Sitting of 14 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Surrey (Mid or Epsom Division), in the room of William Keswick, esquire, deceased, who, since his election for the said County had accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Manor of Northstead.—[Lord Balcarres.]

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

London United Tramways Bill.

Dublin and South-Eastern Railway (New Works) Bill.

Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords]—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely,

Loch Ericht Water and Electric Power Bill [Lords].

Lothian Railways Bill [Lords].

Lanark County Tramways Bill [Lords].

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To conform certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Buxton, Cleethorpe with Thrunscoe, Derby, Leicester, and Middleton." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Standing Orders,
Resolution reported from the Select Committee,
"That, in the case of the North Killingholme Pier [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

NAVY.
Copy presented of Annual Accounts of the Royal Navy Torpedo Factory, Greenock, for the year 1910–11, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Day School, with Appendices, by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session do meet in Committee Room A, on Wednesday, the 20th of March, at Two o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Committee of the Lords as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1910–11 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 63.]
Copy presented of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 1910–11 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Red Sea Lights.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many lights there are in the Red Sea and how many are unlit owing to the Turco-Italian war, and, of those unlit, whether they are on barren rocks in the very centre of the Red Sea and not near the coast of Arabia; and, if so, whether a further investigation can be made as to the right of the Turkish Government to continued occupancy of such islands to the detriment of the shipping of Great Britain?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The total number of lights in the Red Sea is twenty-seven. The number of main navigational lights (excluding those in the Gulf of Suez, which are Egyptian) is six. Of these, two, which are Egyptian, have not been extinguished. The remaining four are Turkish, and were extinguished at the beginning of the war. They are at Mokha, Abu Ail, Zebayir and Jebel Teir. The Mokha light is on the Arabian coast. The others are on islands, Abu Ail being sixteen miles distant from the Arabian coast, and Jebel Teir, the furthest from that coast, being forty-seven miles distant. Abu Ail is forty-three and Jebel Teir sixty-eight miles from the African coast. These islands therefore are considerably closer to the Arabian than to the African coast. As the hon. Member was informed in reply to his question of March 7th, Turkish rights over these islands have never, so far as I am aware, been questioned; and the Turkish Government has a right to take, in regard to its own territory, such action as may be deemed advisable or necessary. These facts could not be altered by any investigation.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the shipping flying the British flag and passing through the Red Sea is three times greater than that of any other nation; and whether, as Turkey is still demanding dues in respect of the unlit lights, he can insist on their being relit?
  Sir E. GREY: About 61 per cent. of the vessels passing through the Suez Canal and Red Sea are British. Representations have recently been made by the representatives of all the foreign Powers at Constantinople in regard to the continued levy of light dues by the Porte in spite of the extinction of the lights, and I shall
  1244
  press this point, but His Majesty's Government have no power to insist upon the lights being relit as they have been extinguished for strategical reasons.
  Mr. KING: May I inquire whether the Government will approach the Italian and Turkish Governments with the view of neutralising the Red Sea during hostilities, and thus be in a position to restore the lighting?
  Sir E. GREY: That was done at the beginning of the war, and it was found impossible to come to any arrangement about neutralisation; but, of course, if any opportunity arises later on we shall be glad to do what we have already tried to do.
  Mr. HOLT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the collection of the light dues does not take place in Egypt and, if it does, whether it is not possible for the British Government to recommend the Egyptian Government to stop the collection until the lights are relit?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not sure of the facts. I shall be very glad, if my hon. Friend will repeat the question, to inquire into the matter.

  British Consulate, Lingah, Persian Gulf.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information respecting a threatened attack upon the British Consulate at Lingah, on the Persian Gulf; and whether any steps have been taken to afford the necessary protection to the Consulate?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's ships recently captured a large consignment of arms which was being smuggled into the hinterland at a point on the coast eighty miles to the west of Lingah. The inhabitants for whom the arms were intended have since been trying to raise a force to make an attack on Lingah generally and on the Custom House and British Vice-Consulate; in particular. The inhabitants of Lingah were uneasy and the local authorities expressed their inability to offer any assistance. In the circumstances the action of His Majesty's local officers in moving up 150 men from Jask, who will be landed if, in the opinion of His Majesty's Consul-General at Bushire, the protection of British lives and property demands such action, has been approved.

  Chinese Loans.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the advances of cash which are now being made to the Chinese Government by bankers on behalf of certain great Powers are being made with the sanction of the Government; and if any obligation with regard to them is undertaken by the Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The English group who are contributing to the advances have been informed that they will be entitled to look to His Majesty's Government for support in the event of any difficulties arising as to repayment, but His Majesty's Government have no pecuniary liability.

  Attack on Police (Clonboo).
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any arrests have now been made in connection with the attack on a constabulary patrol near Clonboo, on 1st February, 1912, when Sergeant Driscoll was shot at and wounded; and what is the condition of the injured man?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No arrests have been made in this case. The injury to Sergeant Driscoll was slight, and it was not necessary for him to absent himself from duty.
  Mr. SANDYS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is quite unable to take any effective steps to put an end to those shooting outrages in various parts of Ireland, which now appear to be of almost daily occurrence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are taking such effective steps as are within our reach to prevent occurrences of this kind. If the hon. Member is acquainted, as I have no doubt he is, with the area of Irish land, he will know that it is impossible for police officers to be stationed everywhere to prevent people shooting from behind hedges.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what part of Ireland rifles are being imported?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are keeping a careful eye on the importation of weapons from abroad, and some day, perhaps, some revelations may be made on the subject.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary if the farm of Normangrove, Kinvarra,
  1246
  was offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board by the owner, Miss M. Forster, Post House, Ruan, county Clare; is he aware of the state of congestion which exists in the neighbourhood of this farm; and will he explain how it is that the Board are so slow in acquiring and dealing with estates such as this one?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are in communication with the owner regarding the purchase of the farm referred to.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the existence of evicted tenants on the Blake Foster estate, Kinvarra; what happened to their applications for reinstatement; how many years ago it is since the applications of these evicted tenants were considered; and how many years have yet to elapse before their claims will receive the attention of the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received applications from six persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants from the Blake Foster estate. The Commissioners have allotted one applicant a holding on lands acquired by them, and the wife and family of another applicant have been reinstated by the landlord. The Commissioners decided, after inquiry and consideration, to take no action on the remaining applications.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry has taken place into the memorial forwarded by the small tenants living in the neighbourhood of Skeggavagh, Kinvarra; whether a representation was made that all the holdings are uneconomic; that a grazing farm runs alongside of their small holdings; that it is owned by a landowner of vast estates, Mr. Walter S. Taylor, Castle Taylor; whether the Congested Districts Board have communicated with Mr. Taylor; and with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board received the memorial referred to in which it is stated that the holdings of the memorialists are uneconomic. The Board communicated with Mr. Shaw Taylor regarding a sale of the farm referred to, but he does not desire to sell, and states that the townland is too rocky and scrubby, and unsuitable for the purpose of subdivision.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commissioners, have considered the question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. Perhaps they have not had an opportunity of considering the question. I have given Mr. Taylor's view.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether any offer for sale of the estate of Mrs. Daly, of Carrowculeen and Funshinbeg, Kinvarra, has been made to the Congested Districts Board, and when; has an inspection taken place; and will he explain how the matter now stands?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board. It has been inspected and valued, and an offer will soon be made to the owner.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon Gentleman indicate when?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I really cannot. The Congested Districts Board is simply smothered with applications.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their holdings were signed and perfected eight years ago on the estate of Mr. Lopdell, Cappamore, Kinvarra; whether the estate is one largely congested; whether it contains an evicted holding formerly the property of Patt Donohue; whether Donohue is to be restored to his original holding or provided with one elsewhere before the sale goes through; and can he indicate when the Congested Districts Board expect to be able to deal with this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. Purchase agreements signed by the tenants were lodged in 1906, and the Estates Commissioners anticipate that the estate will be inspected in order of priority during the financial year commencing the 1st April. Donohue's former holding is now occupied by six other tenants, with whom the Commissioners have no power to interfere, but when the estate is being inspected his application will be inquired into for consideration in connection with the allotment of such untenanted land as the Commissioners may acquire for distribution.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is meant by priority?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Priority, unfortunately, means that you come on in your turn.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the receipt of a
  1248
  memorial by the Congested Districts Board from the tenants and small farmers living on the outskirts of the estate of Captain W. Persse, Roxburgh, Loughrea; does he know that the district is one largely congested; is he aware that the estate comprises thousands of acres of untenanted land, outside and independent of the largest demesne in county Galway; and can he state if any request was made by the Board to Captain Persse to sell, and with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Several memorials have been addressed to the Congested Districts Board regarding this estate in county Galway, which is stated to contain large areas of grass lands. The Board communicated with the owner, and, so far he has not agreed to negotiate through them for the sale of his estate. A further communication will be addressed to him.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of the property of J. Stratford Tuite, at Killeen, Granard, county Longford, there is a non-residential farm which is being let as untenanted land on the eleven months' system in that district; and whether, having regard to the scarcity of land for division amongst uneconomic holdings in the district, he will direct the Estates Commissioners to enter into negotiations with Mr. Tuite to acquire this farm under the 42nd Section of the Land Purchase Act, 1909, and divide it accordingly.
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of direct sale proceeding under the Land Purchase Acts. There is no untenanted land included in the proceedings before the Estates Commissioners, who, when they are dealing with the estate, will inquire into the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

  Irish Home Rule Fund.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a circular, dated 26th February, issued by the trustees of the Irish Home Rule Fund to the Roman Catholic priesthood, inviting them to afford their congregations the opportunity of testifying sympathy of a practical form to the Nationalist section of Irish Members in the House of Commons; whether it has come to his knowledge that reverend gentlemen who occupy official positions in certain universities, the Congested Districts Board, and other public bodies have also been sent the

  1249
  circular; and whether, in view of the political nature of the appeal, he will forbid any pressure being exercised by those in said positions or those over whom they may be placed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has not been drawn to this circular, and I have no knowledge whatever about it.
  Mr. STANIER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not make inquiries in regard to this circular?
  Mr. BIRRELL: So many circulars are issued in Ireland that I do not know it is any part of my business to inquire into them. As a rule, anything of the slightest degree of importance is called to my attention. I have not heard of this circular.

  Evicted Tenants (Fermanagh).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the Estates Commissioners received within the prescribed time an application for reinstatement under the Evicted Tenants Act from John Flaherty, of Cornadarm, Belleek, who was evicted in June, 1901, from his holding on the estate of the Marquess of Ely, in the county of Fermanagh; and, if so, what decision the Commissioners have arrived at upon the application.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from John Flaherty for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate of the Marquess of Ely, county Fermanagh, and, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action in the matter. Flaherty's application was not received within the period limited by the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.

  Labourers' Cottages (Newcastle West).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware that at the Local Government Board inquiry in Newcastle West into a scheme of cottages to be built in the union a consent was signed by Mrs. Fitzgerald and the agent to have a cottage placed on her holding instead of Mr. Vereker's, which consent Mr. Vereker also signed, and the Local Government Board inspector accordingly changed the site; that on appeal to the County Court judge Mr. Vereker explained that he thought it was the old site he was opposing, but when it was explained to him it was not, the County Court judge held that as the original
  1250
  notices were not served on Mrs. Fitzgerald the case could not stand, and he allowed the appeal with costs against the district council; and whether he intends to take any steps to have the cottage built on the site agreed on for the labourer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. Fitzgerald did consent in writing to the taking of a site on her farm in lieu of one proposed on the lands of Mr. Vereker, but this consent was not also signed by the agent and Mr. Vereker as stated in the question. The Local Government Board have no information as to the precise grounds on which the county court judge decided to reject the cottage, but, in any event, they have no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the district council state that the agent had signed a consent, and how can he in these circumstances say that he did not sign?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It would perhaps be better to say that in no event have I any jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at the January quarter sessions, in Newcastle West, county Limerick, County Court Judge Law Smith, in disallowing the petitions in two cases with costs against the council in each case, brought by the Newcastle West District Council to have cottages built for two labourers, refused to hear the evidence, as he said that one of the representatives of the division was illegally a district, councillor, as he was an occupant of a labourer's cottage, and that while he held a cottage illegally, being a district councillor, he would not grant a cottage in his division; and whether, as the decision given by the King's Bench in the Granard case holds that a district councillor in occupation of a cottage from the district council is legally such, he will say what steps he intends to take to enable the applicants for the two cottages in the division to have their cases heard so that they may acquire the cottages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts generally areas stated in the question, but I have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What redress have these two labourers, seeing that their cottages have been rejected by the unjust decision of the judge?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot admit that the decision of the judge was unjust, though it

  1251
  was contrary to a decision that has been given in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland. It is one of those cases in which the attention of the judge was not called to a case that had just been decided. These things frequently occur, but one must not say that the judge's decision is unjust.

