon. Member also spoke of the prison and new post office at Casablanca, and he asked who the prisoners might be. Of course that is a question rather difficult for me to
  36
  answer. The provision of the post office is necessary, not, of course, for the native population, but for Europeans who have dealings with this country. As to the item for sites in China, it is necessary in order that some money may be in hand for the provision of sites.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should like to know what this prison is?
  Mr. W. BENN:I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any further information. I presume it is one building for the post office and the prison.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Is the postmaster the prison master also?
  Mr. W. BENN: I should be only too glad to give any information I can, but I cannot say more on this subject now. As to the China rents, they are for premises in China, and the increase about which hon. Members asked is due to contributions made towards administration in certain quarters in Pekin where previously no proper arrangements were made, and the Government have now made provision to see that the work is properly carried out. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) asked about the cemetery in the Crimea and the answer to his question is in the affirmative. As for the sums paid in respect of buildings in Persia the Office of Works pays for their construction, and provision is made for that in the Estimates.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is that amount for legation buildings, or for all the buildings in Persia?
  Mr. W. BENN: For all the buildings which fall on this Vote. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath, who made a very interesting speech, was, I think, very unfortunate in the items he selected. He criticised the provision made for a new house at Cettinjé. The Supplementary Estimates for that house have already been passed to enable the work to be carried out. With reference to the item of £260 for electric lighting I do not know on what ground objection is taken.
  Sir J. D. REES: On the ground that it is an avoidable expenditure.
  Mr. W. BENN: The Noble Lord also referred to what he called the unjustifiable expenditure upon a new house at Therapia. As a matter of fact, a fire occurred in the Agent's House at Therapia, and I would like to know if, when a house is burnt down, the Noble Lord

  37
  thinks it is a suitable place for the British Ambassador to reside in?
  Lord A. THYNNE: That is not what I questioned. What I criticised was the expenditure of £20,200 upon a house which was not a main residence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member has misrepresented my point. This large sum of money is required to build a summer villa for the British Ambassador on the Bosphorus.
  Mr. W. BENN: I believed the Noble Lord said in his speech that he had been to Therapia, and that he had found the house satisfactory. What I am pointing out now is that since the Noble Lord visited Therapia a fire has taken place at this house, and that is an expenditure which could not have been foreseen by the Office of Works. This item of £20,000 is required to rebuild a house which was burnt down.
  Lord A. THYNNE: What I am asking the hon. Member to justify is the expenditure of such a large sum as £20,200 for building a summer villa for the Ambassador on the Bosphorus.
  Mr. W. BENN: The Noble Lord is now raising an entirely new point. If he thinks £20,000 is too large a sum then he will be justified in proceeding to the Division Lobby. The real question is whether this House should be looked to in order to maintain British prestige in those places abroad, and that is the reason why we are asking the Committee to vote this money. As for the criticisms made by the Noble Lord dealing with the new house at Hakodate, I am not quite sure whether he said that we were asking for an excessive sum, but I would remind him that in this instance also a fire has taken place.
  Lord A. THYNNE: The hon. Member has been very lucky in being able to invoke a fire in two instances in order to justify these particular Estimates, but I do not think he has met my point with reference to the £20,000. What is asked for here is simply a summer villa, and there is no question of British prestige being involved in a small village on the Bosphorus. There is another serious point the hon. Member must give some satisfaction upon, and that is a very large item of £36,000 which, in a very airy way, we have been told is required for the general purposes of maintenance. Although we do not regard the administration of the Office of Works with very great
  38
  confidence, we are quite willing to vote them a lump sum to cover the expenses of maintenance, but where such an excessive sum is required I think there ought to be some explanatory minute attached to it. It is no good pleading precedence in previous years, because however old a practice may be it does not follow that it becomes any the less pernicious by age. There are two specific points upon which we have asked for information. The first is the question of allowances to Ministers. What allowances and what Ministers? I think we are entitled to know if this is mainly an Estimate required for maintenance. Why is this question of allowance to Ministers clubbed into it? My second specific point is the fees of architects. That is not a mere academic point, and I have not raised it to take up the time of the House. There are hon. Members on this side of the House very much concerned indeed upon this question. When we go abroad and look at the Embassies and Legations belonging to the British Government, we like to see monuments of British skill, and we should like to see the Embassies in the great foreign capitals and the smaller commercial towns of Europe and Asia built by British architects. We believe that we have architects just as competent to plan those buildings as Continental architects. This would be a great encouragement to a great profession which seldom receives justice at the hands of public authorities, and, least of all at the hands of the Office of Works in this country. I think the hon. Member in charge of this Vote ought to give us some particulars in regard to this expenditure. There is the question of the supply, renewal, and maintenance of plate. Specific questions were asked upon that point, and they were not dealt with. There is also the maintenance and repair of the furniture. We have a distinct purpose in view in wanting information on these points, because people who have seen some of the furniture supplied by the Office of Works in different capitals of Europe, do not feel any confidence either that they buy the most suitable, the most decorative, or the most economical kind of furniture. I think one might say, without doing any injustice to the Office of Works, that the ugliness of the furniture which they are in the habit of putting into public buildings is only equalled by the extravagance of its cost. I hope on these points the hon. Member will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation in order that we

  39
  may not be driven to divide the Committee on this Vote. The very scanty information which the hon. Member has been able to afford the Committee leads me to the conclusion that he has on this occasion come down to the House without his crib.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As the replies given by the hon. Member are not at all satisfactory I must ask the Committee to proceed to a Division. I should very much regret if our Agent in Egypt should be placed at a disadvantage, but I do not consider that the explanation given on this point is satisfactory. Unless I am mistaken, this Agent was appointed as long ago as 1885 or 1886, and he has held the same important position from that time until now—a period of twenty-seven years. If he has been able to hold the position of Agent in Cairo for twenty-seven years without this room, why should it be necessary suddenly to provide such accommodation at the present moment? I asked the hon. Member to justify that point, and he did not meet it at all. As a matter of fact he merely evaded the point by saying that it was very necessary that the position of our Agent should be maintained. I really cannot see that this room is necessary to maintain his position. He has been there for twenty-seven years without this room and I really do not see why he should not continue without it. I am sorry there is not a single hon. Member opposite supporting those on this side who are now endeavouring to save the taxpayer a little money. At other times—especially at election times, and notably in 1906—hon. Gentlemen opposite were very strong upon economy, but when a question arises like this, which is a question of paying wages to working men, I should have thought the Labour party would have taken some part in the Debate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that he said that twice in his original speech.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think I am correct in saying that I never referred to the Labour party until a few moments ago. I think the explanation about the tennis court is most unsatisfactory. The hon. Member said this court was necessary for the health of the Consul who lived in an unhealthy place. I never knew before that lawn tennis was necessary to cure illness. I have played at tennis myself; but I never found it necessary to spend £250 upon a
  40
  tennis court. With regard to Boma, surely the hon. Member gave his case away? If it was necessary to have this covered way, why was it not done last year, and how has the person concerned got on during the last year? This is not the first time he has been there, because this is an old Agency or Consulate, and as I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given us any justification for that expenditure, I feel bound to ask the Committee to go to a Division.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: If I support the hon. Baronet in going to a Division, it will not be on the items of the tennis court, or the room at Cairo, or the house at Therapia, but I think there are many other criticisms that have been made, and that have not been sufficiently answered, to justify us in going to a Division. Speaking from personal experience, I should say tennis is one of the best curatives for sickness any man can have, and I do not think £250 is a very large sum for making the sort of tennis court necessary in that climate. I can quite understand that a reception room is necessary to the growing importance of the position of our Consular Agent at Cairo. I may say, in comment upon all these criticisms with regard to the buildings in which our representatives in the East are housed, it is more important in those countries that the visible and material evidences of dignity should be unmistakable, than it is in the West. The Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne) said it was some time since he visited Constantinople, and I think perhaps he has forgotten really the character of the Ambassador's residence at Therapia. It is really nearly as much an Embassy, and has to be so used, as his residence in Constantinople. He is there in the summer, and he naturally has to perform all the functions of an Ambassador, and he has to entertain there. It is really misrepresenting the necessities, and the character of the Ambassador's residence at Therapia to describe it as merely a villa in a country village on the Bosphorus, and I do not think £20,000 is at all an excessive sum for the building of such a residence.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £49,800 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 117.

  Division No. 91.]

  AYES.

  [4.50 p.m.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cassel, Felix

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Jowett, F. W.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  F. Banbury and Sir J. D. Rees.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newman, John R. P.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morison, Hector

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Neilson, Francis

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobhouse, Rt. Han. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Radford, George Heynes

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hudson, Walter

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Roch, Walter F.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Keating, Matthew

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Crooks, William

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Lansbury, George

  Snowden, Philip

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Spicer, Sir A.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Doris, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Webb, H.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Falconer, James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Mason, D. M. (Coventry)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  France, G. A.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Morgan, George Hay

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  ROYAL PALACES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid."—[NOTE.—£34,000 has been voted on account.]
  Captain JESSEL: I should like to know if I should be in order on this Vote in referring to the front of Buckingham Palace?
  The CHAIRMAN: Is there any money on the Vote for that?
  Captain JESSEL: The Vote is one of £37,300 for Royal palaces, and Buckingham Palace is included.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The general policy of the Office of Works with regard to Royal palaces is included in this Vote.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order to discuss anything except the heads on which the money is to be spent.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  OSBORNE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne." [Note.—£6,000 has been voted on account.]
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. WHELER: This Vote seems to be made out in a most unsatisfactory way. A large portion of the house at Osborne is being devoted to the purposes of a convalescent home for officers of both the Army and Navy, who have been injured and who go there to recuperate. There is, however, another charge made for the keeping up of the State apartments, which the public have a right to view. Both these two charges are lumped together, and there is no information beyond a very rough estimate as to how much is spent on the convalescent home and how much on keeping up the State apartments. That seems to me a most unsatisfactory way of making out an Estimate. The sub-note briefly says the proportion approximately is £8,000 to the convalescent home and £5,000 to the State apartments. I should like to ask whether the rooms which are now set apart for those officers of the Army and Navy who are in a state of bad health when they go there are open to the inspection of the public as well as the general apartments at Osborne, because, if that is so, I cannot help thinking it must be most unsatisfactory to have the general public on certain days inspecting those rooms. I should like some information on that point. I am not saying that excellent work is not done on behalf of those men. I believe there are at present some forty-two officers there receiving excellent treatment, and the beautiful surroundings no doubt must be of great benefit to them, but, if the rooms are open to inspection by the public, much of the charm and enjoyment of those surroundings must be taken away from them. I should like information on that point, and also in regard to the item for furniture. There is a sum of £774 put down in the estimates for furniture, and it is exactly
  44
  the same amount as appeared in last year's estimates. I would like to know whether that is an annual charge or whether it is due to the fact that the money voted last year was not spent? Later in the estimates I find that salaries are paid in a rather extraordinary way. The foreman of the garden gets a wage of 48s., going up by annual increments of one shilling per week, and, in other cases, there are also small rises. All this must lead to unnecessary book-keeping, and I would like to ask whether some better system could not be adopted. It would be very interesting to the House to know what are the results of this excellent home for officers, and I hope I shall get an assurance that those portions of the building which are set apart for men sent there to recover from illness are not open to public inspection?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I think I can give a very simple reply to the hon. Member's questions. As to the allocation of expense between the State apartments and the apartments used as a convalescent home, I may explain it is impossible to divide the amount of time officers are employed in supervising the different rooms, and, therefore, the figures cannot be allocated, with exactitude, so far as individual officers are concerned. As to the inspection of the rooms, it is only the State apartments that are open to public inspection; the hospital apartments are private. I hope the answer I have given the hon. Member is satisfactory.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens." [Note.—£55,000 has been voted on account.]
  Captain MURRAY: I had intended to move the reduction of this Vote in order to elicit certain information from the hon. Gentleman representing the First Commissioner of Works in this House. But before putting my question I desire to take this opportunity of thanking the First Commissioner, and indirectly the hon. Gentleman who to-day represents him, for the undertaking he was good enough

  45
  to give me some weeks back in respect of the erection of memorial statues in the Royal Parks. It will be in the recollection of the House that I asked the First Commissioner whether, in the event of the Memorial to the late King being placed on the site the Select Committee had agreed upon, he would give an undertaking that, in future, no more memorials or statues should be placed in the confines of the Royal Parks. The First Commissioner of Works said that, personally, he was willing to give such an undertaking, but he was unable to bind his successor. I do not hesitate to confess that the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking was not all that I desired, but I appreciated his difficulty in regard to binding his successors, and, on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, I gratefully accepted his undertaking. I still wish it had been possible to find a site for the Memorial other than that which has been selected in the Green Park, but in view of the approval given to that scheme by some of those who are more immediately interested in the Memorial, and looking to the possible failure of the Shadwell Park scheme, should it be necessary to erect the Memorial on a site other than that selected in the Green Park, I, for my part, am willing to accept the Green Park scheme. There are one or two other questions I should like to raise. Why is the Broad Walk being returfed right up to within ten yards of the Piccadilly railings? If the Memorial is to be erected on that site surely it was hardly necessary to returf the whole of the Broad Walk up to the railings, and to put up notices requesting visitors to "keep off the grass."
  Sir F. BANBURY: In order to allow the grass to grow.
  Captain MURRAY: But it is not necessary to allow grass to grow on a spot upon which the Memorial is shortly to be erected. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to tell me when it is proposed to start work on the Memorial. Now I come to another question in relation to the Royal Parks. A rumour has been circulated that a. new site is to be found for the London University in the Royal Botanic Gardens. I hope there is no truth in it. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to inform the Committee what it is proposed to do in that matter. I am informed that a short time ago a pair of Hungarian partridges were turned out on the island in St. James's Park, and that nothing further
  46
  has been seen or heard of them. It was an excellent proceeding on the part of those responsible to turn out these partridges, but I should like to know what has happened to them, whether they are still in St. James's Park or whether they have flown across into Hyde Park. Then there is a point I should like to raise in connection with the trees in Hyde Park. I do not know whether there is an experienced forester attached to the Office of Works. I do not know who advises that office in respect of the trees, and more particularly in respect of planting new trees where they are necessary. It seems to me that greater attention should be paid to this particular aspect of the park question than has hitherto been the case.
  It must be, to my mind, very gratifying to the Office of Works to find that the public is taking an ever-increasing interest in the Royal Parks. I think it is very often the case that we fail to appreciate, at its full worth or value something to which we have grown accustomed. The Royal Parks are a case in point, and anything therefore, to my mind, which stimulates interest in them, serves to bring home to residents in London and to visitors to London how very valuable from every point of view these open spaces of London are, and serves moreover to bring home the fact that it is most necessary and desirable that such rural amenities as the parks possess should remain undisturbed, and that their natural beauty should not be destroyed by the hands of the stonemason and the builder.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I rise to urge that this Vote should not fall on the general body of taxpayers, and here, perhaps, I come to close quarters with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I wonder whether I shall have his support in the matter which I am about to bring before the Committee. These parks were given by monarchs in days gone by to the nation. No doubt in those days it was only right that the nation should bear the cost of maintaining the parks, because at that period the necessity for open spaces was not so marked. To-day it cannot be denied that the residents of London and the ground landlords of London are largely benefited by these parks, and yet they are not paying a single farthing more towards their upkeep than are the residents of Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow. When we come to analyse them I think it