  Civilian Force.
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a circular issued by the Civilian Force, 100, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W., the President of which is His Grace the Duke of Abercorn, whose aims and objects are stated, among other things, to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and to oppose all those who advocate the use of force or violence in attacks on the British Constitution; and whether this body will be under the control of the police authorities when its operations extend to Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know nothing of the body referred to.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will this force be used to keep Lord Londonderry and the other rebels in order?

  Agricultural Station, Athenry.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what is the intention of the Department in connection with the agricultural station at Athenry; do they propose to build a college there; and, if so, when operations will commence?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The intention of the Department in connection with the Agricultural Station at Athenry is to replace the present wood and iron buildings in which apprentices are lodged by a more permanent structure. They do not propose to build a college. No actual decision has been arrived at as to the date on which the work may be begun.

  Indian Penal Code (Sentence on Child).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in January last, Dhanapal, a child of about seven years, the son of a respectable merchant and municipal councillor of Chingleput, was convicted by Mr. G. H. B. Jackson, the joint magistrate of that place, of an offence
  1252
  under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs.5 or a week's rigorous imprisonment; whether the complainant against the child was the magistrate who tried the case; whether he himself gave evidence against the child; whether the offence alleged was that the child had shouted out salaam in a loud and vociferous voice as Mr. Jackson was riding past his father's house on a bicycle; and whether the Government of India proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The facts are as stated, except that the magistrate did not formally give evidence. He disposed of the case himself at the request of the boy's father, who made no complaint as to the procedure. The Government of Madras has expressed severe displeasure at the magistrate's conduct, and has moved the High Court to quash the proceedings.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have the proceedings been quashed yet?
  Mr. MONTAGU: They have not so far as I know been quashed yet. Proceedings are still pending.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the magistrate himself quashed the proceedings and remitted the fine?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As soon as the hon. Member put the question on the Paper, I telegraphed to India. I have given all the information which I received in the case, and cannot say anything more at present.

  Gold and Silver Imports (India).
  Mr. BIGLANDasked what have been the imports of gold and silver into India since the imposition of the tariff on silver in 1910; and what were the imports into India of the two metals in the two years previous to the imposition of the duty on silver?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The present import duty on silver of 4d. an ounce in place of the 5 per cent. ad valorem duty was imposed in February, 1910. In the two years ending February, 1909, and February, 1910, the import of silver was respectively 88 million and 73¾ million ounces; in the year ending February, 1911, it was 69 million ounces; and in the ten months ending December, 1911, 62½ million ounces. If exports are deducted, the figures become 76¾ million; 60⅓ million; 54 million,

  1253
  and 31½ million ounces respectively. Of late there have been extensive shipments of silver from India to China. In the same four periods of time the gross import of gold was respectively £6,197,000, £14,902,000, £17,911,000, and £17,724,000; and the net import £3,792,000, £12,608,000, £15,307,000, and £15,629,000. The above figures are for imports and exports on private account only.
  Mr. BIGLANDasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether, seeing that silver is the raw material of an important and beautiful Indian handicraft, he will, in view of the large revenue surplus, consider the repeal of the duty on silver; and whether he will state if a duty has ever been imposed on this precious metal by any Government of which records exist?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The import duty on silver is a duty on an article of comparative luxury, which is either used for hoarding or for jewelry and ornament. Were remission of taxation in India at present feasible there are other imposts that would probably claim prior consideration. The Secretary of State is not aware that the silversmith industry has declined in consequence of the duty. Silver, in the form of a manufactured commodity, is subject to taxation in other countries. As regards the last part of the question I am not aware of an example, but my hon. Friend is in as favourable position as I am for conducting an exhaustive, historical, and comparative research.
  Mr. KING: Has the hon. Gentleman any information to show the amount of hoarded silver in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Not in the House. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will see what I can do.

  Scholarships (Straits Settlements).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Queen's scholarships were established to enable promising students in the Straits Settlements to complete their education in this country; how many pupils have held these scholarships; and when and for what reasons were they abolished?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Two scholarships were established in 1886. There have been, I believe, forty-seven scholars in all. One of the scholarships was abolished in 1908; the other has been abolished this year. They have been
  1254
  abolished on the advice of the majority of the unofficial members of council, who consider that the money, which they absorbed, can be better employed for other educational purposes.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Were the unofficial members who recommended the abolition of these scholarships nominated by the Government or were they representative of any local native opinion?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question for the Secretary of State himself.

  Chinese Labour (South Africa).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the percentage of mortality as disclosed in the latest available Returns among the non-indigenous black population employed in the Rand mining industry; whether he can state the percentage that prevailed among the Chinese labourers at the date of their repatriation; and whether he is aware of a resolution that has been recently passed by a public body in the Transvaal asking that labour from the Chinese Republic be permitted?
  Colonel SEELY: The official Returns in the possession of the Secretary of State do not distinguish between indigenous and non-indigenous natives. The death rate of the Chinese for the year 1909 from all causes was 11.51. He has no official information of any proposal with regard to Chinese labour.

  Wages of Railway Servants (United States).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade the average weekly rate of wages in the United States of engine drivers, firemen, goods porters, permanent way labourers, and platelayers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): According to the latest report of the Interstate Commercial Department of the United States, the average daily earnings of engine drivers was 18s. 6d., of firemen 11s. 1½d., and of permanent way labourers 5s. 9d. in 1909. The earnings of goods porters and platelayers are not separately shown.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these wages are so much higher in protected than in our Free Trade country?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: These are not protected trades, so I am afraid that that question is not relevant.
  Mr. HUNT: Does not the protection affect all trades by keeping wages up?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    TUTORIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain educational and tutorial establishments have announced that they can prepare candidates for posts under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; whether any information as to the subjects upon which prospective candidates for such posts will be examined has been supplied to them; and, if so, whether it will be made public?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The attention of the Board of Trade had not been drawn to these announcements; and no information as to the proposed subjects of examination had been given to anyone when this question was put down on Monday. A Memorandum on the subjects of examination for these posts has been prepared by the Civil Service Commissioners, and it is now being issued to applicants.

    CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state who has been appointed Chief Commissioner for Scotland under the Insurance Act; what is the salary to be paid to him, and for how many years is his engagement; what were his previous positions and experience which qualified him for the post of Chief Commissioner; and what was the salary previously enjoyed by him in his last situation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The chairman of the Scottish Commission (Mr. Leishman) was appointed as an established Civil servant at a salary of £1,800 per annum. He was qualified by a long and varied experience of business and of public work. At the time of his appointment he was occupying the position of honorary treasurer of the city of Edinburgh. He was strongly recommended to my right hon. Friend by men well qualified to speak, and I regard it as fortunate that the Government have been able to obtain the services of so able an officer. I have not inquired as to his income before his appointment, nor do I propose to make such an inquiry.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask how it is if he knows this gentleman occupied the position of treasurer to the city of Edinburgh that he was not aware of the identity of one of the Commissioners when I asked a question the other day?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no idea of what the Noble Lord is referring to.
    Mr. WATT: Is the salary of £1,800 a larger salary than that paid to the Irishman or the Welshman or the Englishman, in the position?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say offhand; but I think it is less than that paid to the Chairman of the English Commissioners.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the practice that all Englishmen are paid less than Welshmen or Scotchmen?

    APPLICATION FORMS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the official form of application for membership of approved societies under the National Insurance Act is intended to be filled up by small tradespeople and other intending voluntary contributors; and, if so, how they ought to reply to the question as to the mode of their remuneration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The model form of application issued by the Commission for the assistance of approved societies, can be adapted by any such society to meet the requirements of their particular case. The way in which the question 5 (c) "How are you paid?" is answered must depend on the circumstances of the particular applicant, but in the cases to which the hon. Member refers sufficient information would be given by the statement "out of the profits of my business," taken in conjunction with the answer to Question 4, as to the exact occupation of applicant.

    DISSOLUTION OF SOCIETIES.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked how many of the small friendly societies which since the introduction of the National Insurance Bill last May have notified their intention to dissolve are rural societies; and how many of these have made no provision for the future health insurance of their members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Of the 278 societies which, as I stated in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for St. Pancras on the 6th instant, have, since the

    1257
    introduction of the National Insurance Bill, notified their intention to dissolve, fifty-six would appear to come within the description of rural societies. In no case has the dissolution of any such rural society been completed. Instruments of dissolution have been received from nine societies, but these have not been registered, and the remaining forty-seven societies have not at present, so far as is known, taken active steps to dissolve. Dissolution of a friendly society can only take place with the written consent of five-sixths in value of the members, and it would be for them to arrange individually for their future health insurance.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it the custom of the Commissioners and the lecturers to dissuade the small societies from dissolving?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A Circular has been sent out by the Commissioners urging members of small societies who wish to dissolve to make themselves fully familiar with the provisions of the Act before they do so.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether they can make themselves familiar with Section 72, and whether they are bound to bring forward a scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Whether they are bound to bring forward a scheme is now under the consideration of the law officers, and I hope to be able to report in a few days.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it possible for the societies to make themselves familiar with Section 72, when the Secretary to the Treasury has had to have the assistance of the law officers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That has nothing to do with this question of dissolution. They can dissolve quite apart from whether Section 72 affects their dissolution or not.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the Secretary to the Treasury or the Commissioners holding off sanction to the dissolution till the decision is given on Section 72?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. They have advised them to postpone it until that has taken place, but whatever the decision they might still dissolve or not as they please.

    WELSH COMMISSION.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the National Insurance Commission (Wales) still intends to establish an advisory board to nominate those who shall sit a Civil Service examination for appointments under the National Insurance Act; whether the opinion of Welsh Members of Parliament of all parties has been ascertained upon the desirability of such advisory board; and whether it is proposed to take any action as a result of the expression of any such opinion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Welsh Insurance Commission have made certain recommendations on the subject to the Treasury which are now under consideration. No steps, however, can be taken without Treasury approval and before a final decision is arrived at. I shall be happy to receive any representations on the subject from any quarter of the House.
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: Will we get some opportunity of discussing the matter before the final Treasury sanction is given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: First of all I would be glad to hear representations from those who care about the matter.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the head offices of the National Insurance Commission (Wales) had been permanently fixed at Cardiff; what was the nature of these offices; how much rent would be paid for them, and to whom; whether a stub-office would be established in North Wales; and, if so, where?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The offices of the Welsh Commission have been permanently fixed at Cardiff. The public authorities of that city have generously provided excellent accommodation rent free. The question of establishing sub-offices will be considered if and when necessity arises.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of establishing a sub-office at Wrexham?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a question for the Welsh Commissioners. It will be considered if necessity arises.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is not Wrexham a border town at an inconvenient point?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That, no doubt, will come under the consideration of the Commissioners.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the National Insurance Commission (Wales) had taken any steps to secure the establishment of provisional local health committees in the Welsh counties and county boroughs, in view of the number of points which must be decided by the local health committees the moment the Act comes into force in four months' time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The steps required to secure the establishment of local insurance committees in Wales are under the consideration of the Welsh Commissioners.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. GEORGE FABERasked whether, under the terms or within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act must in future be obtained through the medium of a member's approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. Compensation for accident will be received from the same sources as before the passing of the National Insurance Act, and any compensation less than 10s. a week in value will in ordinary cases be made up to that amount out of the Insurance Fund. Insurance for benefit upon accident beyond this amount can be made to any extent outside the National Insurance scheme through an approved society or otherwise.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a circular issued by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants to its members it is stated, amongst other things, that the all-important fact to its members is that compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act must in future be obtained through the medium of a member's approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to see the circular. I should think it probably refers to Section 11.
    Mr. G. FABER: If that information is inaccurate, has not the hon. Gentleman means of taking steps to see that inaccurate information of this important character is not conveyed by societies to their members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider his statement first. If I was to endeavour to take steps to inform people whenever inaccurate information was given, I should have my time occupied.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Amalgamated Society of
    1260
    Railway Servants is a most important society with many thousands of members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree. I shall be glad to consider any documents the hon. Gentleman may place before me.

    ADMIRALTY CLERICAL STAFFS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the possibility of the health insurance part of the National Insurance Act coming into operation on 15th July, 1912, he would state when Treasury concurrence with the Admiralty proposals, based on the Macnamara Staffing Committee's Report, would be given, in order that the relative position of the members of the clerical staffs of the Admiralty and Royal dockyards might be settled?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 27th ultimo.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when I am likely to get an answer? The question has been under consideration a very long time now.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The matter is under consideration, but it affects other Departments besides the Navy. I am endeavouring to get the matter settled as soon as possible.

    REGULATIONS.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked why notice of the Regulations, dated 21st February, 1912, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and laid before Parliament on 22nd February, 1912, was not given to Members until the Demand Form for Sessional Printed Papers, No. 8, on 12th March, 1912?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Regulations were laid in a complete form on 22nd February. I am making inquiries as to the delay in printing and circulation which appears to have occurred.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From when will the period of twenty-one days date?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think from the day it is laid on the Table of the House.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Paper could not be obtained by Members until two days ago, although it was notified at the Table as long ago as 22nd February that it was placed in dummy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was not placed in dummy; it was laid in complete form. But if the Noble Lord will approach me, and I have any power in the matter, I shall be glad to see that any necessary extension that is possible is given.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked under what powers and for what reason the Regulations dated 21st February, 1912, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (46), which were required by Sub-section (4) of the said Section 83 to be laid before Parliament with a view to their possible annulment, have been made retrospective and were to be deemed to have had effect as from 28th December, 1911?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The usual practice has been followed in this matter. The Treasury Regulations have been made retrospective under the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which enables the Regulations themselves to prescribe the date at which they are to come into operation. The Regulations of 21st February, 1912, take the place of rules made on the 28th December, 1911, which came into force on the last named date as being urgent in accordance with Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act. Until the 21st February the Joint Committee have of course acted only under the earlier Regulations, and did not exercise any of the additional powers provided for in the latter Regulations. The sole reason for making the rules of February retrospective is to enable the Commission and the public to have regard only to one set of Regulations and so to facilitate reference and to avoid the confusion arising from the use of two separate documents both dealing with the same subject-matter.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these Regulations have not been acted on until after 21st February?
    Mr. MASTERMAN:Until 21st February.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They have not been acted on until 21st February?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: So I am informed.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked on what grounds the Regulations, dated 21st February, 1912, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (46), provided that all members of the Joint Committee of Commissioners, other than the
    1262
    four chairmen for the time being of the several bodies of Commissioners who were ex-officio members of the Committee, should be appointed by the Treasury, and no Regulations were issued for the selection of members of each body of Commissioners appointed under Sections 57 (1), 80 (1), 81 (1), and 82 (1), pursuant to Section 83 (1) of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Regulations (3) (1) provides for the manner in which members of each of the several bodies of Commissioners are to be selected for membership of the Joint Committee, namely, as regards the respective chairmen by virtue of their office, and as regards other members, such other (if any) as the Treasury shall from time to time by warrant appoint.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not a fact that the result of this Regulation is that the Treasury has appointed the whole of the members of the Committee instead of two members, as prescribed by the Act itself?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has not appointed them except in so far as the regulation provides that the chairmen of the several bodies of Commissioners shall be ex-officio members.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has not the Treasury selected all the rest of the members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No other members have been selected for the Joint Committee except the Chairmen under the Regulations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has not the Treasury in fact appointed all the members of the Committee by means of this Regulation, although the Act provides for the appointment of only two?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. The Treasury provided by the Regulation that the chairmen of the Commissioners shall be ex-officio members of the Joint Committee, and I believe that that was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House of Commons. That is not appointment by the Treasury.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has not the Treasury made the Regulation regulating the appointment or selection of members, and is not that the same thing?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; they are selected by virtue of their office, not qua members.

    DATE OF OPERATION.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether, in view of the fact that small friendly societies in the country were finding considerable difficulty in accommodating their constitution and management to the conditions of the National Insurance Act, the Insurance Commissioners would arrange that the Act should not come into force until the last possible date—namely, 1st January, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. The Commissioners are offering every assistance to all societies by the supply of information through lectures, by the issue of model rules and other literature, and by correspondence and interviews in their office. There is no doubt that it is in the interest of all classes of the community, and especially members of existing friendly societies, that the Act should come into operation at the earliest possible moment—namely, 15th July, 1912.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether any part of the contribution payable by the workman, the employer, or the State under the National Insurance Act was available for the provision of sanatorium benefit for the wives and children of insured persons; and, if not, how was such treatment to be provided?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Section 17 (1) insurance committees may extend sanatorium benefit to the dependents of insured persons. In such cases the cost of their treatment may be met from the general funds available for sanatorium benefit. These include the sums specified in Section 16 (2) (a), which are contributed jointly by employers, employés, and the State, the sums specified in Section 16 (2) (b), which are contributed by the State, and any further sums which may be provided under Section 17 in equal moieties by the State and local authorities.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not a fact that the Government actuaries have stated that there is no fund available under the contributions for the extension of the sanatorium benefit to the wives and dependents of members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think so; I am not aware of it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Was not that stated in their report?

    APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the principle of equal pay for equal work as between men and women was being observed in the minor appointments under the Insurance Commissioners, as in the case of the Commissioners; and, if so, was it proposed to appoint male clerks at salaries of £65 a year rising to £110; and was it intended to appoint no women to the higher clerical and administrative posts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The scales paid to men and women respectively holding minor appointments under the English Insurance Commission are those applicable to the Civil Service generally; and the Commissioners hope to appoint women to higher positions as the work progresses and opportunity offers.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to assume that there is a differentiation of pay between men and women?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. They are doing different work. There is only the differentiation which occurs in any other Government Department.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to assume that if women be appointed to positions of equal responsibility to those held by men they will receive the same rate of remuneration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say more than I have said in regard to all cases. But in the one position of great responsibility to which a woman has been appointed—namely, on the Commission itself—she is paid exactly the same as the men.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office, in reply to a question put by me, said that the principle of equal payment for equal work would be applied to all the appointments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree with that proposition.
    An HON. MEMBER: Then it should not be.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. CATORasked whether Mr. W. R. Lilley, of Lincoln, had been appointed by the Insurance Commissioners to explain the provisions of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, whether he had been authorised to hold public meetings, under the name of conferences, for this purpose

    1265
    in certain constituencies, to which members of friendly societies and all persons interested were specially invited to come and ask questions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The gentleman referred to has never been employed by the Insurance Commissioners. The hon. Member will find a list of the lecturers employed by the Commissioners on pages 9 and 10 of the White Paper, Cd. 6095.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department encourages the delivery of addresses upon Sunday upon the National Insurance Act by lecturers paid out of public money; and whether he will in any case discontinue the practice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on 22nd February, and the hon. and gallant Member for East Down on 27th February.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether the appointments to lecturerships under the National Insurance Act for the city of Belfast have been almost exclusively reserved for the nominees of the hon. Member for West Belfast; and whether these lecturers have passed any test or examination or have any qualification except that of being supporters of the aforesaid hon. Member?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No lecturers have been specially appointed for the city of Belfast. Of the twenty-five appointed for the whole of Ireland nine are at present engaged in Ulster. Of these I am informed that five are Protestant in religion and Unionists in politics, and four are Catholic in religion and Home Rulers in politics. They were selected by the Irish Insurance Commissioners for personal qualifications for the work as well as special knowledge of friendly societies, trade unions and social and philanthropic enterprise. There is, of course, no truth at all in the insinuation contained in the question.
    Mr. PEEL: Would the hon. Member be good enough to answer my question, as to whether or not there were eight lecturers appointed from Belfast—not twenty-five from the whole of Ireland; and whether these gentlemen, or six of them, passed any test or any examination—as I ask in my question—which would qualify them for giving these lectures; or if any of them have ever lectured on any subject before?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fully answered the question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In order to avoid any suspicion of political influence, will the hon. Gentleman undertake that in future all appointments shall be confined to Unionists and Protestants?
    Mr. PEEL: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my question, as to whether or not these men have passed any test or any examination qualifying them for these posts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have answered the question again and again. The men were selected by the Irish Insurance Commissioners "for personal qualifications for the work, as well as special knowledge of friendly societies, trade unions, and social and philanthropic enterprises."

  COAL STRIKE.

    TRADE DISPUTES.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the number of trade disputes which have taken place since 30th June, 1909, show an increase over the number of such disputes during the three years prior to that date?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of disputes, causing a stoppage of work, which have been recorded by the Board of Trade since 30th June, 1909, is 1,753, which compares with 1,420 in the three years prior to that date.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman attribute the increase since June, 1909, to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Limehouse at that time?

    ORCHARD COLLIERY (SHEFFIELD).
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of the Orchard Colliery, a small pit near Sheffield, where those engaged were anxious to continue their employment in spite of the coal strike, but have been forced to desist since the 7th inst. by the peaceful persuasion of a deputation of miners from Derbyshire who outnumbered them; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure that in this and all such cases where those willing to work are molested they shall be adequately protected from interference?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire.
    Mr. E. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last portion of my question, which was not asked yesterday—namely, what is the policy of His Majesty's Government generally in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: It was answered yesterday that adequate protection was given; and, further, a hypothetical question was put to me, and that hypothetical question is repeated now by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot answer hypothetical questions.
    Mr. E. CECIL: In fact, if men are willing to work and are interfered with, will His Majesty's Government prevent the continuation of that interference?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I have stated that order will be maintained in every district, but the responsiblity primarily rests with the local authority. Order is being maintained by the local authority in the district in question.
    Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proprietor of the colliery in question states that he was not molested, and that he voluntarily closed his pit in order to come into line with other small collieries in the district; is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that only seven men are employed at the colliery, and that no molestation has been threatened?
    Mr. McKENNA: My information does not quite agree with that of the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, order is being maintained in this district by the local authority.
    Mr. DUFFY: Why do they not express the same anxiety about order in Belfast?

    LEGISLATION.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether the Prime Minister proposes to introduce legislation to facilitate the settlement of industrial disputes, in order to avoid as far as possible the evils resulting from strikes; and whether his attention has been called to the Bill introduced last Session by the hon. Member for Woolwich?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wool-
    1268
    wich; but I do not consider that legislation upon so difficult and controversial a matter would be opportune at the present moment.

    EXISTING AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether the Prime Minister is aware that the action taken by the Miners' Federation in regard to the present coal dispute has involved a breach of certain existing agreements between coalowners and their employés in Wales; and, if so, whether any future legislation providing for the payment of a minimum wage will embody adequate safeguards for the due observance of any further agreements of this nature by providing for payment of damages arising from breach of the same to be made from the funds of the trade union societies concerned?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think any good purpose would be served by making any pronouncement upon a question of this character at the present time.
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that only days divide hundreds of thousands of people from starvation, whether he can assure the House that the Government have well-grounded hopes of an early settlement of the crisis, and, if not, whether he can say when the Government will take action to enforce what is undoubtedly the will of the nation?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can add nothing to the statements already made on the subject by the Prime Minister.

    UNEMPLOYED LABOUR.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether, taking into consideration the number of industries other than mining, in which unemployment has automatically resulted in consequence of the miners' strike, His Majesty's Government will approach the coalowners' representatives with a view to ascertaining whether it would be practicable to utilise some portion of such unemployed labour in working certain of the mines in order to minimise distress, to prevent damage to property, and to maintain a limited coal supply for commercial and domestic use during the continuance of the general strike?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot at present say more than that His Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the steps that may be necessary if the existing stoppage is prolonged.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate being able to make any statement to the House before it rises?
    Mr. McKENNA: As the hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister at the present moment is engaged on this very business. I will inquire later as to the possibility of making a statement.

  Royal Dockyards (Fatal Accidents).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether his attention has been called to the death of George Stevenson by accident on Portsmouth new dock works on 6th March; whether he has received a Report upon the cause and circumstances of the same; and whether his Department is being represented at the adjourned inquest; (2) whether his attention has been called to the death of E. Millar, as a result of an accident on Rosyth new dock works, on the 8th March; whether he has received a Report upon the cause and circumstances of the accident; and whether his Department intends to be represented at the inquest?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The causes and circumstances of the fatal accidents in question were duly reported to the Admiralty. In each case the man wais employed by the contractors. It has not been the practice for the Admiralty to be represented at the inquests in such cases.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be possible for the Department to be represented at these inquiries?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe, in point of fact, that where, necessary the Departments are represented, in England the Home Office through the Factory Inspector, and in Scotland I think there is representation through the Procurator-Fiscal, who represents the Lord Advocate. I will, however, go into the question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LIBERTY MEN.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in the position to state if improved travelling facilities by boat can be granted to Sheerness liberty men who, in the course of their employment, have to travel to and from Chatham?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have made inquiry, and I am of the opinion that the present facilities are adequate.
    Mr. WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have to travel the whole distance without any cover at all in stormy weather?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The boat in the morning accommodates seventy men, and I understand the number carried has exceeded thirty on only twenty - two occasions in five months. The Chatham, boat can accommodate 250.