  47
  must be admitted that the arguments in favour of transferring the burden to the local inhabitants are wise. As far as the parks in London are concerned, the London County Council have a general park rate of one penny in the pound, and if we compare London with Glasgow, which has no Royal park, what do we find? We find that the Glasgow people pay a park rate of threepence in the pound. Glasgow has expended £620,000 in buying parks, and the burden of this falls upon the local inhabitants. In addition to that the people in Glasgow have to pay for the upkeep of these parks in London. I hope that the Deputy-Commissioner of Works will take this question into consideration. No doubt use and wont has been the reason for these charges falling upon the Imperial taxpayers, but I cannot help thinking that to-day, with the local rates so high in Glasgow and other parts of the country, these places should not be asked to pay for the upkeep of the parks in London. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that this question will be considered by him in the immediate future.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not want to deal at any length with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, because I am quite sure that his view is not a view which will be accepted by any considerable number of Members on either side of the Committee. This is the very last question that ought to have been raised by a Scottish Member, because if you look at the Vote you will find a substantial portion of it is for the maintenance of Holyrood, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, and a place I have never heard of, never seen, and do not know where it exists, called Linlithgow Peel.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: The ratepayers pay for the Botanic Gardens.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, there is a sum of £17,900.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I only mentioned this to show that whatever may be the fate of Wales and Ireland in this matter, Scotland has certainly little or no cause for complaint, because she is getting her share. I ask the Committee to approach this question from a proper standpoint. The greater portion of this Vote is required, not merely for the maintenance of Hyde Park, Green Park, and St. James's
  48
  Park, but also for the maintenance of places like Kew, which are places of scientific research, useful not merely to London or the United Kingdom, but which, conduct scientific research which, as I know from personal experience, is of very great use to arboriculture and horticulture in various parts of the Empire, and in India particularly. I would also remind the Committee that, even if London does get some slight benefit from having these Royal Parks in her midst, it is one of the few assets she gets for being the capital city of this country. The Committee will remember that there is a set-off in the enormous expense to which London is put in the loss of rateable value which she incurs from the fact that she is the capital city of the Empire. She is put to a very great additional expense on that account, and she ought not to be begrudged one of the few assets she enjoys. My object in rising was not to join in an argument with the hon. Member, but to press the point brought forward by the hon. Member who spoke before him (Captain Murray). I hope that the hon. Member in charge of these estimates will see his way to give a very emphatic and definite assurance to the Committee that there is no question at all of the University buildings being placed in the Botanic Gardens. Everyone will agree that we must do everything we can to preserve the rural aspect of these great parks. I do not altogether agree that memorials are necessarily objectionable. One has seen in different parts of this country, and certainly in many Continental parks, how admirably good sculpture and good memorials can be worked into landscape gardens.
  What I object to is the character of the memorials which are put in some of our parks. For instance, quite near the House, we have the Duke of York Steps. There you have a very handsome memorial, obviously designed to be put in the middle of a straight line, but it has been put at the corner of a fence. In a case of that sort the Office of Works have not bestowed two minutes' consideration to the choice of a site suitable to the character of the memorial, or to the choice of a design suitable to that particular site. In the first place, we want in the Office of Works an expert in landscape gardening; and, in the second place, we want an expert in forestry. No one who has seen the condition of the trees in the Mall, the ruthless treatment of the trees in Kensington

  49
  Gardens, and the want of plan and arrangement in Hyde Park, or who has given any consideration to the subject, will deny that the Office of Works in regard to horticulture—I am excepting the advice they get from Kew, which I acknowledge to be of the highest excellence—want an expert in landscape gardening and an expert in forestry. It is an absurd position. Here you have an Imperial Government maintaining Royal Parks in London, and within the county boundary you have parks which are better managed, which show better results of forestry and horticulture, under the control of the municipality. As a Member of this House, I feel that the parks which are looked after by a Government Department, with all the resources this Committee are prepared to place at their disposal, ought to be paramount in their excellence. The reason why they cannot be compared favourably with the parks maintained by the London County Council is largely the absence of expert advice in the matters of landscape gardening and forestry. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is to express the satisfaction of many Members on this side at the manner in which the Office of Works have met us in the matter of allowing children to play in the parks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that the parks have suffered no damage at all through that concession, and that in the near future the Office of Works will see their way to extend it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to submit one or two considerations to the representative of the First Commissioner in regard to the Vote under discussion. I desire first to refer to the Royal Memorial which it was proposed should be erected on a site in the Green Park near Piccadilly. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that there was very considerable feeling in the House with regard to that proposal, and it was ultimately arranged that the selected design for the Memorial and the details of the site should be exhibited in the Tea Room. The model of the proposed Memorial was exhibited, and in a subsequent Debate the criticisms of Members were expressed with regard to the proposed design. I think I am correct in saying that every speaker who dealt with this Memorial, including my hon. Friend (Captain Murray), who now thinks the controversy is closed—
  Captain MURRAY: That is so far as I am concerned.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Every speaker, including my hon. Friend, expressed the most adverse criticism with regard to the form that the Memorial was to take criticisms based upon artistic considerations. I want to press the criticisms further. The model was exhibited in the House in order that the opinion of the House might be taken. So far as that very inadequate opportunity allowed the opinion of the House to be taken, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the First Commissioner of Works what view the Government came to with regard to the feeling of the House upon the Memorial which they submitted to the judgment of the House? I press for that reply, and I trust that we shall hear, in view of the unanimous condemnation of the proposed form of the Memorial on artistic grounds, that the design has been referred back, and that there is to be a further consideration of the matter. I sincerely trust that the Government will not consider this matter at an end, and I am quite sure that the opinion of the great majority of Members interested in this question is that there should be a further opportunity given to this House to express its views before any work is undertaken in connection with this Memorial. The question of the suitability of the park for any form of memorials has often been discussed, and there is, I believe, a unanimous feeling in the House that the parks in the future should be kept free of these memorials May I give an example of the harm which is continually being done, harm that is done sometimes with the very best of intentions. If there is one play which I love and admire more than any other modern play, it is the play of "Peter Pan." I mention that because the distinguished and brilliant author of that play has, with great generosity, presented a statue of "Peter Pan," which has been erected in Kensington Gardens. I lament the erection of that statue of "Peter Pan," because I object to the form of the statue on artistic grounds, with which I will not trouble the Committee, because I object to the park being regarded as a suitable site for such memorials, and I object, above all, because it leads to other memorials being put there. I am wondering what will happen when the House becomes aware that the present Censor of

  51
  Plays has presented the First Commissioner with a statue of "Dear Old Charlie."
  Mr. BOOTH: For Piccadilly?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think Piccadilly would be a much more suitable site for it. I desire, after having expressed these criticisms with much regret, to express my great gratitude to the First Commissioner for the great improvements that have taken place in connection with the Royal Parks. I rejoice that he has made them more and more a very happy playground for the children in the City. I rejoice in the extension of the facilities for children to swim in the Serpentine, and the additional facilities given for organised games under the control of the London County Council. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Godfrey Collins) has raised an important question with regard to the cost that falls upon the public purse for the maintenance of these Royal Parks. I do not propose to discuss it in any detail, except to say this: that I should very much regret if there were any considerable agitation to hand over the Royal Parks to the London County Council or to place them upon local rates. They are a national possession, just as many of the beautiful places and buildings in Scotland are a national possession, and I should extremely lament if the Treasury Grant were withdrawn from Glasgow or from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. I rejoice as a Scottish Member that the nation is wise enough to realise that these are national possessions, and though occasionally we have to complain of the vandalism that has taken place in recent years in connection with the Royal Parks, I fear if they "were removed entirely from the control of this House we should have a great deal more to complain of. I rejoice that these national possessions are under the direct control of this Chamber.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: With regard to the details of the expenses which are stated on the Paper, I wish to make one or two inquiries. I desire, first, to ask upon what Vote the returfing of the broad path in the Green Park falls, and if it is not upon a Vote, from what private source is the charge defrayed. The returfing of the
  52
  broad avenue is a very great improvement to the park, and we should all wish to congratulate the First Commissioner upon having abolished an entirely useless and most unsightly road cutting that path in two. I observe that there is an item which appears to suggest that there is to be an addition to the space which is at present occupied in Hyde Park by the tea house, and I should like to know what further inroads are proposed with regard to the accommodation provided around that house.
  Captain JESSEL: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) against the practice of putting statues and other memorials in our parks because, if the present process goes on, in the course of the next few years it will be all statues and monuments and no parks at all. I quite understand that in regard to the Memorial a very difficult question has to be decided, and probably the site chosen has given more satisfaction than any other would have done, although many people are opposed to it. As regards the proposition that the London Parks should be taken away from the control of this House and handed over to the London County Council or any other bodies, I, for one, strongly dissent. I am sorry my Noble Friend (Lord Alexander Thynne) thought fit to compare the work done in the county council parks to the detriment of the Royal Parks. Everyone must acknowledge the great improvement which has taken place in the Royal Parks of recent years. More trouble has been taken in planting flowers and in landscape gardening, and anyone who sees the trouble that is taken month after month to renew the flowers must agree that there has been a very great improvement. Another point on which credit must be given to the administration of the Office of Works is in regard to the condition of the Row itself. There have been constant complaints in the House about the condition of the Row. Many Members have now taken to motors instead of taking horse exercise for the benefit of their health and perhaps the improvement of their tempers, but some of us who ride must recognise that the Row has been in a far better condition in the last two or three years than it has ever been before. As a rule, in these Debates the Office of Works is fairly well slanged, and it is only right and fair that when they take the trouble to make improvements some praise should be given them.

  53
  Another point to which I wish to draw attention is with regard to the lighting in the Mall. I understand the standards there were erected some ten years ago as a temporary measure, and they are not beautiful. Has not the time now come when they might be replaced by something of a more ornamental design? It is a very important thoroughfare leading up to Buckingham Palace, and certainly all we can do to enhance the artistic appearance of that approach ought to be done. I should like to ask if there is sufficient ground allotted in Regent's Park for children who wish to play football? Some two years ago I asked for additional ground, and I was told it could not be had, because if the ground was played upon in the morning it could not be used in the afternoon. In many cases morning is the only time that children can play. I should like to know if further facilities have been given for games in the vicinity of the parks? I hope that Members who do not sit for London constituencies will not run away with the idea that none of them are getting a great thing out of these parks. London has to pay for a great many more services, in our opinion more than its due share, and what we get back from the parks is very little in amount in comparison with what we suffer in other directions. I am glad of this opportunity of saying what I could to testify to the great improvement which has been made in recent years.
  Mr. CAWLEY: It is nothing less than a scandal that people in places like Greenock or Lancashire should be called upon to pay for things which are really sources of enjoyment to the inhabitants of London only. The position at present is that London, which is infinitely better provided with open spaces and parks than any other city in the country, gets some of its finest parks absolutely free and paid for by the taxpayers of the rest of the country. The Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne) taunted an hon. Member from Scotland, and said he ought not to raise any objection because Edinburgh was in the same position. That is hardly fair, because what the hon. Member (Mr. G. P. Collins) said applied just as much to Edinburgh as to London, and the scandal in the case of Edinburgh is nearly as great as in the case of London. They get some of these provisions free, and their rates of parks is only 1½d. in the £. My desire is that every town should pay for its own parks, whether in Scotland or in England.
  54
  It is said that the whole of this Vote is not for parks, but that there is an item for Kew, which is in the nature of a national service. I quite agree, and the proposal is not that the whole of this Vote should be put upon local ratepayers, but only such part as refers to the London parks. It may be said that people come in from other places and enjoy the parks. But what parks do they enjoy? St. James's Park, the Green Park, and a small part of Hyde Park perhaps, but what visitor to London goes to Regent's Park? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Zoo."] I do not think the Zoo is on this Vote. As a matter of fact, just as many cheap trips run to Manchester as to London, yet no one proposes to put the Manchester parks upon the taxpayers of the country. The time has come when this ancient practice should be inquired into, and we should have some assurance from the First Commissioner of Works that he will seriously consider lessening the Vote by the amount which ought to be borne by London only.
  With regard to Rotten Row I am told, and one can believe it, that underneath the tan there is a brick surface. At any rate, there is no doubt that the going is not good—it is very hard and unyielding—and I think the First Commissioner of Works might see whether it is not possible to get something a little less hard to go upon. It is very hard to see why people in the country should provide for the pleasure of the few who want to ride in Rotten Row. Something can be said for it, and that is that it provides a good deal of harmless amusement to the people who are looking on and enjoying the spectacle of the horses, and still more the spectacle of the riders. But it would be better justified if there was a little more variety provided by two jumps being put up. That is done in the Bois, and I do not see why it should not be done in Rotten Row. There is plenty of room to put up a few jumps, which would add considerably to the amount of exercise to those riding, and which, I am sure, would add still more to the amusement of the spectators. The main question I wish to put forward is that hon. Members who represent constituencies throughout the country feel that probably not one in a hundred of their constituents has ever seen the London parks. I would urge on the First Commissioner of Works that this charge should be taken off the national funds and put on the London ratepayers, who are well able to pay.
  Mr. FELL: On a point of Order, may I ask whether I would be in order in discussing the reconstruction of Regent Street? If the salary of the First Commissioner of Works is included in this Vote, then, I presume, I should be in order. There is an item for salaries.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Frederick Banbury): If the hon. Member can point to any item under which that question arises he will be in order in discussing it; but otherwise I think he will find that the question should be discussed on another Vote.
  Mr. FELL: I do not know whether it comes under the item for salaries and wages, or whether the salary of the First Commissioner is included in that item.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think not.
  Mr. FELL: I wish to refer to the question of Greenwich Park, which is not so well known to dwellers in this part of London as some of the other parks. I would ask the Government seriously whether we get value for the large amount of money which is expended on that park? I know it very well myself. It is one of the smaller parks. Its beauty is that it is very broken, and that it has high parts, on one of which is the Observatory. That takes a considerable space out of the park, and another part is taken up by the Ranger's House. To me it is a puzzle why £5,542 should be spent on that park. If it were a private man's park, I should say that £500 or £700 would be enough to spend upon it. I dare say that, as it is Government property, it may be thought necessary to incur considerably more expense upon it; but I do not think that an expenditure of between £5,000 and £6,000 is warranted when we compare that with the amount expended on other parks. I think £7,397 expended upon Hampton Court Park and pleasure grounds compares favourably with what is spent on Greenwich Park, because they are visited by immense numbers of people. I do not grudge one penny that is spent on Hampton Court Park, for I think the money is well spent. In Greenwich Park there are practically no flower beds, and there are only a few gravel paths to be maintained. There is an opportunity here, I think, of saving several thousand pounds, because we do not get our money's worth. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I think the people in all parts of the country perfectly understand the reason why it is just and fair that the expenditure on the Royal Parks in London should fall upon national resources. Every part of the country takes an interest in the Metropolis. People come to see the monuments in London; they regard the Government as model managers of parks, and they consider that it is a just thing that some central authority should in a very generous way manage the parks and be an administrator in the art of gardening and park-keeping, as well as in regard to buildings. I think we ought to emphasise the praises bestowed on the Office of Works for the increased activity it has shown in recent years. A very great advance has been made in a very short time, and I think we ought to express our thanks particularly to the First Commissioner and his staff, and to my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) for what is being done, and for the influence which has been exerted in the saving of St. James's Park. The Memorial scheme which was seriously put forward by the Memorial Committee was rejected, and we may suppose that that was partly due to the influence of the Office of Works. I think the House ought to be sincerely grateful for what has been done in this matter. In the Green Park something has been done which I think was not suggested in this House, namely, the grassing of the Broad Walk. That is an immense improvement. One gratifying thing about that is that it was initiated by the Office of Works itself. I venture to hope that we may see more enterprise in management of the parks, and in the control of architectural developments by the Office of Works. Let them not wait for suggestions from the outside, or from this House; but let them be model managers of parks and buildings by showing an active and energetic spirit. I wish to commend them for another thing. They have initiated football in Hyde Park. I hope they will extend that. I think they have done an extremely good work in the improvement effected at the Dell in Hyde Park. It would be a good thing if they would copy what has been done by one or two of the great corporations in the provinces, which have introduced squirrels in the parks—not caged, but tame squirrels. I think the idea came from America. There are squirrels in Regent's Park, and I think they might very well be introduced into Hyde Park and St. James's Park.

  57
  There is one complaint which we have against the First Commissioner as regards the management of the parks, and that is that his Department has not quite followed out one of the great principles in gardening and park designing. We all know that the chief principles in gardening are to introduce variety, privacy, and harmony. Privacy is not easily introduced in English parks, though that end is obtained in foreign ones. We have no thickets, and I do not know whether that might be attempted in Hyde Park. Harmony is seriously neglected. In Hyde Park lately there has been a great deal of kerbing done at great expense, and that work is very much out of harmony with the kind of life we want in a public park. It is all very well to have stonework in gardens, but I think in Hyde Park kerbing is very much out of place. At all events, when so much money is spent in putting down, constantly moving, and increasing the immense iron railings in the park, the necessity for economy and saving cannot be urged against improvements which everyone would value. I regret we have not had more attention paid to the express wishes of this House in regard to the King Edward Memorial. Surely it cannot be argued that any national feeling or any Parliamentary feeling in favour of it has been indicated on any of the occasions on which the subject has been raised. I would like to add to the arguments which have been adduced one reason in favour of another site, and that is the wishes of the working-classes who use the parks. Any of us who casually talks to working men walking across the parks will find that they have a strong feeling on this subject. They have an impression that great people over whom they have no control are using the parks according to their own fancies, without much consideration for the working-classes. I have found that there is a strong feeling in their minds that the parks are theirs, that they provide the only chance they have of walking on the grass, and that the controller who diminishes by a single yard the amount of grass at their disposal is no friend of theirs. I think that is an argument which has not received due weight in the decision of the Office of Works, so far as we understand it to be a decision, in approving of the site in the Green Park.
  6.0 P.M.
  There is not the slightest desire, I am sure, on the part of any of us to minimise the importance of the King Edward Memorial. We all wish it to be of immense importance, but everyone wishes that the
  58
  Memorial should not be such that the park will be a setting for a single monument, as St. James's Park is already a setting for the monument to Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria and King Edward are amongst the greatest of our monarchs, but their monuments should not take inappropriate forms. The greatness of a monument consists of quality more than quantity, and in devoting the whole of the Green Park to form a setting for the King Edward Memorial I think the Office of Works would be approving a scheme which would appear rather inappropriate. If one memorial dominates one park, we shall be landed before very long in very great difficulty. There have been great monarchs to whom no such monument has been erected. I instance the case of Queen Elizabeth. We are in no danger of forgetting her for a moment, because in architectural style there are all over the country buildings which remind us of the period in which she reigned and of the spirit which she represented. We were promised a debate on the subject of the King Edward Memorial. Such debate as has already been given to the subject has been entirely opposed to the scheme. Two or three other schemes have been put forward. One particular scheme would, I suggest, be a more fitting memorial, namely, the improvement of Hyde Park Corner. In conclusion, I may say that I was delighted the other day to notice that the sketch and the model are still in my hon. Friend's keeping in the Whips' Room, and I trust from the diligence with which he is studying them that the Government may yet come to a decision, which will be approved of by all parties in this House and in the country.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Any Member who has strong feelings or any feeling at all upon the subject of the King Edward Memorial in the Green Park must find himself in a very great difficulty, because we do not know at all whether the matter is closed or not. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) put a definite question to the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) as to what his view was of the feeling of the House with regard to the Memorial and site, and what his decision was as to the matter being closed or not. Until we have an answer to that question it is almost useless to discuss the matter at further length. The discussion which has already taken place was not sufficient. It was in the nature of a snatch

  59
  discussion. There was no notice. Many Members were not present and could not take any part in it. Besides, it is well recognised in all quarters of this House that any matter appertaining to a particular Department should come up for discussion on the Vote for that Department. This Department unquestionably has a responsibility with regard to this Memorial. It is not responsible for the choice of the design, but it is responsible for the proper preservation of the parks and it has granted a site for the Memorial in this park and is therefore in that measure responsible for what is to be put upon the site. It is in this connection that I find the gravest objection to a scheme which places an enormous mass of unnecessary masonry on that particular site in the Green Park. Let us consider for a moment how this matter has arisen. In the first place, in some unfortunate moment or for some reason which we cannot understand that particular site seems to have been selected. Then the designer of the Memorial designed a statue of the late King and it was to face south, quite properly, towards the Victoria Memorial and Buckingham Palace. Then he found out that that made the statue turn its back upon the frequenters of Piccadilly, and in order to get rid of that difficulty he invented this enormous mass of masonry which hides the statue from the frequenters of Piccadilly altogether; and then he proceeded to compensate Piccadilly by putting in an allegorical figure of Arbitration quelling Strife which Piccadilly is to gaze at. My whole point with regard to this Memorial is that this enormous mass of masonry is perfectly unnecessary. All those allegorical groups of figures, of which the statue of the King is one very little more important and very little larger than the other groups, do not add to the importance of the Memorial at all as a memorial of King Edward. Consider what it is. There are five groups of statues, which I suppose take up in a cubic measure about one-tenth of the cubic space taken up by the Memorial. The statue of the King is one of those five. Therefore the great King, whom we desire to honour, is represented by one-fiftieth part of the whole Memorial. Was there ever such a conception of memorial?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the Memorial as far as regards the particular site, but not to go into a long discussion
  60
  as to the merits of the Memorial, for which the Department is not responsible.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I was wrong in that, because the real question here is as to the site on which the Memorial is to be placed. It will not add to the dignity of the Memorial itself, but will excite criticism among those who delight in the parks as they are and have hitherto been kept, and who, when they find all these memorials taking the place of meadow land and dell, will not have that subtle sense of change from town to country which they now experience as they pass from the street into the parks. Therefore, without the slightest desire to lessen the importance of the statue to King Edward, but with a firm belief that that importance will be enhanced by another design, and a design which will not interfere in the least with the money going to Shadwell, we are justified in inquiring from the hon. Member whether this matter is to be considered closed or not. If it is to be considered closed, I think it is only fair that the House should know it in order that we should not spend any more time in discussing it.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is at page 10 an item of £4,070 in connection with the erection of a laboratory and certain other new buildings in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Member in charge of this Vote to consequences which will arise if this money is voted this afternoon. In 1910 certain buildings were erected in these particular gardens adjacent to the street. At the time the inhabitants in the neighbourhood objected very strenuously to those buildings being put up in the building line in which they are put up, as they would destroy the amenity of the district, which is one of the chief approaches into the City of Edinburgh; and the proposal now is to erect another set of buildings for which they are asking the money this afternoon. But since the first buildings were erected the Government has passed the Town Planning Act and the Corporation of Edinburgh has adopted certain by-laws. One of those sets out very clearly that no building can be erected within 30 feet of the centre of the highway. This particular building which the Government propose to erect is inside the limit set up by one of the by-laws of the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh. The corporation unanimously opposed the erection of that

  61
  building obviously for the reason than an example set by the Government which is a bad example would have a bad effect with regard to other buildings which may afterwards be erected, and they have actually taken the matter to the Scottish Courts, with the result that the Lord Ordinary has given a decision against the Government on every point, and the Government, not satisfied with that decision, has appealed. The curious point which arises is this: The Government is appealing against that decision, because it claims that all Crown buildings are outside the control of a particular local authority, but as the Judge, Lord Ormidale, pointed out on that occasion, a curious set of circumstances arises, because what was vested in the Crown in this particular instance is a piece of unbuilt upon land upon which it is proposed to erect buildings, and it appears that so long as the people of Edinburgh can keep this as a piece of Crown land then the Crown could not erect a building inside the specifications which these local authorities lay down; but if you grant this money this afternoon to set up buildings they put themselves outside these local powers. I want to know from the First Commissioner of Works whether we can have a guarantee from him that these buildings will not be erected outside the building line of the by-laws set up by the corporation under the terms of the Town Planning Act. It is not as if there was not sufficient ground to erect those buildings. The Botanic Gardens are very extensive, and there is plenty of ground inside the gardens for them away from the road where those buildings can be put up quite as appropriately. But it seems to me a monstrous thing that the Government should first lay down some kind of legislation which they call Town Planning legislation, by which they hope to preserve the building line in the future, and should then be the very first people to transgress that particular law which they have passed. I would like to convey to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, that the people of Edinburgh are very much concerned about these buildings being put up, and to appeal to him to see whether some arrangement could not be made whereby the buildings should not be proceeded with. Other points have been raised in the course of discussion as to which I might have said something, but I refrain from doing so, because I want to concentrate upon this particular point, and in the hope that I will get a
  62
  reply saying that this building shall not be proceeded with.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I would like to point out to the representative of the First. Commissioner of Works that we are bound, as far as we are concerned, to have regard to the rights of the people in connection with these parks, and whilst this may be only one Memorial, yet it establishes a precedent which may be followed in future; and, that being so, I hope the First Commissioner of Works will hesitate and hesitate a long time before he decides upon taking what is the common ground of the people of this country for the erection of memorials. I rise, however, with the object of asking whether anything has been done in regard to the petitions of park-keepers and gate-keepers of parks for an increase of wages. We know that a comparative statement has been forwarded to the Commissioner in regard to the wages paid by public bodies, who have control of parks, to park-keepers and gate-keepers; but so far as the park-keepers and gate-keepers, for whom I am speaking, are concerned, their position is a great deal worse than that of the people engaged in a similar capacity by other public bodies. I sincerely hope the Department will consider the advisability of increasing the wages of these people. I am not quite certain whether the wages of certain persons at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, have yet been dealt with; I hope they have. I notice that the Estimates in the present year are only increased by £l,100, of which sum over £800 is to provide extra police. Therefore, so far as the ordinary workpeople are concerned, their wages have not been very much increased, if at all.
  Two more persons have been employed this year than were engaged last year, and I am very much inclined to think that the Departments are economising with regard to the wages paid to the workpeople while they are not economising in other directions. I hope the petitions of these park keepers and gate-keepers for better conditions of labour and increased wages will be dealt with more quickly in the future than in the past, and that their petitions will not be kept under consideration for ten or twelve months before any reply at all is sent. I desire also to call the attention of the Department to certain park keepers who are employed on Sundays, and who desire to be provided with a uniform Their complaint is that in private clothes they have not the same amount of control

  63
  that they would possess if they were supplied with a uniform. They have made requests for uniforms time and time again, and I do not think that the extra cost would be so much that the Department should refuse the application. In regard to the petitions for better conditions of labour, hours, and wages, I trust they will receive early consideration.
  Mr. W. BENN: In reply to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) as to the wages of gate-keepers and park-keepers in the various parks, I have to state that not only have the petitions been taken into consideration, but a scheme has been formulated for dealing with the matter. I am not at liberty to go into details, as the scheme has not yet been decided upon, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that such a scheme is under consideration, and I hope that before long an increase of the wages of the men will be granted. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) it is not necessary to enter into a discussion of the legal aspect of the rights of the Crown in respect to those buildings to which he referred. Last year one-half of those buildings were erected, and now preparation is being made to erect the other half. The matter was the subject of legal action, and the Crown was defeated in the inferior Court. They carried the question to the Court of Appeal, where it is still awaiting decision, and in the circumstances I do not think it would be right for me to enter into the merits of the case, which will be far better left to the Court to which it has been referred to decide.
  Mr. HOGGE: What will become of the money in the meantime?
  Mr. W. BENN: Of course, if it should be necessary, by reason of the result of the case, the money will fall into the Sinking Fund in the ordinary way under such circumstances. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote he complained in regard to the amount expended on Greenwich Park, but inasmuch as he was unable to raise any specific questions in connection with his complaint, it is difficult for me to reply to him. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton) mentioned the subject of squirrels in the parks, and he made a suggestion which I can assure him will be considered by the Office of Works. The Noble Lord the Member
  64
  for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne) asked a question about the proposal to erect the buildings of the University of London in the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens are not under the control of the Office of Works, they are under the Office of Woods and Forests. We have no knowledge of any such proposal, but I think I can say on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works that he would be opposed to the erection of any such buildings in the Botanic Gardens. The Noble Lord and the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Captain Jessel), and other hon. Members, referred to the facilities granted to children to play games in the parks. I should like to make it clear that the First Commissioner is very sympathetic to those suggestions and proposals; at the same time the plan followed is this. The education officer of the London County Council has been invited to allot certain plots set aside for games, and, therefore, the proper course to pursue by those who desire more accommodation would be to move the local authorities to grant it, and, in these circumstances, I think I may promise that such a proposal would be sympathetically considered by the First Commissioner.
  The hon. Member for Lanark, among other points to which I will reply later, asked about the tea-house in Hyde Park, for which, I think, money is taken. It is not proposed to take more land for the teahouse; it is merely proposed to improve the building itself, and the site will not be increased. I must take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for South St. Pancras for his appreciative remarks about the Office of Works. I have already replied to one or two points; and as to the lamps in the Mall, it is proposed to replace them with others of a more worthy design. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) wanted to know why the whole of the Green Park was returfed when it is proposed to erect a memorial there. The preparation of such a memorial is a lengthy business; a model has to be made, and there has to be a casting prepared, so that it will be some years before the Memorial could find its place in the park. In the meantime, we have returfed the whole, and there will only be a very small part to remove to find a place for the Memorial. I can assure the Noble Lord and hon. Members who criticise the technical ability of our officers in regard to landscape gardening, that they are really under a misapprehension. The