    DREADNOUGHT CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked if the First Lord of the Admiralty adheres to the statement made by his predecessor, in debate, on 18th March, 1909, that the rate of construction in Germany for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type is almost if not quite equal to our own?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I have examined carefully the passages in Hansard in which the statement referred to occurs. I find that my right hon. Friend was speaking of the potential and not of the actual rate of construction—a very important distinction. I have already given my hon. Friend very full information as to the actual rates of British and German construction.

    THREE-YEAR COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Board to revert to the system of three-year commissions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave last week to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blackpool.

    NAVAL WAR STAFF.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many officers are permanently added to the establishment of the Admiralty as the result of the creation of the Naval War Staff?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The additions consist of:—

    1

    Chief of Staff.

    1

    Director.

    2

    Commanders or Lieutenants or Accountant Officers.

    1

    Marine Officer (Major or Captain).

    Total

    5

    and a post of Lieutenant-Colonel of Marines has been reduced. The net addition is therefore four, exclusive of the necessary clerical assistance.

    FLOATING DOCK, PORTLAND.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to station a floating dock for destroyers at Portland; and, if so, when?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Tenders are about to be invited, but it is not possible at this date to say when the dock will be delivered.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Census register in Edinburgh is accepted as proof of age for old age pension; and, if not, will he say why it is not accepted in Scotland when the register in Ireland is accepted?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer, speaking generally, is in the affirmative. There are, however, exceptions; as, for instance, if a birth certificate is found which shows that the age in the Census Return is over stated.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked how many medical men have been appointed in Scotland under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to sit as assessors along with sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute in dealing with cases under these Acts; whether it is a condition of their appointments that they shall not act in similar cases as expert medical witnesses; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman make it a condition in future appointments?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has asked me to reply to this question. There are eighty-four medical referees appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act for Scotland, and in 1910 they sat as assessors on 192 occasions. The Act prohibits a referee from acting in any case in which he has been employed as medical practitioner; and the Home Office Regulations forbid medical referees, as a general rule, acting privately in any case in which the workman is receiving a weekly payment for compensation or which is otherwise likely to come before a referee in the
  1272
  district for which he acts. I believe that these instructions are usually observed. It has not been found practicable to impose any further restriction on the medical referees.

  Glasgow Criminal Court (Case of Neil M'Innes).
  Mr. WATTasked whether the Secretary for Scotland's attention has been called to the case of Neil M'Innes, sentenced to six months' imprisonment by Sheriff-Substitute A. T. Glegg, on 5th January, in Glasgow criminal court; whether he is aware that four prisoners were charged with the theft, that two pleaded guilty and that the fourth was found not guilty, that the two who pleaded guilty offered to give evidence exonerating M'Innes of the charge, but that the evidence was refused on the technical point that no notice had been given of their evidence, and that M'Innes had been in steady and well-paid employment in a shipbuilding yard in Govan up to the time of the charge; and whether, in view of these facts and of the want of corroborative evidence of M'Innes being present at the time of the theft, he will reduce the sentence to a shorter period?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have carefully considered the case referred to, and am satisfied that there are no grounds for my interference.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Prime Minister will consider the suggestion that this House should sit on the Thursday before Good Friday to enable the Home Rule Bill to be brought in on that day, so that Members may have the opportunity of conferring with their constituents on the subject when they visit them at the Easter Recess?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion is a practicable one.
  Mr. FELL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Tuesday or Wednesday would be one of the days to begin the Home Rule Bill? Would it not be more convenient to begin on the Thursday?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

  Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the decision of the Amalgamated

  1273
  Society of Railway Servants to call in the mortgages of such of their members as remained faithful to their employers in the railway strike of last year; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with the matter?
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the terms of a circular letter issued by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants giving instructions with a view to the calling in of mortgages granted to members of the society who declined to withdraw their labour in the railway strike of August, 1911; whether, in view of the policy disclosed thereby, he will consider the necessity for requiring that trade union ballots shall be conducted in a manner to secure secrecy; and whether, in view of the services rendered to the public by certain railway servants at the time of the strike, the Government will compensate them for any injury which they in ay suffer through the action of the officials of the Railway Servants Society?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have seen in the Press a copy of a circular letter, stated to have been addressed to branch secretaries of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in November last. The circular referred to a Resolution passed at the September meeting of the society to the effect that the mortgages of all members who failed to join in the strike last August should be called in, but I understand that no such mortgage has been called in, and I should hope that no step of that character will be taken. I fail to see that the question raised by the hon. Member for Dulwich of conducting trade union ballots in a manner to secure secrecy has any connection with this matter.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that these statements originated in a notorious Conservative morning newspaper, and was supported by the Conservative candidate for Derby, and that both statements are wholly without foundation; and whether he will take steps to protect trade unions from such wicked and malicious attacks?
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting held in September at Unity House of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the following resolution was moved by Billett and seconded by Henderson: "That this committee hereby instructs the trustees to foreclose the mortgages of
  1274
  those who blacklegged during the strike." That is contained in the report of the Amalgamated Society.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a matter for debate.

  Small Landholders Act (Scotland).
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland, if his attention has been called to the fact that a number of landlords in Scotland have given notice, prior to 31st December last, to tenants of small holdings with a view to prevent these holdings coming under the operation of the Small Landholders Act; and whether, seeing that these tenants will still be in occupation of their holdings on 1st April, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent their being deprived of the advantages of the Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has been called to the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, but no instances have been brought to my notice. The question is essentially one of interpretation of the Act, and it will be for the Land Court to decide each case on the facts. I am not satisfied that there is any case for further legislation.
  Captain WARING: May I ask what steps are tenants so situated to take in order to bring their cases before the Commissioners?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like to know if there are such cases.
  Captain WARING: I can give the right hon. Gentleman two of them.

  Prison Service (Scotland).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that during the past eighteen months numerous concessions have been made to the officers engaged in the prison service of England and Wales; that in the circular dated 29th February, 1912, issued by His Majesty's Prison Commissioners, still further alterations and improvements in their conditions of service are announced, including shorter hours and the abolition of night patrol duty by the permanent staff; will he take steps to have similar privileges granted to the prison service in Scotland; and will he consider the question of an increase of pay, in view of the advance in prices of food commodities during recent years?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that alterations have recently been made in the conditions of service under the English Prison Commissioners. The case of the Scottish prison service has also been receiving attention, with the result that provision has been made for a general reduction of warders' hours to an average of nine per diem, to take effect after 1st April as soon as the necessary extra staff can be appointed. Warders' pay was increased in 1910, and no further general increase is proposed.

  Post Office Estimates.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any information as to the probable date of the Post Office Estimates; and, should he be unable to do so, whether an early opportunity can be provided for a discussion on the telephone service?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am sorry I cannot yet give any indication as to a date for the Post Office Estimates; in the meantime, therefore, the hon. Member must make use of the opportunities allowed by Parliamentary rules for the discussion of the topic he wishes to raise.

  Post Office Employés.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Postmaster-General why postmen are still employed at the general post office at Oxford in news and letter-packet sorting and dispatching work for which sorting clerks and telegraphists are engaged, with the necessary qualification of a Civil Service examination, to which postmen are not subject?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Work of the kind referred to by the Noble Lord has been assigned to postmen at many offices for a number of years past, and so far as I am aware the work has been efficiently performed. The whole question of the employment of postmen on sorting duties has been under my consideration following the Report of a Departmental Committee which I appointed to investigate the subject. On a revision of staff or other convenient opportunity, I propose to reconsider any cases in which—as at Oxford—postmen have full responsibility for sorting and dispatching or bagging large packets and newspapers.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some time ago in answer to a question of mine he said that this practice should be discontinued?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. That was a different matter. Those were postmen who were engaged in doing work proper to sorting clerks, but in this case postmen are engaged in doing work which is being performed by postmen in a great number of offices.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Do the postmen perform this duty in overtime?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General if it is intended, in view of the new standard rate of wages for carters and horsemen now in operation in Dundee, to make provision for the new scales of pay to the mail drivers in the employ of the firm which supplies the conveyances for the carriage of mails in Dundee; and whether he will consider the possibility of making some allowance for the amount of Sunday work performed by these men, for which they receive no payment whatever?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will inquire into the matter, and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Carriage Whistles.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the practice of whistling for taximeter cabs and hackney carriages at all hours of the night deprives many people in London of well-earned sleep; and whether he can take steps to prohibit the use of whistles for this purpose after the hour of 11 p.m.?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is undoubtedly the case that in certain localities where cabs are in great demand at a late hour, the practice of whistling for them must cause annoyance, but it is a convenience to the public, and I am not prepared to say that the nuisance is of such magnitude as to call for prohibition. In any case, I have no power to prohibit it.

  Salmon Fishings (Argyll).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is a condition of the present lease of the salmon fishings, county Argyll, Craig (part Ormidale), that the fishing be carried out by fixed nets; if so, will he say whether this has always been done by the present tenant; and when the lease held by him will expire?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not a condition of the present lease of these fishings that the fishing is to be carried on by fixed nets. The lease will expire at Martinmas, 1912.

  Education Estimates (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked when the Irish Education Estimates would be issued; and whether they would contain any increased provision for secondary education in Ireland?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Estimates issued yesterday.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—whether there is increased provision for the purposes of secondary education?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure, but I think the hon. Member can obtain the Estimates at the Vote Office.

  State Servants (Unestablished).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what is the present number of unestablished servants of the State to whom Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 is applicable; what percentage of this number per annum is it estimated will die while in the service; and what would be the average annual cost of granting to the dependents of persons so dying a gratuity on the scale provided by the Section of the Act referred to for persons retiring on a medical certificate of infirmity?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information as to the present number of unestablished persons serving in the various Departments of State to whom Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, is applicable. In these circumstances no estimate can be formed of the cost of granting to the dependents of such persons dying in the service a gratuity on the scale suggested, but as the numbers concerned are very large, it would be considerable.

  Scottish Timber (Damage by Squirrels).
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire on 26th April, 1911, whether he has considered the suggestion that, in view of the damage done by squirrels to Scots fir and other growing timber, and of the loss thus occasioned to individuals and to the State, he should take steps in the interests of the timber supply of this country to impress upon those concerned the desirability of treating squirrels, where necessary, as vermin and of destroying them as such?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I shall be glad to publish a note on the subject in an early issue of the Board's Journal.

  Swine Fever Regulations (Scotland).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes, in consequence of the representations of a recent deputation of Scottish stockowners, to relax the present swine fever regulations in Scotland; and, if so, what are the reasons for differentiation between England and Scotland in this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not as yet arrived at any decision with regard to the representations to which the hon. Member refers.

  Farm Institutes.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes, in making Grants to various counties for the purposes of farm institutes, to make the proportion of the cost chargeable to the rates smaller in the case of those counties, like Wiltshire, which have spent in the past and are spending out of their own resources large sums for the furtherance of agricultural education within their administrative areas, or whether those authorities which now for the first time are expressing their readiness to spend public money for this purpose will receive the same treatment in respect of the Government Grant as counties which are educationally more progressive?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is one of the questions which are under discussion with the Development Commissioners and the Treasury. I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement respecting it.

  Smithfield Club.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the decision of the council of the Smithfield Club to provide classes at its annual show for pure-bred yearling heifers; and whether, in view of the increasing shortage of good milch cows, the large destruction of calves for veal, and the harm clone to young stock by premature fattening for exhibition purposes, he proposes to take any steps to dissuade the council from carrying out their announced decision?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a newspaper report on this subject, from which I gather that the proposed classes cannot be instituted until 1913. The question whether or not it is desirable to exhibit in these classes must be left to the good judgment of the farmers concerned.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Surely is not this a matter in which the Board of Agriculture ought to give some definite opinion, one way or the other?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. In this matter I prefer to trust to the good judgment of the farmers concerned.

  Inland Revenue Collection.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the collector of Inland Revenue threatened Mr. John Evans, of Market Drayton, that if he did not pay the amount due from him for Income Tax by 28th February that he would put in a bailiff, and that the superior officer at Crewe supported this action; and whether these officials were acting under instructions from the Treasury?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and I am not aware that there has been any departure from the usual procedure in such cases.
  Mr. STANIER: Has the hon. Gentleman made any inquiries?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me, I will very gladly go into the case.

  Jamaica.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any intention on the part of the Admiralty of developing Jamaica as a naval base, in view of the new situation which will be created by the opening of the Panama Canal?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated recently in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Lonsdale, my right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer he gave on the subject in November last.

  Army Officers.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the method of selecting officers who have become majors for further promotion out
  1280
  of their order of seniority; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction as to the working of the present method?
  Colonel SEELY: The promotion of majors to the substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel is made from officers having at least two years' service as majors on the recommendation of the Selection Board. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction as to the working of the present system.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War if, whereas officers on the active list in the Regular Army and in the Territorial Forces are exempt from service as sheriff, officers on the active list in the Special Reserve are not so exempt; and, if so, what is the reason for the difference?
  Colonel SEELY: Officers on the Special Reserve of officers and the bulk of the Territorial officers are treated in this respect similarly to officers of the Militia. Such exemption as is allowed to officers of the Territorial Force is confined to field officers, and was regarded as a very special concession. It is not proposed to extend this concession to the Special Reserve of officers.

  Government Labour Union (Portsmouth Branch).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received a letter from the Portsmouth branch of the Government Labour Union drawing attention to the Regulation applying to workmen in the Army Ordnance Department that if a man is absent from work on the Saturday, with or without leave, he loses three-quarters of a day's pay, although the hours of duty are only four hours and forty minutes, making up the full week of forty-eight hours, and if the man has lost any time during the previous five days in addition he loses a full day's pay for the Saturday; whether he is aware that cases have occurred where men have worked extra hours on the first five days of the week and yet for leave of absence on the Saturday have still been deducted one day's pay; and whether he is prepared to favourably consider the cancellation of the Regulation?
  Colonel SEELY: A letter has been received, and the matter is now under consideration.

  Army Ordnance Department (Writers).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his statement in this House on 8th August last on the status of the Army Ordnance Department writers, and in view of the opinions expressed in the Third Report of the Committee upon Ordnance Store Department Writers (A 268.11), 1894, as to the desirability of discontinuing the employment of retired officers at Woolwich, he will say why the recent vacancy for a civil clerk in the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich was filled by the appointment of a retired officer instead of by promotion from the writer class; whether he is aware that the adoption of this policy creates a block to the promotion of capable writers; whether he will give an undertaking that this method shall not be resorted to again; and whether he can hold out hope of similar rapid promotion to deserving writers in the Department referred to?
  Colonel SEELY: The selection of a retired officer for the post of civil clerk is not antagonistic to the recommendations of the Committee on Ordnance Store Department Writers. The employment of retired officers spoken of in the Report was an altogether different system. The Committee desire to give the War Office the freest possible hand for securing the best men available for these responsible positions, and they made no recommendation that the appointment of civil clerk should be filled by selection from any particular class. The writers' claims are not overlooked in making the selections, as will be seen from the fact that four of the nine posts are hold by men who formerly served as writer. The recent appointment was made in accordance with the intention of the Committee, and I do not see my way to depart from the present policy in making selections for these appointments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman, so far as he can, tell us the business for next week?
Mr. McKENNA: On Monday we shall move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates.
On Tuesday and Wednesday we shall continue discussion on Navy Votes A, 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, and 15.
1282
On Thursday, Report of outstanding Votes will be taken, and thereafter the Consolidated Fund Bill will be introduced.
I must ask the House to regard this programme as provisional. To-day, after Report of Army Votes, we hope to continue Report of the Supplementary Estimates.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (ALIENS) BILL.
  "To secure that the Labour Exchanges established in pursuance of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, shall not provide an additional incentive to Aliens to enter the United Kingdom." Presented by Mr. GIBBS; supported by Sir George Agnew, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Hicks Beach, and Captain Morrison-Bell; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
  STREET TRADERS BILL.
  "To make provision for the licensing and registration of Street Traders." Presented by Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER; supported by Mr. George Thorne, Mr. Middle-brook, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, and Lord Alexander Thynne; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th March, and to he printed. [Bill 85.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) BILL.
  "To amend the Public Health Acts with respect to Sewers and Drains." Presented by Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER; supported by Sir Thomas Roe, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. George Thorne, Sir Alfred Cripps, Sir Luke White, Lord Alexander Thynne, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, and Mr. Middlebrook; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to the Investment of Trust Funds." Presented by Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER; supported by Mr. George Thorne, Mr. Middlebrook, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, and Lord Alexander Thynne; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
  DOGS' PROTECTION (NO. 2) BILL.
  "To prohibit experiments upon Dogs." Presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBURY; supported by Mr. George Greenwood and Mr. Field; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
  INEBRIATES BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Law relating to Inebriates." Presented by Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH; supported by Mr. Secretary McKenna; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
SUPPLY— [Third Allotted Day.]—REPORT.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Resolution [12th March] reported, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,536,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Major MORRISON-BELL Major MORRISON-BELL rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to move a reduction?
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Yes, Sir. I wish to move a reduction of this Vote by the sum of £100, in order to draw attention to the Territorial Force.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Territorial Force is not on this Vote.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not know whether I am in order on this Vote, but I wish to call attention to the retiring pay of officers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Vote.
  Question, "That the House doth agree to the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,602,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Works,
  1284
  Buildings, and Repairs, Lands, and Miscellaneous Engineer Services, including Staff in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £1,843,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards; Half-Pay; Retired Pay; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
  I move this Amendment in order to call attention to a certain Army Order issued in the year 1909, which alters the age for retirement on a £300 pension from forty-eight to fifty in all cases except where officers have reached the age of forty-six at the date of the issue of the Order. I submit that this reservation is wholly inadequate, and operates so as to do serious injustice to those who have attained the rank of major, and who have had twenty years' service or upwards. There are a number of majors in the Army to-day who are simply serving on in order to obtain their pensions. They are within reach of pensions, but they have had these two years added to the period of their service. In the first place, that appears to me to be a breach of the contract of service entered into by those officers when they first entered His Majesty's Army. In the second place, I should like to submit to the House that keeping on these officers of high ranks, when they know in most cases there is no further chance of promotion for them in their regiments, tends to create a lack of interest amongst, officers generally in the work of their profession, and tends to discourage the younger officers, who are often men of great ability, from remaining in the Service, to the prejudice of the Service and of the regiments in which they were serving. I quite admit there was what is called, I believe, "a revise" made in the course of last year in the case of those who joined earlier in

  1285
  life, so as to enable them to earn their pensions after twenty-eight years' service at the age of forty-eight, and not, as under the recent Army Order, at the age of fifty. That does not touch the case of a large number of officers who join at twenty-two or twenty-three and who have entered the Army through the medium of the university or the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in his Memorandum, lays special strain upon the value of the university candidates in the Service, and he emphasises the fact that there has been seventy-two during the last year to enter the Service through the universities, which was a 10 per cent. increase upon the previous year. But these are the very men who, under this Army Order, are going to have a discount put upon the rewards which they might naturally expect as a result of long service. If you are going to encourage men to go through a university education as a means of access to the Army, surely you ought not to take any steps which would deprive them of the reward which would naturally fall to them in other circumstances at a comparatively early age.
  Both from the point of view of those officers, and from the point of view of the regiments in which they serve as officers, I feel very strongly that this is a reactionary step, and that you ought not to do anything to discourage these men, who in most cases have not the means to enable them to retire from the Army without their pensions, from leaving in ordinary circumstances; they may not leave now until they serve long enough to obtain the pension which they have fully earned. That puts a damper upon the enthusiasm of the young officers, who may be largely impressed by the lack of keenness of their superior officers, and who themselves may transmit that lack of interest to the men they command. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some further relaxation of this Order so as to do justice to men having long service but who joined later than the age of twenty. I ask him, in the interests of the Service, to do nothing to restrain the energy of such men, or to put a damper upon their enthusiasm.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: In August, 1911, Army Order 237, to which my hon. Friend has referred, was issued, and the pension of retired majors over the age of forty-eight is cut down by that Order from £300 to £200 a year. It is, as the hon. Member said, true, that it only refers to
  1286
  those officers rather late in life. This question of altering the conditions under which officers serve is a very important one. It is really a serious hardship to a very large number of officers in the Service. The War Office issued this Amendment to the Royal Warrant in 1911, nine years after the Boer war, but it was during the Boer war that a large number of officers joined the Service over the age of twenty-two and between the ages of twenty-five and thirty, and these in nearly every case are hit by this Order. These officers, having served through the war as volunteers, decided that the prospects in the Regular Army were good, and gave up their own careers in order to join the Army. Although they might not have been able to arrive at the higher ranks of colonel or general, at any rate they had the prospect of being able to retire on £300 a year after attaining the age of forty-eight. Nine years after the war, by a stroke of the pen, the War Office entirely alters the conditions of their service. A journal which is notorious for its support of the Government had a leading article on this matter only last December, in which it described this procedure as larceny by Army Order.
  4.0 P.M.
  That was not an improper description of what has occurred. These officers were not people who joined not knowing the conditions of their service; but they were men of mature age, who looked at the matter from every point of view, and the War Office, acting under the name of the Crown, have no more right to break their bargain with these officers than an officer has to break the contract which he makes to serve his country with loyalty, courage, and devotion. It has been said, in extenuation of the War Office procedure, that this only affects a very few officers. If that is so, it makes the case still more strong for putting an end to this injustice. These officers are in nearly every case men who have seen service, and who are now well advanced in life, and it is particularly hard for them to find that their retiring allowance is cut down, and when they go into civil life they will not be as well off as they had hoped to be. The age of retirement has been raised from forty-eight to fifty, and this has been done in the name of granting them a boon. But it is no boon to make officers serve on for another two years before getting their retiring allowance, but on the contrary it is a very great hardship. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who

  1287
  always treats everybody with the greatest fairness, to seriously look into this matter. We have tried to raise this point at question time, and the usual official War Office answer has been returned to us. This is our only opportunity of bringing the matter forward, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look into it. I know an instance where no less than five officers in one battalion are affected, and I have had letters—one from Egypt, and communications from other parts of the country—showing that these officers are hit very hard by this particular Order. The War Office came out with a Memorandum in December pointing out that in most cases the alterations, as carried out by this amendment of the Royal Warrant, were advantageous to the officers concerned, but in this case it is a great disadvantage, and not only that, but it is a breach of the contract made by the War Office when these officers joined the Service.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: As the Under-Secretary for War can only speak once in reply, perhaps he will allow me to add a word or two at this stage. I invite him to consider the more or less specific requests which have been made by the two hon. and gallant Members who have addressed the House. May I point out that this Vote has not been discussed in Committee, and it deals with the deferred emoluments of the officers, half-pay and retired pay. We all admit that one of our great difficulties is to secure enough of the right type of officer for our Regular forces. There are two ways of accomplishing this object, and one of them I cannot discuss now. The other method many people think of greater value, and it is giving the officers some expectation in middle life when they marry and have to meet greater charges. That is provided for under Vote 13. It is true that in the Army as in any other profession you cannot get your proper share of young men if you do not hold out adequate prospects to them between the ages of thirty-four and fifty. In the Army the prospects of a man after twelve, fifteen or twenty years' service are far less attractive than in any other profession; and less attractive than the Navy and the Civil Service. In the Army there is less certainty than is the case in the Civil Service, and the emoluments are very low. In addition the War Office, acting under pressure it may be from another Department which I will not refer to, are apt either to diminish the amount of the emoluments which the men
  1288
  expect they will receive, or else you attach new conditions to the receipt of those emoluments.
  Under the head of retired pay when an officer serves many years and has perhaps distinguished himself in the field, and wishes to retire he is entitled to a certain number of hundreds a year. Then the Government comes in with a new condition which nobody dreamt of when the officer entered the Service and made his contract with the State. The War Office steps in with a new condition under which they say the officer is not to draw his money unless he serves in the Special Reserve. That condition presses with great hardship on all officers, and it amounts not only to a breach of contract, but to an interference with the whole of the man's wishes and expectations. When you tell an officer who has served in the Cavalry that he cannot draw the pay he has earned unless he becomes an Infantry drill-sergeant in a barrack yard, training the Special Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman, who knows as much about this as I do, knows perfectly well that to force a Cavalry officer who has earned this reward by active long service to take up the work of drilling young recruits for five months in the year is, I will not say undignified, but it is a hardship to which an officer ought not to be exposed. So much for the retired pay, and now I wish to refer to half-pay. Owing to the war a number of officers who had performed distinguished service, who had commanded independent units of all arms in the field, some Infantry, some Cavalry, and some guns under their command, and who led columns, and for two years escaped the disaster which overtook too many of them, those officers for those services so well discharged got promotion, and they were pleased and everyone was delighted. But what a delightful reward they are getting for services of that kind. If you have not employment for them, I think their remuneration for services of such import and so well discharged ought to be something more than is now provided under conditions totally different for officers who have distinguished themselves by leading all arms in the field against the foe.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting forward his case with so much clearness and moderation, and also for his compliment in saying that I know as much about this question as he does. I cannot