  65
  superintendent (Mr. Gardner) is a man of very great experience in landscape gardening and forestry, and advice is given by a well-known expert in forestry. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. G. P. Collins) and the hon. Member for Heywood (Mr. Harold Cawley) suggested that the expense of the Royal Park should be thrown on the London ratepayers.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: On the local authorities.
  Mr. W. BENN: That is to say, that the ratepayers of Marylebone and Westminster would have to bear the cost. As a London Member I entirely disagree from that view; certainly it seems to me parochial in the extreme. I will give my reasons. As representative of an East End Division, I have no interest in the parks of the West End, from the parochial point of view, but I will give my reasons why it would not be proper to throw the charges of those West End parks on the London ratepayer instead of on the National Exchequer. Those parks are used by visitors to London, not only from the provinces but from foreign countries. For historical reasons they have been maintained out of the Exchequer. Whenever it could be shown that the use of Royal Parks was local and not national they have been transferred by separate Acts of Parliament to the charge and cost of the local authority, as in the case of Battersea Park and Victoria Park. If in the future a case could be made out in regard to other Royal Parks—I do not believe it could be made out—that the use of them was more local than national, then, of course, it could be dealt with in the same way; but if it came to be a question of financial readjustment between London and the National Exchequer, a great number of other considerations would have to be dealt with as well as the charges relating to the Royal Parks.
  The only other matter to which I wish to refer is as to the Memorial. I can assure the hon. Member for Westminster that there is no desire to burke discussion; and in regard to the Debate which took place on the Motion for the Adjournment, the Office of Works have no control over matters arising on that Motion. A discussion was promised, and a further discussion has now taken place on the question of this Memorial. I will not go over the remarks with which I troubled the House on the previous occasion, but the point narrows itself down to this: The only decision which the First Commissioner has
  66
  to make is whether or not this is a proper site. The matter of design, the matter of the disposition of the money are matters which, with very great respect to the hon. Member for the City of Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), he could have raised before the Committee, of which I believe he was invited to become a member. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, I am perfectly certain that if the amenities of the park are considered as properly to be shared by all, then, of course, they must be of especial benefit to those who cannot afford to go out of London and get country air on holidays, and from that point of view this scheme of the First Commissioner is the best one, because it enables a large space of over eight acres to be opened in Shadwell as part of the scheme. From that point of view alone, the scheme is of advantage to the poorer part of London.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Is it the statement of the hon. Member that any other scheme, of any kind, would in his opinion interfere with Shadwell Park?
  Mr. W. BENN: The proposition of the Committee was this: "If you will give us this site then with the money in hand and with the money which we will be able to collect we hope we shall be in a position to raise sufficient money to give a park to Shadwell." It was made conditional on the permission to erect a statue on this site.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Supposing another scheme is suggested which will cost less money, then does the First Commissioner assert that that would in any way interfere with the Shadwell Park scheme?
  Mr. W. BENN: With respect, I would suggest that the proper course for the hon. Member would be to move the Committee to bring forward this new suggestion, in which case the First Commissioner will consider it. The circumstances now are that the Committee has made one suggestion to which he has assented.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did not vote for it.
  Lord BALCARRES: Do I understand that the Committee stated that they would not proceed with the Shadwell Park scheme unless the Government gave consent to the site in St. James's Park?
  Mr. W. BENN: The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There has been no question at all of a site in St. James's Park. The site is in the Green Park. Although the Committee may not have set that out in terms, it was understood that to get enough money for the Shadwell Park scheme this site should be granted in this position. I hope the House will now agree to the Vote.
  Mr. LYELL: I should like to direct the attention of the hon. Member to one matter as to which I think his reply was hardly satisfactory. The hon. Member represents the Office of Works, and I think that in the great majority of cases he has undoubtedly satisfied his critics. There was one matter which, however, was not satisfactory. He excused himself from giving the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) an answer on the ground that this matter of the erection of buildings is at the present moment sub judice. What has happened? The Crown has appealed and is invoking certain powers as against the Corporation of Edinburgh, and we are told that we are to be content with no answer, because at the present moment the matter is sub judice. Our point is that it ought never to be sub judice, and that the Crown ought not to have invoked those powers. We passed the Town Planning Act, and we placed certain powers and certain duties on local authorities, and surely the Government ought to be an example instead of invoking certain privileges which attached to the Crown and to the Office of Works as representing the Crown. I do trust that my hon. Friend will reconsider this matter and will endeavour in every way to show that the office which he so worthily represents does give something more than mere lip-service to the Town Planning Act.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is easy for the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East to say that this matter is sub judice, but surely he might be able to tell us whether the Crown is seeking to obtain a test case on account of the peculiar circumstances of these buildings. As I pointed out in my previous remarks, this is a case of ground that has not been built upon, and I suppose if there had been buildings it would have been held that they were outside the local law, but having no buildings there that cannot be held. What we are asked to do now is to vote money to put up those buildings. I very respectfully suggest that we ought to allow that to lie over until at any rate, if he insists on appealing to the
  68
  inner House, the decision is given. We should not be placed in Edinburgh because of this in the position of spoiling one of the finest approaches to the city and involving future generations of people in very large expense. If the hon. Member for Kincardineshire insists on going to a Division I shall be very glad to support him.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I hope the hon. Member will see his way to give an undertaking that during the ensuing year he will give serious consideration to the possibility of having expert advice on the two points I raised, namely, as to the question of forestry and the treatment of trees. I have already instanced the manner in which trees in Kensington Gardens and in the Mall have been treated. There is also the question of expert advice as to landscape gardening. If the hon. Member will give an undertaking that the First Commissioner will consider these questions during the ensuing year, I will certainly support him in a Division.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to support what has been said as to the mutilation of trees, both in Kensington Gardens and in the Mall, and elsewhere. Wherever an avenue has been planted in London it seems to be the purpose of the so-called landscape gardener to plant as many trees as possible, and then proceed to mutilate those trees and prevent them growing into each other. That is entirely contrary to the attitude of every expert forester in every other country in the world. I venture to think that the First Commissioner of Works might learn a great deal in this respect by taking a trip across the Channel to France, or particularly to Belgium, and in the latter country, at any rate, he will see mile after mile along the high road of sycamores, plane trees, and cherry trees laden with fruit which have been in no way mutilated, and which are in every way a testimony to the expert knowledge of the national forester, and an example we might with advantage follow. The hon. Gentleman has referred to two foresters who are advising the Government. I am a little inquisitive to know who those two expert foresters are. It is perfectly true Mr. Gardner is an expert landscape gardener, but he is not an expert forester. When the hon. Gentleman mentions expert foresters, I may remind the House that we are peculiarly destitute in this country of expert

  69
  foresters. If the Government are fortunate enough in having the advice of one of the few of those who exist, then they are far more fortunate than the bulk of us who search in vain for expert foresters in the treatment of our own woodlands.
  Mr. W. BENN: Mr. Neil, Mr. Barton, and Professor Balfour, of Edinburgh, are the foresters and experts. In reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, he may take it that the First Commissioner will be very happy to do everything in his power to get the best expert advice in this country, and that he will welcome any suggestions from the Noble Lord and his friends, or from anyone who takes an interest in the working of the matter.
  Mr. FELL: In reply to the remarks of the hon. Member that I have not given sufficient particulars for him to answer as to Greenwich Park, I would really ask him, as I know he is an energetic Minister, to look into the Greenwich Park question, and compare it with the other Royal Parks to see if we get our money's worth on the expenditure there, because in my opinion we do not. To say that we get £5,700 worth of anything, as compared with the amount expended on Hampton Court, is certainly not the case, because we do not get value for that amount of money. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will look into the matter.
  Mr. W. BENN: Yes, I will do so.
  Mr. FELL: That being so, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
  Mr. BOYTON: I hope there will be no further encroachments on Regent's Park. Of course, we have no complaint to make with regard to the new building for the Women's College, but it is to be hoped, in the interests of the residents and the public, that the amenities of the park will not be further encroached upon. I appreciated very much what I saw this morning, namely, the provision of a new path by the side of the ornamental water.
  Amendment negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £30,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913,
  70
  for Houses of Parliament Buildings." [Note.—£20,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The subject upon which I wish to address the Committee will perhaps not be regarded as one of national importance. It is, however, one which indicates the care that is bestowed and the inspiration that is exhibited by the Lords Commissioners in relation to the internal architecture and arrangements of this House. I am addressing myself to what has been done in relation to the new larders. The method of treatment adopted in relation to those larders is a sort of tangled topsy-turveydom. The facts are that new larders have been put in. The larders to look at are excellent larders, with beautiful tiles and all the usual appurtenances, but the site is most unfortunate, because one wall of the new larders is also the side wall of the old boiler, and you have a hot wall on one side and a cold wall on the other side. It does not sound a promising place on which to expend public money from the National Exchequer in constructing new larders for this House. The position is not bettered when one knows, as I know, having visited the larders, that from the boiler room through the larders comes the pipe which conveys the heat from the boiler for the purpose of heating the House. Thus you have got your new larders on one wall of the boiler, and you have actually got hoc pipes carried along the ceiling of the larder. In commenting on this matter I should perhaps pay the Office of Works the compliment of saying, and quite frankly, that they resisted the temptation, which must have been considerable, of carrying the pipes from the boiler through the cold storage room which adjoins the larder. Every Member will recognise that a boiler is necessary to generate heat, that pipes are necessary to distribute heat, and that larders are necessary to cool meat; but even the Office of Works cannot warm our feet and cool our meat by one and the same operation. No doubt the Government are alive to the value of hot air, but the larder is not the place for it. The platform, or somewhere of that sort, is a far preferable spot. As far as the usefulness of the work is concerned, this larder is as bare as a cupboard famous in our national literature. It is perfectly certain that the money is absolutely wasted, as the place can never be used for the purposes of a larder. I have racked my brain to find out what useful purpose it can serve. It might

  71
  be useful as a sitting-out room if a staff ball were given below stairs, but for the primary purpose for which the work was done I cannot see that any good can result. I congratulate the Government on an effort in economy; it would have been useful if they could have done their cooling and heating by one single process; but I lament the fact that even efforts towards economy on the part of the Government result in extravagance. I should like to know who was consulted as regards the site of these larders; who was responsible for the design; who sanctioned it, and at what cost the work was carried out?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This Vote contained an item of £530 for building a base for a group of statuary to be erected in the New Victoria Embankment Gardens. I understood that these gardens would not be finished for two years, and that before any definite decision was taken as to laying them out, a plan—if not a model—would be exhibited in the House. I should be glad to know whether it is proposed to erect this group of statuary before the plan is exhibited, and Members have had an opportunity of submitting their criticisms to the Office of Works. I protest against the practice of promising that a plan shall be placed in the Tea Room and thinking that the mere observance of that ritual will satisfy Members of the House. It is not the ritual of the placing of the plan that we value. It is the opportunity of criticising the plan when exhibited, and, above all, of having our criticisms duly considered before the work is carried out. It appears that we are now pledging ourselves to erect in a certain spot a certain piece of statuary, before we have considered whether this is the best way in which partially to lay out the gardens. I am not criticising the very beautiful piece of statuary, "The Burghers of Calais," which it is proposed to erect in the Embankment Gardens. Judging from the photographs, the statuary is of a singularly beautiful nature; but to my mind it requires a historic and especially an architectural setting. I submit that this garden is not a suitable place on which to put this statuary, and I fear that it will be followed, as in so many other cases, by similar additions. Therefore, I await with considerable anxiety an assurance from the representative of the Government upon this point. There is an amount included in the Vote for internal repairs and altera-
  72
  tions to these Houses, including a certain sum for removing the varnish from the oak work throughout the buildings. No attempt has been yet made to remove the varnish from the very beautiful oak work which adorns this Chamber. I think I shall be expressing the general sense of the Committee in asking the hon. Member for St. George's whether his Department, will soon remove the varnish from this; woodwork, and thereby greatly improve the amenities of this Chamber.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I wish to ask a question concerning the frescoes in the Royal Gallery. Those frescoes are deserving of the consideration of this House for two reasons: first, because they represent two great historical subjects—the death of Nelson, and the meeting of Wellington and Blucher on the field at Waterloo; and, secondly, because they are the works of a great and distinguished artist, namely, Daniel Maclise. I feel a personal interest in these frescoes because I am a fellow-citizen of Daniel Maclise. I had not the honour of his acquaintance; he was before my time; but I knew very well some of his pupils in the City of Cork, who took a very great interest in these pictures, and always lamented the fact that they were rapidly fading from view. I have asked questions about these frescoes before, but I have never received a satisfactory reply. Perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. Possibly it cannot be stated why they are fading away. The present Colonial Secretary, I know, asked for a report from Sir Arthur Church; but even he failed to explain why these historical works, in which the whole nation, and even the whole world, are interested, are fading away. It is sometimes said that it is feared that Daniel Maclise used pigments of a faulty character; but that has not been proved to the satisfaction of anybody who has considered the subject. It has also been stated that the frescoes suffer from the fumes proceeding from Doulton's and other factories up the river, and that those fumes are affecting, not only these pictures, but the very structure of this building itself. It is also stated, in order to account for the fading away of these pictures, that they are suffering from the damp which comes in through the walls. It may be that the representative of the Office of Works has not had these frescoes brought to his attention; but the Colonial Secretary, who is present, took a great interest in them, and had them repaired, if I may use the term. Can the

  73
  right hon. Gentleman say what has been the result of the application of the work of other artists to these pictures, to what extent they have been renovated, what has been the effect of the renovation, and whether there is any hope that the pictures will be reserved to the nation and to those who take a keen interest in them?
  Mr. ALEXANDER WHYTE: There is a comparatively small sum set aside for urgent and unforseen works and alterations of a minor character. I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take into consideration the advisability of applying a small part of that sum to the removal of the grille in front of the Ladies' Gallery? If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt as to the nature of the demand for that work he might take an opportunity of discovering the general sense of the Committee on the point. Although he perhaps has no personal experience of that demand, I am certain that the majority of Members would concur in and welcome it. It cannot be doubted that the removal of the grille and the substitution of a brass bar, or some defence of that character, would greatly improve the Ladies' Gallery as a point of vantage for those who wish to listen to our Debates.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: I only desire to call attention to Item D (warming, ventilating, and lighting). I assume from the fact of the provision made that the Vote is practically a normal one, and that nothing will be done during the year in the way of changing the method of lighting this House. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt), who has just left the House, was in charge of the Office of Works, he gave the most kindly and courteous consideration to those Members of the House who are extremely interested in this problem, because they feel the pressure of light from above on their eyes. I believe that pressure possibly to be unavoidable. At any rate, it might be made very much worse than it is if electric light were substituted for gas. I would not venture to bring this forward if it were merely a matter of one individual Member's eyes, and those of my own; but I have made inquiries, and I believe there are many Members of the same opinion and who quite dread a change. If I am in order, I should like to deprecate very strongly any such action being taken without the matter being brought before the House, and without an experiment being made under somewhat similar conditions as to the relative
  74
  effects of gas and the electric light upon the eyes of the average man. If the hon. Gentleman would kindly give some assurance that no such change will be made without the opinion of the House being taken I, and perhaps other Members also, shall be grateful to him.
  Sir W. BYLES: There is one improvement that would make for the convenience of Members of this House which I should very much like the Office of Works to take into their serious consideration. I have raised the question before by question in the House and also by private representations. I refer to the suggestion that there should be a lift provided in the well of the staircase which leads up from the bottom of the floor close to the large Smoke Room up to the Committee Room. The staircase is one which is in use all day long by the servants of the House, by Members of the House, and by the Press. There are certain Members who are getting well into years. I do not want to make any personal observations, but I know from my own experience that climbing that very long staircase is getting to be a laborious matter. It would be a benefit, I feel absolutely certain, to all of us, if such a suggestion as I put forward were carried out. It would be hailed with great satisfaction as soon as it was found to be in working order. I am very anxious that the Chief Commissioner should give his attention to this matter. I believe there are some slight engineering difficulties in the way. There is a small room that intervenes. But some arrangement might be made elsewhere for the accommodation that would be taken away, and I strongly urge upon the Office of Works that they should take this matter up.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: With regard to the question put as to the group of statuary by M. Rodin known as "The Burghers of Calais," my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire pointed out, quite rightly, that money has been taken for providing a base, and he asked whether the statuary was to be erected in the Victoria Tower Gardens. The facts are these: A copy of the original statue stands in a square in Calais itself, and a copy was very generously given to the First Commissioner by the National Art Collection Fund. It awaits some place on which to stand, and it is proposed to put it in some suitable place in the Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know that I can give any particular historical reason why it should be placed there, except that Queen Philippa has