  1289
  lay claim to exclusive knowledge in this matter, but from the circumstances of my own life I know a great deal about officers who have retired after service. I will explain this somewhat technical matter. In the first place, I would like to dispose of the suggestion which I think was running through the minds of everyone who has spoken in this Debate, and of those who applauded that suggestion, an idea that this is a design on the part of the War Office to save money by paying officers less than before. If that were so, naturally everything that has fallen from every hon. Member who has spoken would lead to the suspicion that the War Office were not treating their officers fairly. Let me dispel that illusion by giving the estimates which expert financiers have prepared. I think a careful study of the matter will show that those financiers must be right in this case. They inform me that the total amount which the State will have to pay to these commissioned officers in tins respect will be greater than it was before. I hope those hon. Members who have spoken of a breach of faith and of a breach of contract in this matter will accept this statement.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: But that does not affect individual officers.
  Colonel SEELY: No; but it seems to be assumed that the policy of the War Office is to reduce the amount paid to this class of officers, and that is not so. It varies the amounts payable somewhat, and some get more and some get less, but the House may accept it from me that the total is more, and I think we may dismiss from our minds any idea that the War Office is unfairly penalising retiring officers as a class, because that is not the case, as the total amount payable to them is larger, and not less, than it was before. It is said that we are paying some of them too little and some too much, and that we are bound to make the relative amount of officers' retirement pay precisely the same, but I do not accept that view. To accept that view you would have to lay down that not only must an officer be sure of receiving a certain emolument, but also that the people senior to him will retire at the same age and at the same time. To call this a breach of faith is a misuse of language in its strictly accurate sense. One can imagine innumerable cases which would cause more hardship than that which has taken place and will continue when you lay down specific terms under which an officer can continue in the Service. You
  1290
  increase the stringency of the examination for promotion and by a stroke of the pen you increase the advantages of the junior officers below. Will anyone say that it is a breach of faith to raise the standard under which officers can be permitted to command?
  With regard to the actual amounts payable to officers, I would point out that those who were commissioned before 31st August, 1911, have the right to retain the £20 after fifteen years' service, £200 to captains or subalterns, and officers who were majors before that date to retired pay of £300 on retirement for age. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is another one altogether. He raises a question with regard to the 1910 Order, which, of course, is not the same point, as that raised in the Amendment, but similar to it, and one may say germane to it. We have had some discussion on the 1910 Order, but here again it is not a question of a breach of faith, because obviously it is open to the War Office to insist upon officers fulfilling certain conditions before retiring. I demur respectfully to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not right for the State to say when an officer retires he shall serve a certain number of years in a certain branch of the Service. I do not think it is unfair. I think it is absolutely justified. When an officer undertakes to serve His Majesty, he undertakes broad obligations to serve His Majesty for a given number of years under certain conditions. The number of years may be fewer or larger, and it may be open to him to retire under certain conditions or under no conditions, but he undertakes a broad obligation to the State, and for it to be laid down that if an officer wishes to retire and get a pension of a certain amount we are debarred from imposing upon him any conditions as to further service in the Special Reserve or the Yeomanry is a proposition I cannot accept. If it had been put forward when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, unless the War Office was then composed of an entirely different kind of person than it is now, he would have been the first to vehemently repudiate so great an assertion of abrogation from the rights of the Executive.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I cannot accept the fight hon. Gentleman's last remark. I altogether repudiate what he attributes to mo as my sentiment at the time I was at the War Office. It is well known, the

  1291
  retired pay was given at one time to make up for certain other privileges which were withdrawn. It goes right back to the pre-abolition of purchase. It is not fair when you have made a contract with a man to alter the conditions on which you fulfil that contract.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not admit the statement that we have altered the conditions. I have no doubt whatever that the Order of 1910 is strictly within not only the legal, but also the equitable rights of the War Office. There can be no doubt it has resulted in a considerable advantage to the State. I do not admit the officers who give this further service to the Special Reserve or the Yeomanry, if they want to get a pension at an early age, have any grievance, nor do I admit that they feel they are badly treated.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Perhaps we might have one word as to whether—although it may be legal and, at any rate, within the power of the Crown—it is wise to insist on a Cavalry officer going to the Special Reserve instead of to the Yeomanry. That was the sub-head of my first point. My second point was whether, in view of the great number of colonels, you ought not to reconsider the question of reducing half-pay in order to get people to join the Army in the future.
  Colonel SEELY: It is a little difficult to follow the devious courses of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He now springs an entirely new point upon the House, that a Cavalry officer should not go to the Special Reserve.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I mentioned it in my speech.
  Colonel SEELY: It is not a question of being financially unfair, which is the whole point of the Amendment, but a question of policy: whether the mounted officer should be posted to an unmounted arm. I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he will refresh his memory with some of the little books with which he was so well acquainted in days gone by, will find that the Reserve rights amply cover, and more than cover, the Order of 1910. He now puts to me the question whether, even if it is within the law, it is within equity. I submit to the House with confidence that we were justified in making this condition I also submit that it is nearly two years since this happened, and we really cannot possibly go on for ever discussing
  1292
  these points. We are well advised to continue a system under which we get excellent service from officers when they find it necessary or desirable to retire from the Regular Army. With regard to the Order of 1911, I will again point out that it is not a policy of reducing the total emoluments to officers, but a policy of giving rather more to one set of officers and rather less to another set of officers. It was most carefully considered by those at the War Office who have a knowledge of the rights and the wrongs of the question without any idea of economy, because it costs more, and with the sole desire to arrive at a fair decision. The opinion of eminent soldiers was obtained before this scale was changed. It is therefore one which is justified, and which the House can very properly accept.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a very good case for the action of the War Office. I do not admit his contention that, they are within their legal rights, but, whatever the legal position is, surely it is the height of wisdom on the part of a Government Department, not only to keep the letter of the law, but also to keep the spirit of the law. It is notorious that the Army as a whole is very short of officers, and it is not wonderful that it should be so, because in these days an officer has to work, and quite rightly, very hard; he has to pass many examinations he did not have to pass in the old days, and generally he has to lead a strenuous life, whereas twenty years ago, when he had done his morning work, he was practically free unless he was on guard or at manœuvres. That is all changed, and very rightly changed, and yet not only has the pay of the officer not increased, but his retiring allowance and half-pay has not increased.
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes, it has slightly increased.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I admit it has slightly increased, but a junior officer now has very little more prospects of getting higher retired pay than an officer who joined in 1885 or 1890. Surely, it would be good policy on the part of the War Office to stretch the law as far as possible as far as the retired pay is concerned in favour of these officers, for the very human reason that, it they do not, they will still diminish the source from which they draw their officers. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the House will excuse me if I, as a layman, offer a few remarks upon a question connected entirely with the Army. I do so because, in common with a great majority of Englishmen, I have a natural regard for that Army which has filled so glorious a page in the history of our country. I want to deal for a moment with the questions of half-pay, retired pay, and widows' pensions. If we desire to encourage that class of officer which has always in such a distinguished manner upheld the traditions of the English Army, it is necessary we should give him something to look forward to in after years. His retired pay, his half-pay, and the pension which will be granted to his widow if he is a married man, must always be taken into consideration when one considers whether he will join His Majesty's Army. I see the right hon. Gentleman is smiling at my remarks.
  Colonel SEELY: It was only on the point of the widow's pension. He could not look forward to the widow's pension while he was still alive.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, because fortunately women have not yet got into this House and are not yet officers in the Army. Widows, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, are persons of the female persuasion, and cannot look forward to something which would accrue to them if they were in the Army when they are not in the Army. It is the widower or the person who will some day be a widower—the right hon. Gentleman will have to pay the debt of death some day, and his wife will be a widow—who enters the Army, and he will naturally look forward to see what the right hon. Gentleman is going to provide under this Vote. I would suggest he should alter and modify the determination he has already taken. He said this Vote was going to give rather more to one set of officers and rather less to another set of officers. I have not the slightest objection to his giving rather more to one set of officers, but I want to know why he is taking away from others. It is a wrong policy, and it is not a consistent policy. If you are going to give to one set of men, why take away from another set of men? On the contrary, if it is right to increase the various benefits which will accrue to one set of officers under this Vote, it is a fortiori right that all officers should be included in the benefits the right hon. Gentleman is going to give to the one set. I am very glad I had the good fortune to be
  1294
  able to join in this Debte. Although I am, unfortunately, only a member of the civil part of the community, I think this House should express its abhorrence of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and its determination that a man who has devoted the best years of his life to the service of his country should not be treated worse than a man who, after all, has only done the same thing.
  I listened with very great attention to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. No man can make a clearer statement than he when he chooses, and no man can gloss things over better than the right hon. Gentleman when he wishes to do so. I challenge the Fin cial Secretary to point out why it is ne ssary, when increasing the benefits under this Vote to one particular branch of the Service, to decrease them to other branches. Is it because the right hon. Gentleman has received orders in no way to increase the Vote? While he is bound to maintain the efficiency of the officers of the Army, is he afraid to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an additional Grant, in order to enable him to give a similar amount to those unfortunate gentlemen whom he is cutting off with a lesser amount than they received before? Let the right hon. Gentleman exercise his great powers of persuasion on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure if he were to go to him and point out the desire of the House of Commons, as expressed in the Division which will shortly take place on this Vote, that, the increased sum should be given in order that men may be attracted to join the force, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refuse it. Perhaps the Under-Secretary for War will put up the Financial Secretary to state that everything I have said is correct, and to undertake that he will do his best to see that my proposals are carried into effect, and that the amount given to the officers shall be the same in every respect. I hope my protest will not be without some effect. There is not a very large number of Members on the other side of the House. I count only seven, but I will appeal to those seven to support us in the Lobby, and, in the short time at their disposal, to exercise their influence with those who are returning from the smoking room to record their votes also in our favour.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think that the Under-Secretary dealt adequately with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury,

  1295
  and I really doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman even appreciated the point which my hon. and gallant Friend was endeavouring to bring to his notice. Surely it is no answer to the case which has been raised for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We are giving just as much in a lump sum to these officers, or rather more." If it is more, I am not sure that the action of the War Office should not be called into question for exceeding the amount arranged. But I do not think that the gross amount matters to anybody except the taxpayer. What matters to the officer is the amount that each individual will receive, and the whole point is whether the individual officers are going to get the retiring allowance which they were led to expect they would receive when they joined the Army. It seems to me that if any officer on retirement finds that he is going to get less in consequence of the promulgation of this Order than he would otherwise have received he has a distinct grievance against the War Office, and that there has been a breach of contract. The question arises more particularly in connection with the officers promoted to major on and since the 31st August, 1911. These officers joined during the war, and it is natural to suppose that, when they joined, they looked to the whole remuneration, including retirement allowances, which they would get during their short period of service, and calculated the reasonable probability of being called upon to retire with a certain rank. Is it to be supposed that this did not influence their judgment, and that they did not expect to retire as major? To say you are entitled, because they happened to be promoted after a certain date, to cut down the retiring allowance which officers who were promoted before that date have got, seems to me to be going much too far, and it would seem also that in so doing the War Office are breaking their contracts with individual officers. We have so far received no answer on this point.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will look at it from an impartial point of view, and not take for granted what he is told by his advisers at the War Office, I think he will see that these officers are labouring under very great injustice. Here is a case which has been put into my hands as illustrating the point. It is the case of an officer who was first commissioned in 1900, a fortnight before his thirtieth birth-
  1296
  day. In the ordinary course of events he should be promoted major in three or four years' time from now, and then he would be nearly forty-six years of age. Presumably, if he retires under the age regulation as major at fifty years of age his total service would not exceed twenty years, and he will receive a pension of £200 instead of £300, the amount for which he would have been eligible had not this Army Order been promulgated. That is a concrete example of the case I am putting to the House. Will anyone contend that an officer joining in 1900 would only look to the retiring allowance he would get as captain or lieutenant? Of course, he would look to the allowance he would get as major, and the fact that, by the misfortune of the Service, he was only promoted after the 31st August, 1911, surely is no earthly reason why the Government should break the contract which they made with him. I consider it really approaches something in the nature of a scandal. It is, in fact, a gross injustice inflicted upon individual officers. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that the total amount granted is the same as before, if not more? That does not matter at all. If an individual officer gets less, it does not matter to him what the total amount may be. I really think the War Office should reconsider their attitude on this question, and should take care that no one single officer shall get a smaller retiring allowance than he had reason to expect under the terms of service which were in existence when he joined the Army.
  It bears a rather bad complexion, seeing that in time of war you use every endeavour to attract officers to your service—and naturally at such times you get them—if, years afterwards, when peace is declared, and when your promises come to mature, you alter your arrangement with individual officers and give them less than they were led to expect they would receive at the time they joined. In private life actions of this kind are characterised by very hard names. I do not know why the same hard names should not be applied to them when they are committed by a Government Department. I feel the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if, through the Financial Secretary, he would undertake to reconsider this Order, with a view to insuring that officers shall not be thus mulct, and that it shall not be possible for them to say that they have been misled in what I would venture to describe as a thoroughly disgraceful manner.
  Colonel YATE: I wish to raise points in connection with widows' pensions and the commutation of pensions. I think it will be admitted that the pensions to widows of Army officers are too low. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary if he is prepared to consider the question of the pensions to widows of officers killed in battle. There is a most rigorous examination in these cases as to whether the husband has left any money, and if it is found he has done so the widow gets no pension. Surely if a man goes out to fight for his country and is killed in battle his widow should have a pension, whether or not he may have happened to leave her £300 a year. I trust the Financial Secretary will consider this question and see if some reform cannot be effected in this matter. The widows of men who are killed while on active service certainly deserve to be treated liberally. My second point is with regard to the commutation of officers' pensions. We all of us know cases where officers have commuted their pensions and they have eventually found themselves in absolute penury. If such commutation is allowed the Government, I submit, ought not to be permitted to make money out of the transaction. It was acknowledged in answer to a question which I put some time ago that the Government have made many thousands of pounds out of commutations. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to see that the commutation rules are reconsidered, with a view to preventing officers unduly risking their money, and with a view also to insuring that the commutations are carried out on such terms as will enable the officers to get the full advantage of their pension without the Government making any money out of it.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: There is another side of the question of retiring allowances and half-pay. There is no officer or man in the service who does not look forward to what he is going to get when he leaves the Service, and if your retirement allowances are small and inadequate, you reduce the chances of getting officers and men. You will consequently have a shortage of officers for the Regular Army. When the existing shortage was referred to in the course of this Debate, one hon. Member below the Gangway very properly suggested that more men should be promoted from the ranks, but if they are to be they must have proper pensions and retiring allowances to look forward to on leaving the Army.
  1298
  The position of officers in this respect today is more or less of a scandal. Some officers of the British Army get a very great deal less pay than artificers in the engine rooms of the Navy. I do not say that these artificers are overpaid. In my opinion they ought to get more pay. But I do not think the proportion is a correct one. You have added enormously to the work of the officers, and the point I want to raise is this: unless these retiring allowances and widows' pensions, and similar points are attended to, you will continue to get a shortage of officers for your Army, and if it is proposed to fill up a greater number of vacancies with men from the ranks, it certainly is essential you should give them the full advantages to which they are entitled when they leave the Army. There was a promise made last year by the Financial Secretary that attention should be given to the pay of the officers of the Army.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): That does not arise on this Vote.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It arises on this Vote because the half-pay hinges on the full pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord must speak to the question of half-pay.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The promise was then made with regard to full pay. Now I should like to have a promise that the half-pay will be considered. You are going to add to the officers of the Army, and you are very properly going to join men from the ranks. You must increase their allowances when they get on half-pay and retired pay, because the present half-pay and retired pay is not sufficient. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some idea of what will be done in this direction.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I should like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend's (Colonel Yate) request that the pensions of widows of officers killed in action should be taken into consideration. Many hardships have occurred in consequence of the shabby way in which widows of officers killed in action have been treated. It may be that the widow has, for the moment, a certain income, but she may lose that. I think the question of her income ought not to have anything to do with the matter, and that the fact of the officer having been killed in action ought to be quite sufficient to give his widow a

  1299
  certain right on the State. If that were done it would help to remove one of the grievances with which officers have to cope. With regard to the commutation of pensions the State ought not to make money on a matter of that kind. An officer, if he commutes his pension, ought to be in exactly the same position financially as if he did not do so. It is a shabby thing for the Government to make money out of the commutation of pay. With regard to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the reduction, I cordially agree with them that officers who retire ought not to be deceived. They join the Army and serve under certain conditions, and if by the stroke of the pen those conditions are altered for the worse, I think the officers have a distinct grievance. I believe that that has a good deal to do with the shortage of officers with which we are faced to-day. If young officers are expected to join the Army and to serve their time they ought not to be open to maltreatment when they retire. There is only one way in which to get men to serve properly, that is to pay them well and keep faith with them. If the Government do that, they will have a chance of getting the able and energetic young officers that they want, and if they do not do it they will be faced with an ever-increasing shortage, which is apt to lead to disaster in the time of war.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I should like in a few words to say how the new proposal of the Under-Secretary strikes a layman in these matters. I wish the House were fuller than it is, for if everybody really understood what was going forward they would to a man vote against the Under-Secretary, in spite of party ties. It is an amazing theory that he has set forth. It is the theory that if a man signs on with a knowlege that he is going to get certain pay and ultimately a certain pension, further services may be required of him later on in his career, which he must perform before that pension which the Crown promised to give him will, in fact, be paid to him. The matter may go very much further than the Under-Secretary imagines. It may be that hereafter the widow may be expected to give certain services before a pension will be granted to her. Why should the Army be signalled out for this extraordinary change in a contract, for such it really is, a contract with officers which the Government are not ready to fulfil, but which the officers must
  1300
  fulfil under very severe penalties? The ordinary old age pensioner has no services to fulfil beyond the fact that he happened to be born seventy years ago. Why is the Army officer, who is really underpaid at the present time—if he were better paid it would be a far more popular Service—signalled out for this treatment? Those of us who want to see the Army more popular cannot but view with the greatest mistrust and disapprobation these extra services which are put upon men, while the Government is not prepared to fulfil its side of the contract towards a most deserving and energetic class I hope that this Order may be reconsidered by the Government, that this Vote may be put down for another day, and that the Government will see that on all sides of the House there is an undoubted feeling that the officers are being badly treated, and in a manner which should not be extended to any who get their pensions under the Crown.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Financial Secretary that these alterations will not continually be made in the half-pay, and, at any rate, that it will not be reduced again for a period of years. There is no doubt a feeling amongst officers who join under certain conditions that they do not like to find out, after they have done some years' service, that the conditions have been altered. I do not mean to say that when they actually join they think of the amount of retired pay they are going to get, but it certainly brings a certain amount of soreness if, after having served, say, for twenty years, they find that the conditions are altered. I will not refer to my own case, but I will say that it creates a certain amount of soreness if, instead of getting what you expect at the end of twelve years, you have to go on for fifteen years for the same amount. That causes hardship. We should all try to make the Army as popular as we can in view of the great shortage of officers. It is undoubtedly difficult to get officers, and this particular point has a certain bearing upon the popularity of the Service. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hamar Greenwood), who speaks with great force on Army questions, has used the expression that officers are sweated. That is probably not too strong an expression. If the Financial Secretary says now that he cannot reconsider this particular point, let us get an assurance that nothing will be reduced for a period of

  1301
  years, and that the officers' hopes and expectations on retiring are not going to be altered by any Army Order, suddenly issued at a moment's notice. In view of the shortage of officers, we shall welcome any statement that the hon. Gentleman can give us.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: With the greatest reluctance I find myself in absolute disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman the under-Secretary. I think myself that the shabbiest page in English history is the treatment of the broken soldier. In reference to these majors who come under the Order of September last year—and this is the first opportunity we have had of debating that Order—I think they have been treated most shabbily. Most of these men joined at a time, and anyone who has any memory cannot forget it, when the fortunes of war of this country were at a very low ebb, and now, after luckily surviving the hardships of a bitter campaign, by a mere exercise of the will of somebody at the War Office, they suddenly find their retiring allowance reduced, as I understand it, from £300 to £200 a year. To most of these men £100 a year means all the difference between a struggle and comfort. I am bound to confess that in this matter I think the War Office should be most particular as representing the Crown. The Crown, above all persons. If I may describe the Crown as a person, should be most careful, first, in making the contract, and, secondly, in seeing it fulfilled, and that it is not fulfilled in any cheese-paring spirit, but with an allowance on the generous side. In regard to contracts with officers—and I go further and say, even in contracts with the humblest soldier in the ranks—it is not the business of the War Office to exercise a discretion in regard to money or pay unless it has the Vote of the House of Commons. I submit that the Under-Secretary has no right to break the contract made by the War Office with these particular gentlemen without the consent of the House of Commons, and, so far as I am concerned, he will not get my consent to it.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: I wish to thank the hon. Member who spoke last for the kind way in which he backed up what I consider to be a far more important question than £ s. d. to the British Army. I have before ventured to express in this House the view that there should be, from the point of view of common sense and the
  1302
  desire we all have to see the Army properly officered, a feeling that when a man joins the Army he will be treated with a sense of fair play. I am certain from my own experience, and it has been a pretty long one, as a British officer that it is not so much a question of what pay he gets, but whether he will be treated fairly. I know from personal experience that it has happened before, and I am afraid it may happen again, that after a man has joined under certain conditions some alteration has been made in the law, and he is not able to finish his service under the conditions under which he joined.
  5.0 P.M.
  That is one of the deterrents to officers joining the Service at present. It is no use to say that when a boy joins he does not know. If he does not know his parents know, or his guardians know, and he is not allowed to join, whereas if he were treated with fair play I think we might hope to get more out of him for the Army. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this, and to acknowledge that the officer in the Army has as good a right to be treated fairly as any working man in the country. I wish also to say a word in support of what was said by the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford). We all wish to see more promotions from the ranks. We all hope it may be made possible. If you are going to promote men from the ranks, and do not treat them fairly in the way of pay and allowances, they will not accept commissions. I am thankful to say I have always been on the very best terms with the men in the ranks. I have seen them offered commissions, but they are not always accepted with avidity, and they are not always a success when they are given. One of the main points of the men is that they will tell you that the officer is not treated with fair play, and they prefer not to put themselves in that position.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I think if the difference made by this Order is as great as has been represented, between £200 and £300 a year for an officer who retires as major, an explanation is really necessary of the alteration of the Order. As one long serving for a pension, and intimately acquainted with the feelings of Army officers on the subject of pensions, I say it is essential that there should be something determined beforehand which the Government arranges to pay, and to which the officer is looking forward during the whole length of his Service. In India the doctrine is that a pension is deferred pay,