  75
  some association with the Abbey of Westminster, where she was crowned and buried. But the matter cannot be completed for some time, and until the London County Council have carried out its projected improvements. I am afraid that it will be well into next year before any definite steps can be taken. My hon. Friend opposite on the Irish Benches raised the question of the Royal Gallery pictures by Maclise. I think it is true that some experiment was made in the way of pigments with these frescoes—although I defer to his opinion in this matter—but the Office of Works has the advantage constantly of the advice of Sir Arthur Church, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that such steps are taken as are necessary to safeguard and restore these works of art.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the result of such restoration? What was the effect of the work that has been done, and which I saw being done myself last year? I also want to know is it going to be continued, because unless something is done these pictures will be lost? They are fast fading from view; they are on the eve of extinction.
  Mr. W. BENN: The hon. Member, of course, understands that these are very difficult things to deal with. I think he will agree that the First Commissioner could do no better than take and follow the advice of such an acknowledged expert in these matters as Sir Arthur Church; and that is the course which he has pursued As to the removal of the grille in front of the Ladies' Gallery—a question raised once more—I do not think any person, with one or two exceptions, has ever expressed a view favourable to a removal of the grille. I cannot undertake to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member unless he can show me that there is a majority of opinion amongst hon. Members of this House in favour of the removal, and also a similar balance of opinion amongst the ladies who occupy the Ladies' Gallery. As to the question of a lift mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, no provision is made in this year's Estimates. But the First Commissioner has already promised to consider the matter, and, I believe, to bring it into the Estimates next year. The only other matter which it is necessary to refer to is the lighting of this Chamber, and if the House will
  76
  permit me I will refer to it at some length, because it is an important matter and one in which I take a good deal of interest. First of all, it is necessary that there should be a change of light. At present the House is lighted by groups of circular Argand burners—a very old-fashioned type. In order to maintain the proper amount of illumination on the floor of the House some alteration is necessary. Then the question arises what alterations should be made.
  I think I shall be able to show the House that the substitution of clusters of electric lamps will produce exactly the same effect as regards the strength and tone of the light as that produced by gas, with other advantages in the way of economy, and improvement of the ventilation. The illuminating power at present of the gas is such that we cannot maintain a proper light on the floor of the House. Hon. Members complain that they cannot read their notes or see the Papers that they desire to see in the course of debate. I must apologise for troubling the House with these details, but the chimneys of the present burners sometimes melt and the falling glass has more than once alarmed hon. Members and may even cause some accidents. Now as to the alterations. I estimate the cost of this light at about £250 or thereabouts yearly. By the instalment of the electric light we shall save half of the cost of maintenance. The saving will be £140 a year, which is exactly half the cost of the installation of these lamps. What other advantages shall we obtain? We shall be able to revolve the plant which ventilates this House at a greater speed, and consequently we shall be able to get a better flow of air through the Chamber than at the present time. If we attempt anything like this at present and turn the apparatus beyond a certain speed, there is always the danger that we may blow the light out. The rest of the House is lighted by electricity. This ceiling above us remains lighted with gas. One portion of the ceiling has been installed with the electric light, and if the House sits tonight till the light is necessary—which I hope will not be the case—hon. Members will have the opportunity of seeing for themselves whether or not the colour and tone of this light is more or less than that given by gas. I am confident that hon. Members will be perfectly satisfied that the change is an improvement. If they are, we shall then proceed to the other bays to effect the economy I spoke of, and

  77
  the improved ventilation. If on the other hand the House does not approve of the change, then we shall remove the electric light which has been installed in one bay. In this matter the First Commissioner is undoubtedly in the hands of the House of Commons. He is anxious, as he always has been to meet hon. Members' wishes in every possible respect. I therefore ask hon. Members to reserve their judgment until they have seen the experiment to which I refer, and if it meets with their approval, we shall proceed with the alterations which I have outlined.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am afraid the experiment of 25 per cent. of the lighting of this House in one of the four bays will be insufficient to convince hon. Members that the Government are justified in extending the light to the other three bays. In fact, if only one of them is lighted by electric light it will not give us a fair test. I frankly tell the House that I regret the proposal of the First Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman has really not explained to us why the alteration is necessary. He said that an alteration is necessary; that an alteration has got to be made; and that therefore it is going to be made; but I fail to follow him as to why the alteration is necessary. He said there were complaints of the lighting. I have been in this House for eighteen years. I have only heard one complaint of the lighting as far as my recollection goes. That was quite recently made by an hon. Member who sits upon the Nationalist Benches, and who complained that the lighting was inadequate. The complaint that the present system is dangerous seems to me to be one which is not likely to attract much attention, and the statement that £40 per year is going to be saved is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification for changing the whole system. I have been reading the report of the expert who has been called in to give instructions. I notice the expert visited the House on a Friday at the end of April. It is obvious, therefore, that he did not spend four or five hours in the House while the artificial light was illuminating the Chamber. It is not for me or anybody else to cast aspersions upon the technical expert. I have no doubt that he was the best expert that could be found, but I venture to say that the best test is the test of Members themselves, who sit here year in and year out for hours and hours under the present system of artificial light. I state confidently, so far as my Friends are concerned—and, indeed, I have had an
  78
  opportunity of hearing hon. Members opposite also on the subject—that the present system of lighting is less fatiguing to the eyes than anything so strong, and, above all, so uniform, as a system of electric lighting. I notice that the expert suggested not only that electricity should be substituted for gas lighting, but that the light should be stronger. Is that recommendation going to be followed out?
  Mr. W. BENN: I did not say so.
  Lord BALCARRES: If we are to have electric light, it is important it should not be stronger than the artificial gas system we have at present: the expert suggested an addition of 20 per cent. to the lighting capacity of the roof. One further small point—it is only a point of detail—it is suggested that the Gallery lights should come from behind Members. That is a very obvious suggestion from one who is not a Member of the House of Commons and who has not sat under the Galleries.
  Mr. W. BENN: That is not to be done.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am glad to hear that. It. is suggested that uniformity of illumination in electric light is an advantage, and that the flame of the gas vacillates, and that the light therefore is not as uniform and as regular as it should be. Here, again, I put the practical experience of the layman against the technical knowledge and experience of the expert. I believe that when you are here for six, eight, and ten hours at a sitting—and all-night sittings in winter months run for ten hours—the variation of the light, and the lack of uniformity, is a source of unconscious change and of relief to the eyes of hon. Members. I cannot for the life of me find out, after all my inquiries in the House of Commons, that gas has a fatiguing effect as an illuminant, or that there is a demand for this alteration. If one reads in the Library or the Lobbies with electric light, the experience of being under that electric light for half an hour involves an astonishing amount of fatigue to the eyesight, compared with the lack of pressure from the gas light at the height of forty or fifty feet from the floor of the House. If the change is to improve ventilation, that at least would be a point in its favour. I may be an optimist upon these matters, but I consider that the lighting and ventilation of this House are infinitely superior to anything that can be found in any other chamber or place of assembly,

  79
  be it church, theatre, school, or public meeting place, where any service or performance goes on uninterruptedly hour after hour. I ask any Member of this House if he has not proved by experience, whether in a theatre, church or public meeting, or indeed in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, which has been occupied by a meeting or filled with people for three or four hours, that you will not get a splitting headache in ten minutes after you have gone in there?
  You can come into this House, after it has been sitting eight or ten hours, and whatever objection may be made to the system of ventilation through the floor, at all events you find the place is conveniently fresh and well ventilated when compared with the defects you have to face under any other system. How can the ventilation of a theatre, with its temperature and atmosphere, and its smell and everything else, which are most intolerable, be compared with the system we have got here, which is the only system consistent with the long hours the House of Commons sits? I myself would run the risk of having one out of sixty-four of our lights occasionally blown out rather than put in electric light to prevent that small difficulty. When a light is blown out there is one blank space out of sixty-four. One light may blow out once in ten days, or in three or four weeks, but that is not very serious. The loss of a light is not incalculable or immeasurable, and within a very few minutes afterwards the officials of the House, when a light goes out, get it repaired again. I frankly tell the Government I regret this change. The hon. Gentleman opposite has not convinced me that there is any effective demand in any quarter of the House in its favour. So far as my personal experience is concerned, I believe the gas light, with all the disadvantages attached to it, is none the less one which hon. Members who have to be here for long hours during the evening and night, believe to be the best system, and by far the most suitable for our requirements.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I think the House will hear with pleasure my hon. Friend's statement that there is to be a speeding up of the rate at which varnish is to be taken off. It is well to consider that the general public frequent this House on Saturdays in very large numbers, and regard it as a museum of art to a very
  80
  remarkable degree. Hon. Members are no doubt too much engrossed with their arduous duties here to pay the attention they otherwise would to the artistic beauties of this building. The public recognise it is a palace of Gothic art of supreme importance, and visit it in immense numbers on Saturdays. It is really unworthy of the sense of proportion that so little should be spent upon removing what really spoils the distinctive characteristics of this House, the marvellous collection of old carvings; and it is really the varnish that makes all the difference in the world between extreme beauty and a certain degree of unsightliness. In time to come, when the rage for neo-classic building has had its day, there will be a reversion to Gothic, and this House will come to be regarded in a hundred years as far the greatest memorial of the Victorian age; and it is very unworthy that such a trivial sum required to make it as beautiful as it should be in regard to good carving should not be readily expended. I trust my hon. Friend will give this matter his most serious attention.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Benn) to give a pledge on behalf of the Government that they will not proceed with the substitution of electricity for gas without taking the opinion of the House upon the subject? I should be sorry to take any step now to force a Division or to delay the House, and I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will give me that pledge.
  Mr. KING: So far as I can judge, this question of the substitution of electricity for gas is an urgent necessity. I cannot understand the remarks of the Noble Lord opposite when he says he does not see the necessity for the change. If he knew anything about the recent course of gas lighting generally, and of electricity also, he would know that there is a very real reason why some change must be made. The manufacture of gas everywhere is proceeding on the lines of giving less and less illuminating capacity per thousand cubic feet: That is desirable, both in the interests of cheap gas and also the incandescent mantle, and other new forms in the use of gas as an illuminant, and it is absolutely absurd that we should go on here using the old arc burners. Anyone who has given any direct attention to gas as an illuminant must know that to continue using the old arc burner is more costly and inefficient, and for anyone to advocate that

  81
  we should continue keeping the old system shows he knows nothing about the present course of illumination.
  Lord BALCARRES: I hope I did not pretend to any technical knowledge of gas or electricity. I have neither. I said I have practical knowledge by being in this House for eighteen years, and that my experience shows that the present light is excellent.
  Mr. KING: I quite accept what the Noble Lord says; but he ought to be aware that every year the illuminating power of gas, as furnished by the gas companies, is going down, and, that being so, it is absolutely inevitable we must change the system which possibly was good enough twenty years ago; but which is an increasing infliction in these days. Every year electricity is becoming cheaper and cheaper as an illuminant, and more and more effective. Personally, having given some consideration to this question, I feel quite sure that the specialist advice is the right one, and that the change recommended will be a good one. If hon. Members will look up at the roof at the present moment they will see that one of the lights has gone out. That in itself proves that the lighting is ineffective. With regard to the question of increasing the illumination by 20 per cent. in this Chamber, I feel convinced that it is desirable. The increase of 20 per cent. in the illumination would not be dazzling to the eyes of hon. Members, especially if they would return to the good old practice of wearing their hats when sitting in this House. That would have a very good effect in screening the eyes from any glare from above; and it would be a real advantage for Members, as they would then be able to observe whether an hon. Member speaking was making any effect by his remarks upon the House. I hope the Government will remember that those who have some little claim to speak support them in the change which is about to be made.
  Before sitting down I would like to make one suggestion in reference to the money spent upon this House. I shall never be content or happy in this House until there is better accommodation than we have got at present for reading newspapers. Really, the Newspaper Room in this House is the most miserably inadequate room in the whole building. It was built and furnished, I suppose, with newspapers at a time before many of us
  82
  were born, when there were not half the number of newspapers there are now in the country, and when they cost from 3d. to 6d. each. We cannot really keep ourselves well posted up in what is going on unless we have much greater facilities for reading newspapers, and especially the provincial newspapers. There ought to be some provision made for providing the most important provincial newspapers, which ought to be kept in receptacles available for hon. Members referring to their own special part of the country in order that we may keep in touch with what is going on. I hope consideration will be given to the very inadequate Newspaper Room accommodation with the object of giving us more newspapers and greater comfort, and generally more facilities for keeping up to date with what is going on in the Press. I observe in all these Estimates and in connection with the special Vote we are now considering, there is a very large sum put down on each occasion for urgent and unforeseen works. In the case of this Estimate there is the sum of £900, and taking the whole of Class 1 the Office of Works has put down for buildings no less than £56,000 for unforeseen and urgent works. It seems to me that this is bad estimating, or at any rate shows a certain laxity when we are asked, in connection with the whole of these Votes, to vote at least £56,000, of which we get no details whatever. I hope this is a matter which will come before the Estimates Committee, and I trust that in future estimates we shall see a less sum devoted to urgent and unforeseen works.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to dissociate myself from the words spoken by my Noble Friend in reference to ventilation. Of course, the conditions which he enjoys on the Front Bench may be somewhat different from those which we suffer from on the back benches. It is no great pleasure during an Autumn Session—and I sat continually during the last Autumn Session—to find my body in a fairly hot climate and my legs suffering from the blast of an East wind. In this matter I will take the Committee into my confidence sufficiently to tell them that I have had to alter my mode of clothing in certain respects since I came into this House. I may also tell the Committee that before I came into this House I was almost wholly unacquainted with anything in the nature of colds, but during the last Autumn Session I found myself subject to chronic colds entirely owing to the fact that there is cold air

  83
  circulating along these benches when one is sitting, in other respects, in a hot atmosphere. Therefore I say that what has been said cannot be the last word in ventilation, and the existing arrangements might have a tendency to urge some of us to endeavour to aspire to the Front Bench when we might otherwise be quite content with our present humble lot. I should like the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley to try one of these back benches for himself. This inconvenience does not exist in places of worship because often there is a door at the end of the pew which prevents a draught. I hope some obstruction will be placed at the end of these benches to prevent the cold air circulating round our legs.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can see his way to improve the ventilation in the Ladies' Gallery. I think it is generally admitted that the ventilation there is exceedingly bad, and I have heard a great many complaints about it. Although some of us do not desire to see ladies occupying these benches, we do think that when they come to the Gallery of this House they should have a place to sit in which is better ventilated than the present Ladies' Gallery is.
  Mr. W. BENN: As far as the lighting is concerned, I think hon. Members will be well advised to see what they think of the alteration that has been temporarily and experimentally made before they come to any final opinion. I doubt whether many hon. Members are able to say which days the House was illuminated by electricity and which by gas. As to the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery, that is a matter which is at present occupying the attention of the First Commissioner. It is a very difficult question, but certainly experiments are being made which I hope will have the desired effect.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the draught of which I have complained?
  Mr. W. BENN: We have a very careful system of recording temperature in order to maintain an even temperature throughout the House. If the hon. Member will tell me of any variations which he finds unpleasant I will have an investigation made.
  Mr. WALTER REA: I hope when the First Commissioner is considering the
  84
  question of the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery he will also consider the ventilation of the Committee Rooms upstairs, where there is often a far greater crowd than assemble in this House, where the sittings are continuous, and where the atmosphere becomes almost intolerable for those who go in for only a few moments, and the conditions must be insufferable for those who have to attend Committees continuously.
  Mr. W. BENN: In so far as any improvements can be made without any additional service, I shall be glad to see what can be done to meet what has been complained of.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £44,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings." [Note.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]

  ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £64,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[Note.—£40,000 has been voted on. account.]
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This Vote contains a charge for the Bethnal Green Museum concerning which I desire to make a suggestion to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East. The Bethnal Green Museum is the only museum of its kind in the East End of London, and therefore supplies, or attempts to supply, the needs of something like 1,000,000 persons. If my hon. Friend were to visit the Bethnal Green Museum I think he would find there serious reason to be dissatisfied with the present arrangements of the contents, and with the contents themselves. I was often struck myself with this, and with the fact that most of the curiously assorted and very ill-arranged contents of the museum bore a label, "Lent by the South Kensington

  85
  Museum." The Bethnal Green Museum in the past appears to have been regarded as a sort of dumping ground for articles that could not be properly used at South Kensington and other great museums, and are at present arranged without any regard to the special needs of the district itself. It is a most curious jumble, and there is no attempt made to present the contents of the museum, or very little attempt—
  Mr. W. BENN: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension, because the Office of Works has no control over the exhibits at Bethnal Green Museum.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Before this charge is continued I should be glad if some inquiry can be made into the manner in which this museum is administered.
  Captain MURRAY: I wish to enter a protest against the site which has been chosen in the Cromwell Road for the erection of a new Spirit Museum in South Kensington. There is a very strong opinion that the new Spirit Museum should be close to the original site, and not placed near the Cromwell Road, where, I submit, it must be a source of danger to the public, considering the inflammable nature of its contents. I do not know whether it is possible now to make any change in regard to the site, but I enter a very vehement protest against the site which has been selected, which must be a source of public danger.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I am a strong believer myself, so far as national collections are concerned, in two principles. In the first place, I believe in the concentration of a collection according to their character. We are in this curious position at present in regard to the relation between the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum. Owing to the want of sufficient accommodation there are a great many exhibits in the British Museum which ought properly to be in the South Kensington section, and I should like some assurance that during the ensuing year the Office of Works will consider what further accommodation will be necessary at South Kensington in order to get our great national collections sorted on a more scientific basis according to their character. I do not wish to particularise, because I should need a great deal of time to do so adequately. There is, however, another great principle involved, and that is when you have concentrated and sorted your national collections, you should lend
  86
  sections out on loan to different parts of the country. I submit that that is a question which comes within this particular Vote. In this Vote you are spending all the money at your disposal on certain main buildings. I think the Office of Works, ought to spend a portion of the money at. their disposal in erecting small galleries in different parts of London and in some of the less fortunate manufacturing districts, to which large sections of the great national collections could be sent on loan, very much on the principle which prevails with regard to the Bethnal Green collection. I think if the First Commissioner-would consider that he would be conferring a great boon upon some of the industrial districts in the provinces as well as upon some of the other Metropolitan boroughs, and he would be also extending the sphere of usefulness of these great national collections. After all, they receive very large subsidies out of the taxpayers' pocket, and their enjoyment ought not to be confined to the citizens of London. I hope the hon. Member will give his attention to these two questions, which are of the very first importance, and that at the same time he will take into consideration the question whether the precautions against fire, both in the Wallace Collection at Hertford House and in the National Gallery, are really adequate and up to date. During the past four or five years enormous strides have taken place, not merely in the appliances for extinguishing fires, but also in the science of the prevention of fires. I do not feel confident that the Office of Works has taken the fullest possible advantage of the progress that science and invention have made during recent times in these two departments so far as our priceless national collections are concerned.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Office of Works whether he could make any statement as to what prospect there is of extending the museum in Edinburgh. I have raised this question several times before. I have often been to the museum, and the exhibits there are very congested. Much of the stuff which is sent is buried in? cellars, and they are quite unable to exhibit it in a worthy manner. The people of Edinburgh who have visited the museums and seen its condition have pressed this matter upon my notice, and I should be very glad indeed if we could have some assurance that the museum will be extended without undue delay.
  Mr. W. BENN: I think the Noble Lord is under some misapprehension about the arrangements of the collections. We only build upon request, and therefore, if the collection requires rehousing, the request must be put forward first of all by the President of the Board of Education. With regard to fires, alterations have been made at the National Gallery, and also at Hertford House, with a view to making them more fireproof. We are doing two things at Edinburgh. First, we are taking money for acquiring property at the back of the museum to extend it; and, secondly, we are taking money to extend the museum on the site already acquired, and both these matters will be proceeded with.
  Question pat, and agreed to.

  REVENUE BUILDINGS.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £515,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad." [Note.—£210,000 has been voted on account.]
  LABOUR EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £115,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, in respect of Labour Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain." [Note.—£100,000 has been voted on account.]

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £405,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes." [Note.—£320,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to raise certain questions with regard to the enormous amount of about £200,000 which occurs in this Vote for new buildings and alterations to buildings. I desire to raise the question of the method of providing
  88
  architects for the public buildings of this country, and to ask whether the Government is going to continue the present practice of allowing the designs for these great Departments of the State to be settled within the Office of Works, which prevents the architects of the country generally from entering a competition for the designing of buildings. The designs for our public buildings should be open to national, and, if you will, to international competition. I would point out that I am only asking the Office of Works to revert to what was once the custom with regard to our public buildings. In the past, open competitions, not only national but international in character, have been carried out. For instance, before the India Office was built in 1856 the Government of the day, announcing their need of further public buildings, invited both English and foreign architects to enter into a competition for the design of the buildings required. Two hundred designs were sent in, and were exhibited in Westminster Hall, and as a result of that open competition a very beautiful Gothic design, in keeping with the architecture of the Houses of Parliament, by Gilbert Scott, was selected by Lord Derby's Government. Unfortunately that beautiful Gothic design was never carried out, and the India Office was erected in the Whitehall style. But that was not because the open competition had failed; it was simply due to the fact that before the Commission could carry it out Lord Derby's Government had been replaced by Lord Palmerston's Government, and Lord Palmerston had a rooted horror of Gothic designs, and insisted, contrary to the feeling of this House and of the nation, on a classic design being substituted. I now plead that the traditional method should be reverted to, and that in connection with the building of any public offices in the future there should be an open competition among the architects of the nation. I shall be very glad to have a reply from the hon. Member as to whether this proposal will be considered and carried out in connection with the new buildings which are in contemplation, and which were the subject of discussion recently in this House, to provide the additional accommodation necessary for the Board of Trade.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I am very sorry I have only just discovered that the hon. Member should raise this point on the next Vote. We had therefore better dispose of this Vote first.
  Captain MURRAY: It is said to be the intention of the Office of Works to place a group of statuary in the new Admiralty Gardens. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will kindly inform me whether that is so, what group of statuary it is proposed to place there, and whether a plan or a picture or something of that description of the statuary will be exhibited in the House and receive the approval of the House before the matter is proceeded with any further?
  8.0 P.M.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I desire to raise one question with regard to the policy of the Office of Works in concentrating the public offices in Whitehall. I feel that a great part of this enormous expenditure would not now be necessary if the Office of Works would adopt the policy of taking rather a wider range in which to build the public offices, instead of concentrating them on what is undoubtedly one of the most expensive sites in London. The site which the Office of Works proposes to clear for the purposes of the new Board of Trade Offices, to an area of about two acres, is valued at certainly not less than £650,000, and I think I may argue that the other sites referred to in this Vote, which are contiguous to this particular site, are certainly not worth less. It would be quite possible for the Office of Works, without going very far from these houses, to move across to the south side of the River Thames and to find sites equally suitable for their purpose at a far lower charge to the taxpayer. There is a site available now on the south side of the river of about five acres which could be had for less than half a million. The policy adopted under this Vote therefore entails an expenditure of over £325,000 per acre when it would be possible, by going a short distance out of this sacrosanct area, to get a site at comething less than £100,000 per acre. I do not want to take this as an example of the extravagance of the administration of the Office of Works, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that these figures alone show there is a very good case for the careful consideration of the First Commissioner of Works before he proceeds any further in his present policy of concentrating all our public offices upon one particular site, and that the most expensive site. I need not point out the enormous advantage it would be to these Metropolitan borough councils on the south bank of the river if the Department would
  90
  reconsider its decision and put some of these fine public buildings on that side of the Thames instead of concentrating them, in this more favoured portion of London.
  Mr. W. BENN: I believe it would not be in order to refer to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse); but with regard to the question of the Memorial scheme, I may say that a model showing the general effects of the two groups of statuary has been prepared and will shortly be placed in the Tea Room. In answer to the Noble Lord, I may point out that, where it is possible, buildings have been erected on cheaper sites. For instance, the Stationery Office is being put up on the south side of the river, but in regard to other buildings we should be defeating the object we had in view to concentrate our public services if we dispersed the buildings in the manner suggested. But this is a question which can be raised on the Board of Trade Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
  Lord A. THYNNE: Can I on this; Motion discuss the general policy of the Office of Works?
  The CHAIRMAN: No.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I submit it is a matter of very great inconvenience to hon. Members to have Progress reported at this stage. I would call attention to the fact that it will prevent a discussion on one Vote which we have been remaining hereto Debate for some hours, and that is the Vote for the salary of the First Commissioner, on which it is possible to raise questions of policy involving points of profound disagreement. It may be said that by reporting Progress now we merely leave the discussion over until another day. But I would suggest that there is ample time for debating the matter this evening. No doubt there is a private Bill down for discussion, but that would probably only take an hour or an hour and a half, and then there would be opportunity until eleven o'clock to deal with the point which it is desired to raise. Surely it would be better to do that now than to put the Vote

  91
  off until a later period of the Session when business is much more congested, and when we shall be attending to matters of a much more controversial character. Although it may be for the convenience of individual Members to get home to an early dinner, I submit it is not to the general convenience to prevent this discussion to-night, and it would be equally inconvenient to those who have been summoned here to Debate a private Bill if, by a margin of five minutes only, they were deprived of the opportunity of that discussion.
  Mr. W. BENN: I imagined I was consulting the convenience of the House by moving to report Progress. I am quite willing to withdraw the Motion, and I beg to ask leave to do so.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £86,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings." [Note.—£50,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I, on this Vote, ask for an answer to the remarks which I made a short time ago, and which I believe are more appropriate to this Vote.
  Mr. FELL: There are other questions which can be raised on this Vote, and one is with regard to the proposed reconstruction of the quadrant end of Regent Street. This is a subject of immense importance to the future of London. People come here from our Colonies and from other parts of the world in spring and summer for the purpose of doing their shopping, and a great deal must depend on how the Com-missioner of Works treats this subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this point would come under the Vote for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
  Mr. W. BENN: Yes; I am under the impression that this matter is under the control of the Commissioners of Woods
  92
  and Forests and not of the Office of Works, and it is not therefore in order.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that the architect of the Office of Works is dealing with this question?
  Mr. W. BENN: No, he is not engaged on these buildings. It is not a matter connected with the Office of Works.
  Captain JESSEL: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is present, because I wish to put a question which came under his notice when he was First Commissioner of Works, and I wish to ask why a pledge given in this House two years ago has been dropped and nothing has since been heard of it. I wish also to review the policy of the Office of Works in regard to the treatment of public buildings in London. There has been a good deal of complaint about the divergent replies which have been given to questions regarding the way in which public buildings are being put up. I need hardly refer to the objections made with regard to the Admiralty buildings. It seems to me it would have been much better if they had been carried out completely in stone like the Foreign Office. Then I am inclined to agree with my Noble Friend who criticised the policy of placing these great central buildings in Whitehall, and who pointed out that much cheaper sites could be secured in other parts of London. I do hope when this question is more fully considered these new buildings in Whitehall will not have the effect of depriving London of open spaces.

  CLASS II.—His MAJESTY'S OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £86,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL [Lords]—(By Order).
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to move, as An Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I move this Amendment because I believe that the passage of the Bill would neither conduct to the interests of the mentally afflicted or promote the interests of efficiency or economy. At present the lunatics in the West Hiding of Yorkshire are in the charge of two institutions, that of the county council and that of the Poor Law guardians. The proposal in this Bill is to set up a third governing body, a body which, I submit, would have the power of spending large sums of money, but would not be in any sense responsible to the parties who have to raise the money. That is a principle which is not likely to conduce to either economy or efficiency. I may say, as president of the Poor Law Association of England and Wales, that the guardians are extremely strong in their opposition to this Bill. Of thirty-eight boards of guardians in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, thirty-one have petitioned against the Bill. These boards of guardians represent in population 2,983,228 out of 3,045,749, and the rateable value represented by these boards is £15,074,076, out of a total rateable value of £15,435,344. I think it may be said that the men who are practically responsible for raising funds to carry on local government in the West Riding of Yorkshire are opposed to the Bill under consideration. I would like, further, to put before the House the fact that the proportion of money raised by the county council and the county boroughs, who are moving in this matter, towards the cost of the maintenance of lunatics in this West Riding Division is £74,534, whereas the amount raised by the boards of guardians for the same purpose reaches £150,000, yet the guardians, under this scheme, have no voice in the administration, and this Bill makes no proposal to rectify this manifest injustice. We have, on the one hand, boards of guardians responsible for the lunatics in their
  94
  care, who contribute £150,000 per annum to their maintenance, yet under this Bill they will not have a particle of power in guiding the administration of the asylum or in the spending of the money which they contribute.
  At present there is a working arrangement between the county councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county boroughs for dealing with the asylums. The proposal is to delegate to a statutory board the powers now carried out efficiently, I think, by the two bodies I have mentioned. Our strong objection is that this board will have the power of spending money without any responsibility to the ratepayers, and that in other directions it will be a system which cannot work as efficiently as that now carried on. I know it is pleaded by the promoters of this Bill that we have in Lancashire an Asylums Board which works with a certain amount of efficiency. I venture to submit that the operations of the Asylums Board in Lancashire have been a failure, inasmuch as it has not provided sufficient shelter for those mentally afflicted. In proof of that, I would quote the fact that the asylums in the West Riding of Yorkshire to-day have received from 300 to 400 patients from Lancashire. By this Bill we are asked to do away with a system in the West Riding of Yorkshire which has been so efficient that it has afforded shelter, in addition to the mentally afflicted under their care, to some three or four hundred of the mentally afflicted in Lancashire. The House should hesitate before it does away with a system which is working with practical, efficiency in favour of an experiment which, so far as Lancashire goes, cannot be pointed to as a success. On broader lines I venture to ask the House to hesitate before it gives this Bill a Second Reading. The Government have recognised the importance and necessity of dealing with the case of the feeble-minded and the lunatic. We have a Bill before the House which shows, I believe, that the country is with them in feeling that the care of the feeble-minded and the lunatic is not at present in a satisfactory state, and that some steps must be taken to deal more efficiently with the misfortunes of this class of people, both in punitive and other directions. That being so, I appeal to the House to avoid dealing with just one corner of the country, as is proposed in this Bill. If it is desirable to take a step similar to that proposed by the Bill, surely it should be taken by the Government, and should be made applicable to all parts of the

  95
  country. With the fact before us that there is considerable anxiety as to the best method of dealing with the feeble-minded and the lunatic, and that we hope that some national scheme will be devised that will relieve these distressed ones, I do say it would be unwise to set up this Asylums Board in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, which would be a hindrance to any national scheme which might be, and, I hope, will be, formulated to deal with this distressing affliction.
  Returning, for a moment, to the question of the position of the guardians, I say it will be a most anomalous one if this Bill is passed. The responsibility for the feebleminded and lunatic pauper rests with the guardians, yet, if this Bill is passed, the board of guardians would not have any power to compel the Asylums Board to make provision for the imbeciles and lunatics of whom they have care. That seems to me most unreasonable. The guardians contribute £150,000 per annum to the cost of lunatics in the West Riding of Yorkshire, yet if this Bill is passed, while the law of the land places upon boards of guardians the responsibility for the care of pauper lunatics, boards of guardians would have no power whatever to insist that this Asylums Board should offer opportunities to the guardians to place the lunatics under their care. Under these circumstances I feel that to give this Bill a Second Reading would be injurious to the interests of the afflicted themselves, and would be a stumbling block in the way of that national scheme which we hope to see devised to deal wisely and on curative principles, as far as possible, with the feeble-minded and the lunatic. It is most unjust to boards of guardians, for the law places upon us the responsibility of the care of the lunatic, to set up an Asylums Board over which boards of guardians would have no power to insist that they should make provision for the suitable care and protection of those whom the guardians could not care for in the workhouse. I hope the House will refuse the Second Reading, feeling that to deal with just one small area in the Kingdom, when we all know that this great question must be dealt with on a broader and more national basis, would be to set up a difficulty in the way of the great scheme which we hope to see established before very long.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment. It is inconvenient that a private Bill of this important character
  96
  should be placed before the House without any explanatory speech. That may be the usual custom, but I have not very much respect for a thing merely because it is old, and I should have thought this is a case, seeing that it is an attempt at general legislation under a particular form, which would have merited some explanatory speech from some Member in charge of it. I want to urge one or two considerations upon the House which may be, in a degree, different from those which have fallen from the Mover of the Amendment. The House recognises the dignified and responsible position which the hon. Member holds in the country and the general esteem in which he is held by those connected with local government, and it was natural that he should have put forward the view of the Poor Law guardians of this country. It is a view which has not always received justice. It is almost fashionable now-a-days for politicians to commence their public campaigning with the general phrase that they are in favour of a great reform in the Poor Law, but there is not one in a hundred who uses that phrase who knows what he means by it. I look forward to some general reform upon this question, and one of my main objections to this Bill is that it will be a stumbling block if it is put upon the Statute Book to the general reform we all hope to see. The work of the guardians is laborious, and they give a great many hours of really faithful service to the community which is not always recognised. Why should we be asked to legislate in this piecemeal way? There is nothing that this Bill deals with that is peculiar to the West-Riding. There is no more rhyme or reason in passing this for the West Riding than for the black country or for the county of Durham. Hon. Members may think it should be extended throughout the whole country. If so, do they expect each county or group of counties to come with private Bills of this description, interfering with the proper progress of criticism of Government Departments on the allotted days? Surely the commonsense way, if it is right to deal with the question on these lines, is to give one evening for the whole subject, and give a Second Reading to a Bill which will apply to the whole country. There will be a fight on every one of these Bills, and an evening at least would have to be given to each, and we should have a prospect of twenty, thirty, or perhaps forty of these Bills coming forward in this way before we

  97
  get round the country. Piecemeal legislation of that kind cannot commend itself to this House. It is a point that is shirked, and it will be shirked I am too much afraid in this Debate. Members will concentrate themselves on something they want to do in the West Riding, and I do not think it is fair to ask the House to consider it in this fashion; therefore without saying whether I am for or against the details of the Bill I ask, in the interests of business, that we should not encourage parts of the country to come forward and ask for legislation which, if it can be justified, is the lawful possession of every other part.
  The question of pauper lunatics touches another sphere of legislation. We have already given a Second Reading to one Bill dealing with the feeble-minded, and we have had introduced by the Government another Bill dealing with the same problem, and the House generally would expect these two Bills to be considered in Grand Committee together. We hope they will result in a general measure acceptable to all parts of the House, not conceived in any party spirit or passed by any party vote, but something which shall advance the popular administration of the lot of the feeble-minded in the United Kingdom. You cannot possibly, here on the floor of the House, see clearly the line of demarcation between the feeble-minded, the mentally deficient, and the insane or the idiot. No doctor can do it, much less amateur legislative meddlers like we are. We are not putting ourselves in the best light before the country in passing legislation of this kind for the whole of Great Britain, and then coming back on to a measure of this kind simply to deal with the West Riding. The question of the treatment of the pauper lunatic and of the feeble-minded generally baffles a great many investigators. I would not willingly criticise any effort which was made in a right spirit from any quarter of the House to try and meet the situation. Those who give time and thought to framing a Bill or to setting up machinery to lighten the lot of these unfortunate people and to protect the general community from the increase of their numbers, because they are unfortunately fertile, would be treated in a sympathetic spirit; but this is not legislation of this kind at all. This is being brought forward by interested parties. It is being largely thrust upon the House by an agitation of the paid servants of the municipalities. It is a sort of compact between
  98
  the county council and town clerks, on the one hand, and the clerks and officials of Poor Law guardians, on the other. Members of the House cannot deny that they receive their communications from these town and county council clerks, wire-pulling them to support this method. When you get many authorities the tendency is for an authority to champion its own particular sphere. I do not blame them. My sympathies lie largely with the guardians, because I am a guardian. My sympathy is with my own class, who are giving time and ungrudging service to the community. The fact that this Bill incidentally seems to put a stigma upon the guardians—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] It seems to me that the effect of it is incidentally, though not intentionally, to do so, and naturally that does not make the Bill one which I would like to look upon with any great favour. The guardians are to be good enough to find the money, and to take care of the pauper lunatics, but the idea seems to be that while they have to stand the racket with the ratepayers, some other authority will spend the money. You are proposing to set up a statutory body which will spend the ratepayers' money, and the guardians, who will have to go back to the ratepayers and defend the rate, will get blamed for levying a rate which they have very little share in spending. I do not go against the Bill because I am a guardian. That would be a very poor way for any Member of Parliament to determine what action he should take.
  I was privileged to give evidence on this Bill in another place, and the line I took was very simple. I consider that this is an attempt by certain public men and public officials in the West Riding to forestall general legislation. I think it will make it more difficult for that legislation to come. It will be said that there has been this special legislation already in regard to Lancashire. I think some hon. Members who know very little about Lancashire will get up and talk of the great success of the system. I have been a Lancashire public servant for a good many years, and I have not the slightest confidence in that system. It is largely because I think it does not meet the case and that it is a failure I took sufficient interest in this question to go and give evidence. I have never thought that the position in Lancashire justified any other place in exactly following the precedent there. I do not see any good in going to Lancashire for a scheme which is not entirely successful in order merely to apply it to the West Riding.

  99
  The West Hiding is composed of county boroughs, non-county boroughs, and urban and rural districts. I cannot see how you can justify this legislation for the West Riding without similar legislation for the East and the North Ridings. If you were to bring forward a Bill to deal with the whole country my attitude would be very much altered. But I would warn social reformers in this House, and especially Poor Law reformers, that by supporting this Bill they will be setting up an authority which would form another vested interest in their way. I do not go so far as Mr. Sydney Webb in support of the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. There is some good in the Minority Report, but I think there is more good in the Majority Report. None of us would take up the position that we do not want legislation. I am looking forward to the time when a large step in advance will be made, and I look upon this Bill as another obstacle in the way. There is no pressing and immediate difficulty to justify this measure. In fact, before the thing could be thoroughly under weigh we expect a general Bill to be brought before the House. I do not oppose the Bill on the ground stated by the Mover of the Amendment, but from a different standpoint and on the general grounds which I have stated. I consider that in view of future legislation I should not make the mistake of supporting a measure which would add another difficulty to the passing of general legislation, and applying to a particular area legislation which should be applied to the whole country.
  Mr. MIDDLEBROOK: I rise to support the Bill now before the House. I think it is well that we should understand the circumstances under which the Bill has been brought forward. The charge of lunatics throughout the country has been committed by Parliament for many years past to the county authorities. Originally Quarter Sessions had to discharge the duty. The duty passed from Quarter Sessions to county councils upon their constitution, and it is now their duty, and not that of the guardians, to provide and manage asylums. This Bill does not contain the slightest suggestion to in any way alter the duties, powers, and responsibilities of any existing authority. Its proposals might be summed up almost in one sentence. At present in the West Riding there is a voluntary arrangement between the county councils
  100
  and the seven county boroughs existing within the area of the county councils [An HON. MEMBER: "Six county boroughs."] I think there are seven, but let us say six county boroughs. Under that voluntary arrangement they agree to unite in managing the asylums existing. These asylums were provided by the West Riding County Council, and there is no authority and no power to make provision for any additional asylum not existing, under the voluntary arrangement. There are other difficulties. The growth of the population of the West Riding is such that new county boroughs are constantly being created. Since the origin of this, arrangement two have come into existence—Rotherham and Barnsley. A third one will probably be created before long, and the only method by which these new county boroughs can come into this arrangement is by voluntary agreement between them all. It is found in practice that the discharge of their duties under the voluntary arrangement is extremely difficult. The estimates for new building proposals for any new asylums must be sent to every one of these separate authorities, must be discussed by everyone separately, and must be accepted by the whole of them in a concrete form before they can be carried into practice.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract stated that this matter had its inception in some rivalry between the paid officials of the County life and those of the Poor Law life. That I deny unhesitatingly. The proposal originated solely in the difficulties that were found to exist in the practical management by the authorities themselves, and not by one single authority, but by the whole of them in the West Riding, the county council representing the whole of that great area and the six county boroughs now existing, including Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, and Huddersfield. They have promoted this Bill and have asked this House to pass it. In substance the only proposal is to make what at present is a voluntary arrangement a statutory one. The objection is that the Poor Law guardians should have a voice in the management of asylums when they pay contributions for the maintenance of patients. That is a question upon which I have no opinion to express. I know a great deal of the valuable service rendered by boards of guardians, and I attach very great importance to this service, but that question is a national question, and is that to block a local question, which is purely a domestic one, and which does

  101
  not in any way interfere with the national question? Parliament has seen fit, whenever this question has come up, to put upon the county authorities the responsibility of the management of the pauper lunatics, and it is with Parliament only to alter it. The second objection to this proposal is that it deals with one corner of the county only. I feel sure that the Mover and Seconder who urged that point cannot have grasped the facts as they exist. They say that a proposal of this sort for the West Riding should apply equally to the North and East Sidings. I believe that I am absolutely correct in saying in the North Riding there is not a single county borough, and therefore that proposal would not apply. In the East Riding I believe there is only one county borough—Hull—and therefore it scarcely applies there either.
  Mr. BOOTH: Where is York?
  Mr. MIDDLEBROOK: It is on the borderland of both. I will accept that if you wish. It is only in the case where there exists a county area and within its boundaries a number, and a not inconsiderable number, of county boroughs, that this question becomes a practical one. Already Parliament has sanctioned an identical scheme for Lancashire, and, although in the Committee before the other House charges were first formulated by opponents of this Bill against the administration in Lancashire, those charges were absolutely withdrawn, and it was accepted that the administration in Lancashire under the scheme identical with this had worked most satisfactorily and most beneficially. I believe, though I speak without certainty, that Dublin has a similar scheme under identical conditions. I am conversant with the administration of the Public Health Act in regard to provisions for infectious diseases and for small-pox, and they are somewhat analagous. Although one is bodily and the other is mental, there is identical provision for the creation of, and there is created, a considerable number of statutory powers similar in effect to what is now proposed. Therefore, on the ground that this does not in any way trench upon the duties or responsibilities of the Poor Law guardians, and that it is urgently needed for administration in the West Riding, and that the whole of the responsible authorities there are united in supporting this Bill, I urge the House to accept it.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I think it a high testimony to the value of this Bill that the
  102
  opposition should not have been able to secure the support of the vast majority of those who represent the West Riding of Yorkshire. I think that if anybody who talks about the opposition of the guardians at the same time had taken the trouble to inquire from individual guardians what their views on this subject are, must have realised that a great many guardians have been influenced by an organisation brought against this Bill, but have not themselves any very personal or intimate knowledge of the facts with which it deals. The hon. Member for Pontefract has said that this Bill casts a stigma upon guardians. I am anxious to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Middlebrook) that no stigma was ever intended to be cast upon them, that this Bill does not interfere with the functions of the guardians, and that, not only was no stigma intended, but that no effect of the kind is produced. I speak as the only Member of this House who is also a member of the West Riding County Council. I would like the hon. Member for Pontefract and others who are opposing this Bill on behalf of the guardians to realise that the ratepayers of the county in the West Riding are going to benefit considerably by this Bill, and that the whole Bill is in the nature of a deal between the county council and the county boroughs, which will certainly not be disadvantageous in any way to the ratepayers in the county, but will set the matter on a very much fairer basis than it has hitherto been. Another statement has been that this was due to the agitation of county officials. I can only say, in view of the fact that it has been the result of a deal between these parties, and that the result will be a considerable advantage to the ratepayers of the county, that that statement should not have been made. I am sure it was not made with the intention of inflicting any stigma upon these officials, but the hon. Member ought to see that this is purely a business transaction, to which all the parties in the West Riding have agreed, and therefore it should not be treated merely as a matter of organisation of officials.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not gather what statement the hon. Member attributes to me. I never suggested that this Bill was due solely to the agitation of paid officials. What I said was that the controversy was largely between the paid officials of the guardians and the paid officials of the county.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I am glad to hear that explanation, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House in pursuing the matter. It has been said that a private Bill is not suitable for creating a board of this kind. If it is not suitable to make the comparatively small alterations secured by this Bill, it is far more difficult to secure by private Bill that the guardians henceforth should be the authority to administer lunacy. That would be a far greater breach of existing conditions than anything contemplated under this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill complained that guardians under it cannot secure provision for imbeciles, but no different system at present exists. That observation also affords a reply to the point of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), that the guardians raise the money and that other bodies spend it. In those matters the Bill makes no difference whatever in the system existing at the present time. The Bill has simply the effect that it alters the constitution of the body that is to administer the lunacy provisions in the West Riding in future. Under the system which prevails, some county boroughs pay on the rateable value, some on population, but none on the accommodation which they require in the asylums, and the county ratepayers are getting very much the worst of the bargain. In 1908, the county only required 44 per cent. of the accommodation in those asylums, and the remaining 56 per cent. was occupied by patients from the boroughs. The county was paying 54 per cent. of the expenditure, and the result of that was a deal between the two parties and the Bill which is now before the House. There was a unanimous agreement between the county council and the county boroughs, and this proposal was the result.
  9.0 P. M.
  In the West Biding, I am sorry to say, there is such a rapid increase in lunacy that, roughly speaking, a new asylum is required every fourteen years to hold some 2,000 patients, and costing something like half a million of money. In the comparatively near future we shall have to face a very large capital expenditure in the West Riding. What happens under the present system? The county council have entire control of the capital expenditure, and contributions are given voluntarily by the various county boroughs, but if there were disagreements between the various authorities, a great deal of very serious delay might occur, with consequent injury to the service of the public. The advantage of
  104
  having a statutory body as proposed by the Bill will be that such a body will have power to act of itself. Anybody who has taken the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee in another place on this matter will realise that the opposition has not been very strong or effective. It has been suggested that the Bill ought not to pass without some Clause making it optional for any county borough to come into the scheme. I am authorised to say on behalf of the county council that such a proposal could not possibly be entertained, and it is one which is not desired by the county boroughs, which are unanimously in favour of the Bill being passed in its present form. I am perfectly sure that the opposition of the guardians is perfectly honest. It is, I believe, based largely upon their dread of the extravagance they think likely to occur with the county council and the county borough, which are richer bodies than many of the rural boards of guardians from whom the opposition comes. I am very loth to oppose anything which the guardians wish, but I am perfectly certain their opposition is largely based on insufficient knowledge and information of this subject, and I do not think that we ought to give it the full weight which is claimed. I am perfectly certain that this Bill embodies the best deal and the best arrangement we can make, and that the ratepayers are going to benefit from it. I do not think it is an ideal arrangement to have a body which is not directly representative of the ratepayers, but I would point out that the authority proposed by the Bill will be appointed by councils who are themselves directly elected. It seems to me to be the only possible way to obtain a body which will represent all these various authorities, and I do not see how you could possibly include among those representative authorities smaller bodies like the guardians. The first opposition which the guardians made to this proposal was directed to obtaining joint representation of themselves on the board, but that proved to be perfectly unworkable, and the opposition was then changed into one for obtaining complete control by the guardians. As I have already pointed out, that suggestion involved an absolute departure from the existing practice, and it was impossible to arrange anything of that kind. Boards of guardians are small bodies with already a great deal of important work of their own to do, and I do

  105
  not believe they are the bodies which should control an enormous machinery of this kind. When you add to that the fact that the ratepayers of the county are going to be benefited, and that it is a matter of general agreement between all parties concerned, I think there ought to be no difficulty whatever in the House passing the Second Reading, and allowing the Bill to go before the Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS DUNCAN: I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It has been brought forward by the county boroughs and the County Council of the West Riding in the hope that it would be passed. The objections to it are divided into two distinct kinds. The first is that it is a partial Bill, and the second is as to the representation of the guardians. In regard to its being a partial Bill, we in the West Riding have had experience of a partial measure in regard to river pollution which has done excellent work. During all the years in which it has been at work there has been a desire throughout the country to have a universal Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill, yet the exigencies of public time and one thing and another have prevented such a Bill being brought forward. During all this time the work has been going on beneficially in the West Riding, and I am quite sure that it has set a good example to the rest of the country, and has given experience which will be valuable for larger legislation that may be required. That the Bill is a partial one is really no argument against it. What has to be considered is whether it is a valuable Bill in the provision it makes for the mentally defective. The Government have provided a Bill, and a Bill was brought in by a private Member about a fortnight ago, and given a Second Reading, while a very large and comprehensive Bill dealing with the same question was brought in by the hon. Member for Durham. But in not one of those Bills is any provision made for any class of mentally defective people being handed over to the control of the guardians. The guardians have been excluded from all those larger measures.
  Sir J. SPEAR: The guardians have never asked for complete control being handed over to them. What the guardians object to is that an outside body should be created which is not responsible to the ratepayers.
  Mr. H. DUNCAN: I think the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that the guar-
  106
  dians do not ask complete control. So far as the guardians are concerned, their position is not in any way affected by this Bill, and their relations with the asylums will proceed exactly in the same way as at present. What they have done in the past and made statutory provision for will still be in their hands. The four asylums which this Bill affects in the West Riding are all county asylums. That is, they are all, so far as their capital provision is concerned, under the entire control of the West Riding County Council. It is desirable, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that a rearrangement of the contributions, and of the representation on the committee should be made. It will be, I am quite sure, a considerable gain to the West Riding County Council area that this proper readjustment should be made. It is absolutely necessary that we should have this Bill passed at once, because we are already on the way to require a further provision for lunatics in the West Riding. I have been for many years a guardian, and for many years also a member of the West Riding Council. I quite sympathise with what the guardians say in regard to their fear of the extravagance of a large body such as this in the provisions of asylums; but having had something to do with one of the largest of the West Riding Asylums, I know that the extravagance is not in the county council itself, but that it is the demands which are made by the Lunacy Commissioners that are the cause of the expense of the asylums.
  Something has been said about the body remaining as it is at present, a voluntary association. One of the great features of all county councils, and particularly of the County Council of the West Riding, where towns are growing up very quickly, is that there is a continual demand, not only for the creation of new county boroughs, but also for the enlargement of existing borough areas. There are areas which have been rapidly increasing in population and in value, and which are being abstracted from the county council area. That is one of the continual difficulties of readjustments of taxation and of many matters of local administration. I think that the statutory establishment of an authority of this kind, which would hold the balance, both of expenditure and of representation, to adjust as population increased in the different areas, is one which should be of very great value. If the House passes this Bill, as I hope it will,

  107
  and should it prove, as I venture to hope it will, an effective instrument, not only for dealing with the present provision for lunatics, but also for dealing with all those new departures for treating the mentally afflicted which are in process of being passed, then I am sure this new body would be an example which may well be applied to other parts of the country.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I quite agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) with regard to the position of the guardians. This Bill is one which is an absolute necessity for the administration of the asylums in the West Riding. I have had the honour of being a, guardian myself, and I wish to associate myself entirely with what has been said with regard to the eminent services rendered to the country by boards of guardians. I know that in some quarters their work has not been appreciated, but it deserves to be commended. This Bill does not alter their position in any way whatever. It simply does this: it reconstitutes an unworkable authority. It has been found in the West Riding by the County Council and the six county boroughs under the Lunacy Act of 1890, that it is impossible to work in future and provide the money for the carrying on of these large asylums. This Bill was opposed in another place by the boards of guardians. In this House I understand they have no locus standi. They have not petitioned against the Bill, and if they had their petition would have been ruled out. Therefore their position now is simply an appeal to the Members of this House on Second Reading on behalf of the status generally in the country of boards of guardians. Their opposition really has nothing to do with the operation of this Bill. This Bill establishes a permanent board to be constituted by fifty members, composed of twenty-two elected by the county council and twenty-eight by the county boroughs. At the present moment the number of members are just the reverse. There are for the asylums committee fifty-seven members appointed by the county council and twenty-six by the county boroughs. That cannot continue for this reason, that the county boroughs are now contributing less than they ought to. They are sending more lunatics and they are not paying their proper contribution for the use of the asylums. That has created the initial difficulty. That was
  108
  ascertained a few years ago, and the county councils turned round and said that the county boroughs ought to contribute a large quota towards the expenses. The county boroughs replied that they were quite willing to do so; but, they said, if we do we must have greater control over the capital expenditure. At the present moment, the entire control of the expenditure is in the hands of the county council, and unless this Bill passes you have got an impasse, and you cannot get beyond it. You have got a deadlock.
  What the six county boroughs and the county council ask is to make an arrangement similar to that in Lancashire of a permanent board. I should like to say in passing that the Lancashire Board has given great satisfaction. It was mentioned in the Committee of another place that it was extravagant, but that was proved not to be so. It was proved that the expense of lunatics in Lancashire was the lowest in the country—9s. 2d. per person. It was also proved by evidence that the reason of the complaint as to Lancashire not having sufficient accommodation was simply this: that the population in Lancashire was increasing so rapidly that the county authorities had not been able to for see that increase of population, and unfortunately also, with the increase of population, the increase of lunacy; and that therefore they had not been able to provide sufficient accommodation; but that at present they were providing new asylums which would meet all the needs of the case. The new authority will be constituted with a majority for the county boroughs. Therefore, speaking on behalf of one of the large county boroughs, our position is going to be improved by this Bill. We shall have greater representation, and the Bill will also give us control over the capital expenditure, which we have not at the present moment. There is one further reason that I will urge, namely, that further accommodation for lunatics will unfortunately be required in the West Riding in the very near future. It is a lamentable fact, but it is so. But unless this Bill is carried there will be a difficulty, and the accommodation will not be provided. I should like to read what Sir John Horsfall, chairman of the West Riding County Council, said in another place when giving his evidence:—
  "If things went on as at present, with the committee constituted as at present, although the county boroughs would be contributing more than half the funds, the county councils would have then the sole control over expenditure?—Yes, and I may say that whatever you do, without a fresh Bill the county council have the

  109
  sole control over the expenditure on buildings, and will have in the future unless we get a Bill to remedy it. That is the crux of the whole thing to my mind."
  I think Sir John Horsfall was perfectly right. The crux of the position is that in order to obtain the necessary capital from the county boroughs new powers from Parliament are necessary. For these reasons I hope the House will not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: So far as I could learn from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, those Members have not read its provisions. They endeavoured to make out a case for the boards of guardians to have control over and the power of erecting asylums. If this control and power were handed over to boards of guardians throughout the country it would certainly lead to much greater extravagance than will obtain under this Bill. The Bill is a very simple one, and I am a strong supporter of it. I have had some experience in the management of asylums, having been a member of an asylums committee for the past twenty-three years. We have had the same difficulties in the county of Durham as they have had in the West Biding of Yorkshire, but we have not solved them in the manner proposed in the West Riding. It has been stated quite truly that this Bill does not propose to alter in any way the Act of 1890, which places upon county councils and county boroughs the responsibility of providing asylums. That responsibility is not upon the guardians. They have nothing to do with it. I think the Bill is a very wise one, because it will save the ratepayers a large sum of money. It is proposed that instead of county boroughs undertaking to provide asylums for themselves they shall amalgamate with the county council in a joint scheme. It is a very simple matter considered from that point of view. At the present time every county council has power, if the accommodation for lunatics is insufficient, to give notice to the county boroughs to terminate the agreements they have with them, so that the county boroughs must provide asylum accommodation for their own unions. The county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, instead of giving the county boroughs notice to provide asylums for their own areas, have invited them to join with them in a scheme for making the asylum accommodation sufficient to meet the requirements of the whole of the county area and of the county boroughs. That will save the ratepayers an enormous sum of money,
  110
  because if the county councils gave notice to terminate the existing agreements you would have ten asylums where four now exist. Anybody acquainted with the work of an asylum knows that the larger the asylum the cheaper is the working cost. If instead of one large asylum you have two or three institutions you run up the standing charges enormously. From that point of view it is much the cheaper system to amalgamate.
  Under Section 169 of the Act of 1890, I believe, the county boroughs cannot send more than two representatives unless they make some private arrangement. If that is so, the county boroughs under this scheme will increase their representation, and Leeds or Sheffield will obtain eight representatives in proportion to their responsibilities. That is an enormous advantage, and will give greater security to the scheme than if they were under the existing law, as it will remove the cause of the friction which exists almost everywhere in connection with the visiting committee appointed by the county councils and the county boroughs. From some remarks which has been made to-night it would appear that the county boroughs have no representation upon the visiting committee. Every county borough is represented. The fact is that the scheme of this Bill is in existence to-day. All you are doing is to give greater security, and to treat the county boroughs more justly than you have done in the past. That is all it does under the scheme before the House. There is another reason which I should like to advance in support of the Bill. The asylums committee has charge of a very large number of lunatics. Where you have a county borough, or two or three county boroughs, attached to an asylum, there is always a great uncertainty existing, because the asylums committee is uncertain as to whether they can make future provision or not. The members of the committee are uncertain whether the county boroughs will withdraw from the scheme or not.
  That is a factor which is affecting very seriously the administration of the asylums in this country. It is, therefore, a great advantage, in my opinion, if you remove that uncertainty, so that the county and county boroughs know exactly their responsibility. Let me illustrate: In the county in which I live we have two county boroughs attached to our asylum. They have both given notice to withdraw from the county asylum. Each of them proposes

  111
  to build an asylum of its own. I consider that that is a very costly system, because we could work that one asylum, or an addition to the existing asylum, very much cheaper in the interests of the ratepayers than we can work three asylums in a county such as ours. I have looked into this scheme. I think it is an admirable one from a practical point of view. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, because it appears to me to be an absurdity that the guardians in a county should claim, owing to the amalgamation, such as we have heard of, of the county boroughs and the county councils under this Bill—an amalgamation which exists at present, or which may exist at present—should claim that they should have a right to erect and control asylums. If the guardians desire to do this, then the Act of 1890 must be repealed. That Act places the responsibility upon the county councils and the county boroughs to provide an asylum, and this Bill does not in any way affect, but simply consolidates that position.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I think all who have listened to this Debate will have come to the conclusion that we have had a very interesting and practical discussion. Something has been said about the work of the Asylums Board of Lancashire. I may say, with great respect to those who have used that argument, that it is not very relevant or conclusive. Where Lancashire may have failed, Yorkshire may succeed. The point really that we have to consider is: Does the present system work well, and is the change proposed by this Bill likely to work better? My hon. Friend who spoke last mentioned the fact that under the Act of 1890 an arrangement had been made between the county councils and the six county boroughs. That arrangement has two defects, one from a county council point of view, and another from a county borough point of view. The defect from the first point of view is obvious, and it is that this arrangement is terminable by notice. How can a county council really consider as a public authority that it should spend those vast sums on asylums when the county boroughs may remove themselves from the arrangement? From the county borough point of view the disadvantage is that at the present moment it is the visiting committee that decides
  112
  what the expenditure shall be. The visiting committee is made up—that is the larger portion, of county council members; and really it is they that decide what expenditure shall take place, and whether it is necessary, and except, so far as the county boroughs are represented on the visiting committee, they have no direct control. From both points of view, then, the present system in force is unsatisfactory.
  That being so, there is really only now the question as to the arrangements of this Bill. Does it suggest a better system than that which now prevails? In both respects I submit to the House that it is an improvement. In the first place, the arrangement with the union is permanent. The county council now will be represented in proportion to its contribution and its contribution will be in proportion to the patients it sends to the asylum. In the second place, there will not be that delay in referring things to the county council on the one hand and to the county boroughs on the other hand. The Asylums Board will be able to have some regular control, and that without any undue delay. It is quite unnecessary to draw boards of guardians into this discussion. They have nothing to do with the merits of this particular proposal from the West Riding of Yorkshire. I think the West Riding is entitled to have separate treatment in this matter, and this is to be remembered so far as the board of guardians is concerned that their position at any rate is no worse than at present. There have been two Reports of Royal Commissions, one on the Poor Law and the other on the Feeble-minded. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded considered and rejected this application of the guardians to have direct control over matters of this kind. The supreme test of this Bill is: will it do something for the poor people concerned? At any rate this one joint board having control over these Poor Law institutions will afford opportunities for a classification and that discrimination that is at the root of all reform in matters of this kind. I think the matter has now been really very thoroughly discussed in the House, and after hearing the arguments on both sides, I appeal on behalf of the Home Office that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.

    CLASS II.—HIS MAJESTY'S OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
    Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £86,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings." [Note.—£50,000 has been voted on account.]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday). Committee to sit again tomorrow.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (PADDINGTON RIFLES).
  Colonel SEELY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I am sorry to have to detain the House for a short period in order to call attention to a vital matter not only to my Constituents, but to London and to the entire Territorial Force. Mass meetings have been held of protest and of indignation at the action of the War Office in regard to the Paddington Rifles, and it is my intention to voice that indignation in this House at the first opportunity presented to me. The War Office suddenly and without notice, and without proper inquiry, suspended the 10th battalion, known as the Paddington Rifles—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Eighteen minutes before Ten of the clock until to-morrow (Wednesday).

  Lords of Appeal.
  Lords of Appeal.
  East Africa (Undeveloped Farms).
  East Africa (Undeveloped Farms).
  "Options and Futures."
  "Options and Futures."
TELEPHONE SEEVICE.
  ADDITIONAL CABLES (BALHAM).
  ADDITIONAL CABLES (BALHAM).
  TELEPHONES FOR LIFE-SAVING.
  TELEPHONES FOR LIFE-SAVING.