  1303
  and I think we require a clear explanation of this change. It may, perhaps, be said that the prerogative of the Crown extends to the financial Orders about pensions, irrespective of any previous Orders which have been passed, that that is one of the conditions of service of the military force, and that there is no remedy. If that is the case, and if along with that there has been a moral certainty—or, something like it, a reasonable expectation—on the part of a particular officer that at a certain period of the service, on retirement, he could get a certain amount of pension, all the more as a matter of good faith, it is required that the Crown should act up to what was the implied promise.
  Colonel BURN: I should like to say a few words on what I consider to be a very great grievance on the part of retired officers. After all a man serves his country and he knows, or rather he imagines, that after a certain number of years he will be given a pension of so much per annum, but in the event of war many officers who are on the retired list gladly give their services to their country again, as was the case in the South African war, and the War Office on their part are only too ready to employ them. But the retired officer loses all the pension, whatever it may be, that he has earned by so many years service to the Crown. All this is most unjust. If the officer gives his service to his country again, it is a hardship that he should be mulcted in that fashion after he has earned it by so many years service. It is a very small thing for the Treasury. It is not a matter of very many thousands of pounds during the whole of the war, but it is mean treatment to the officer who has done his duty by his country. Moreover, if a soldier has earned a pension, and if he gives his service again to his country during a war, I do not think the War Office would for a moment suggest that he is to lose the pension he has earned. I have never heard this brought up in the House of Commons before, but I know how officers were treated who were in the Army Reserve or who joined the Reserve and once more did their service in the South African war. These pensions were lost to them during the time they were at service in South Africa, and it is not fair and just treatment, because no one for a moment will assert that a pension in any way compensates an officer for the hundreds, and even thousands, that he has spent in
  1304
  twenty or twenty-five years' service in order to earn that pension. Everyone knows that life in a Cavalry regiment cannot be undertaken unless you have an income to meet the expenses which are entailed, and I think when you have bought your pension at a very dear price, if you give your service again to your country, it is not very fair treatment on the part of the State to mulct you of that pension. I do not think anyone would suggest that the income that has been earned by private individuals who join the Service under those conditons should be mulcted, and therefore why are you going to treat the Soldier in this way? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the matter and see that a real injustice is remedied.
  Major BARING: I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is eminently a financial matter, and we have had no apology for the conduct of the Government from the Financial Secretary. His colleague, the Under-Secretary, has done his best to defend him, but the real culprit in this matter is the Department represented by the Financial Secretary. I should like to draw attention to the way in which this policy was undoubtedly settled by the War Office. They went to their financial side and said, "We wish to accelerate the promotion of officers. What can you do for us?" The financial side said, "We will offer a larger retiring allowance to a certain class of officers, and we will set to work and see how we can find the money." When they came to look round, the only way they could find the money was by pinching—that is the only word to use—another class, and that is undoubtedly a shabby way of doing it. It is in the interests of the Service at large and of the taxpayers that there should be better promotion in the Army. The taxpayers and the country at large should pay for it, and there is no reason why, if that is desirable, another class of officers, and especially such a worthy class as are going to suffer under this new policy, should be made to surrender part of their well-earned pension. I cannot help thinking that if hon. Members opposite support the Government in their action to-day they will feel rather ashamed of what they have done. I hope the Financial Secretary will now give the House his reason for the Government's action, and will say whether the outline which I have given of the manner in which this policy was arrived at is not absolutely correct.
  Mr. TENNANT: If I thought that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman informed the House was true I should feel very unhappy. I should be very loth for it to go out to the country and the Army generally that the Army Council have robbed a certain class in order to give better terms to another class. That is not true at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about fair play. There is no one who is more anxious to show not only the strictest fair play, but the most generous treatment to officers than I myself or the Army Council. I am not a military man myself, and I cannot speak with first-hand knowledge, but I am informed that this scheme, which we adopted only last year, has been very well received on the whole. It is a more generous scale than that which we had before. On the whole it is more generous, and for hon. Gentlemen to get up one after the other and say we are mulcting the officers of part of their retired pay is really not to put the matter in the right light at all. It is misleading the public.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it or is it not a fact that some officers are getting less than they otherwise would have got?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether that is so or not. If the Noble Lord would bring any individual case of hardship to me I will certainly consider it. For one case of that kind, suppose it to exist—I want to be very truthful; I do not want to say it cannot exist, because one sometimes makes mistakes—there will be hundreds of cases in which the retired pay will be increased by the new scale. With regard to widows' pensions, of course there should be a proper allowance for widows whose husbands have been killed in action, who have served admirably and probably brilliantly. Page 107 of the Estimate gives this scale. I do not say it is what you would call an over-generous scale—it has been in force for a long time—but I do not think anyone is left out. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any particular item which he would like to consult me about I shall be glad to hear what he has to say. With regard to commutation that is done on a regular scale, which has been in existence for a considerable time. This is the first time my attention has ever been called to it. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is often a great advantage that the recipient of a pension should be able to commute it. It enables the re-
  1306
  cipient to set up in business of various kinds, or it may be that for family reasons the recipient wishes to give something to a son for the purpose of starting him for himself. There are lots of cases of that kind which must occur to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it would be a great pity if there was no power to commute a pension. The hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated that the Treasury was making money out of the system of commuting pensions.
  Colonel YATE: What I said was that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had acknowledged, in answer to a question of mine, that the State had made more than £200,000 out of the system. As regards the question of widows' pensions, there is one point I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to explain anything he has already said, but not to go further than that.
  Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware the Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that the State had made £200,000 by the commutation of pensions, but since the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me I am willing to accept the statement. I am sure all that has not been made in connection with Army pensions. There are a great many other kinds of pensions. With regard to the widows of officers who have been killed, I think they all receive pensions.
  Colonel YATE: Not if they have private means. I ask the hon. Gentleman if that is not an unfair thing if a widow should happen to have £200 a year she should be deprived of a pension?
  Mr. TENNANT: I presume that originally pensions were given in necessitous cases. If the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to cases where widows have been deprived of pensions I will make inquiry. It would not be a proper thing to offer a pension of £150 to the widow of an officer who has a considerable fortune left to her. I do not think that is what the House wants. That really would be a waste of public money, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me.
  Colonel YATE: The pension of £150—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to proceed.
  Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that a person who is left well off should receive a pension of £150, I cannot agree with him, and I do not think the House will agree with him. That is not what the fund is intended for. It is intended for necessitous cases of the widows of men who have served their country. If that is so, I am sure there is nothing in the charge which he brings against the War Office.
  Mr. GIBBS: I certainly think that the scale wants revising as regards the superior officers. When a man becomes a major he has already spent a good many years in the Service, and if he leaves the Army it is very difficult for him to take up civil employment. It is more easy for a subaltern or a lieutenant to take up civil employment. If any revision takes place there should be a greater difference between the pensions paid to widows of captains and lieutenants and those paid to the widows of field marshals, generals, colonels, and majors. I notice that there is only a difference of £20 a year in the pension given to the widow of a major and that given to the widow of a captain. I think the difference ought to be far greater than that. The pension given to the widow of a major ought to be more than £70 a year, and the pension given to the widow of a lieutenant ought to be more than £40.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The reply given by the Financial Secretary shows the gravity of the charge which has been made by my hon. Friend. The case is this. The officers had hopes held out when they joined the Army that certain terms would be allowed to them, although I gather from the hon. Gentleman's answer that the terms of retirement have been made rather better than they were, and that generally speaking there is satisfaction. That is no answer at all to those whose position is made worse—the men who reasonably reckoned on a larger income than they now receive. The difference between £200 and £300 to a man of small means is very great indeed. It is no small matter to him. The Financial Secretary said he knew of no such case. He certainly said that some would receive less and some more. My hon. Friend will produce cases in which it does happen that the position is made worse, but there is no use doing this unless when the cases are brought before their notice the Government can be induced to say that they will make good the
  1308
  loss. We wish to get from the Government an assurance that officers will be allowed to choose between the terms of retirement under the new Order and the old Order. If the new Order gives better terms, they should be allowed to go on under it, but if the old Order is better, they should be allowed the terms it gives. The question of public expenditure in this relation is not important, and yet it is highly important to the individual concerned. A matter of a few hundred pounds a year to the Treasury is not a matter of importance, but a few hundred pounds a year to the officers concerned is all-important. I do press the Government to give us an assurance that in the limited number of cases where officers will be reduced from what they had reason to anticipate they will allow these officers to go on under the old Order.
  This is a matter that greatly affects the honour of the public Service. If you induce people to come into your service by holding out hopes and then disappoint them, you do what would be regarded in the ordinary relations of life as a shabby and dishonourable thing. I am sure no hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would dream of treating one of his own domestic servants as the Government propose to treat these officers. They would not say, "We hold out the hope that you will have a pension of so much," and then say, later on, "You are only to have a pension of two-thirds of the amount." I put it to the Government that they are creating an atmosphere of discredit round military employment. These things give the impression that officers are not fairly treated, that the Army is a poor profession, and that no one looking to his own interest will serve the Crown in that way. It is that general impression that lies at the root of the great shortage of officers. People say, "You are turned out at middle life and. have no future before you." Both as a matter of policy and of honour I press the Government to give us an assurance that these officers will be allowed to choose between the old Order and the new Order, and to say which they will come under.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I desire to say a few words on the same lines as the Noble Lord. The Financial Secretary, like his distinguished colleague, is, if I may say so, a kind of rabbit. The right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) had been sitting there in his burrow the whole time, and it took a great deal of effort on the

  1309
  part of hon. Members to get him out of it. When he did come out of it I must say he did not retire unscathed back to his burrow again. When men join the Army, like anything else, they join under certain conditions exactly as the Noble Lord said. If you engage a servant you tell him what his conditions are, and if he has a fixed retiring sum you tell him what it is. In the Civil Service you deal with a man in exactly the same way. But that is not the method with the Army. Since I joined I think the terms have altered three times altogether. It is not fair, I think, to break your contract with a man who cannot, so to speak, protect himself without running the risk of ruining his position. It is not fair to alter the conditions if you want to economise—well, I will not put it on the grounds of economy, but you have no right to alter the conditions on which a man joins without his consent. You ought to give him a choice of one or other Order. If you were making money on the change I could understand the reason for altering the terms, but if you are not making money on it, why not give him a choice?
  It certainly is quite wrong, if a man joins the Army under certain conditions, and is told that when he leaves after so many years' service he will get £100, that the contract should not be kept. That £100 is really a sort of deferred pay. You have not been paying enough while he is in the Service. It is surely not right that he should be asked to give his service again in order to get that, when you have already told him he may get it without service. If you want Reserve officers to go and serve in the Army afterwards, you can say, "Yes, you are entitled to the pension we give you, but if you go and serve on the Special Reserve, we are prepard to pay you a still further retaining fee." The question I wish to ask is, Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair that the Government should break its contract with the officers and change it in that way? That is really the whole point I wish to raise. What in now being done by the Government in this matter makes a very bad impression on the whole of the country. Fathers put their sons into the Army, and they are really the best recruiting agents. They will say, "This is not good enough; we will not put them into the military service."
  Colonel SEELY: I can only say a word by leave of the House, but I desire to remove a misapprehension. If any blame is to be imputed in this matter at all,
  1310
  which I do not believe, it is applicable not to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Tennant), but to myself. The Army Council Votes come under my special purview as Army Councillor, and not under that of my hon. Friend. I admit that the Army Council system is not fully applicable to debates in this House. The other point on which I have been specially appealed to is to say that we do not mean-to treat officers unfairly. This matter was considered and settled by a Committee on which a large number of distinguished officers sat. Therefore it is possible, and even likely, that the view that I put forward to the House earlier in the day that no injustice was in point of fact effected, and still less intended, is probably the correct one. It was impossible to save money over it; indeed, it is admitted that there was a slightly extra cost; and it is inconceivable that distinguished officers should have recommended steps so unjust as the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) seems to think were recommended.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right to impose service on a man for his money where formerly he got the money without service?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that we can go back on the question of officers going into the Yeomanry and Special Reserve. There is a conflict of opinion as to whether it is just or not. I think it is. I have said all that I can say on that point. The Financial Secretary said that if there are any cases of hardship—I believe that if there are any there are very few—they would be carefully inquired into. As responsible Minister I repeat that pledge, that if there are any individual cases of hardship caused by that Order they would be inquired into. I understand that this point will be raised on the Secretary of State's salary, and it can then be thoroughly thrashed out. Meantime, as we have spent two hours on this matter, and in view of the important concession that has been made, I hope the House will now come to a decision.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask can this question be raised on the Secretary of State's salary? If not, I would suggest that the Government might consent to adjourn this Motion until later on.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The matter comes up on Report, and it will be then for you to decide.
  Mr. SPEAKER: When, if ever, we reach that point, I will decide it.
  Question put, "That the sum of £1,843,000 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 117.

  Division No. 39.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Parker, James Halifax

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Hackett, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Alden, Percy

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hay ward, Evan

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barnes, George N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Barton, W.

  Hinds, John

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Beale, William Phipson

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Radford, George Heynes

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Boland, John Plus

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

  Brace, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brunner, John F. L,

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Keating, Matthew

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Clough, William

  Lansbury, George

  Sheehy, David

  Clynes, John R.

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Leach, Charles

  Shortt, Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Crooks, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Snowden, Philip

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant Harold John

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Verney, Sir H.

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duffy, William J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Webb, H.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Mooney, John J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Grady, James

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Greenwood, Glanville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Ashley, W. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Barnston, Harry

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gwynne, R S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanier, Beville

  Campion, W. R.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cassel, Felix

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo.Han. Sq.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  M'Ncill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Wills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Foster, Philip Staverey

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Major Archer-Shee.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nield, Herbert

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. ASHLEY: Before we pass this through I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to certain details connected with this very voluminous Vote. At the bottom of page 102 you will find the statement. "One Field Marshal (British Establishment), although not in Army employment, receives no half-pay whilst employed as Agent and Consul-General in Egypt."
  I object entirely to the principle that because Lord Kitchener is employed under the Government he should have his half-pay docked. That is a principle which has been very much objected to by hon. Members opposite, and especially by hon. Members below the Gangway. The Government say, "Here is a distinguished officer who by his past services is entitled to a certain amount of half-pay as long as he is not employed by the War Office. But because he is employed by another Government Department he shall therefore not receive his half-pay as long as he is so employed." That is an entirely wrong principle. We on these benches often have been abused because we employ old soldiers in receipt of pensions, and we perhaps are able to employ them at less wages than we otherwise should do. We are called sweaters, and every sort of accusation is made against us. What is wrong in that case is equally wrong with the Government Department. I ask the Finan-
  1314
  cial Secretary to explain on what grounds of justice he has docked Lord Kitchener the half-pay which he is entitled to, and which he has earned by his past services to the British Empire, because he happens to be filling a most important post under the Foreign Office in Egypt at the present moment?
  Then, on page 103, he will see that the rates of half-pay are rather extraordinarily arranged. A colonel gets £300 a year, and a lieutenant-colonel gets £300 a year, half-pay. It seems to me rather badly arranged. Either the colonel is getting too much or the lieutenant-colonel is getting too little. On active service their pay is different, and why should they receive the same amount on half-pay? Then there is the question of lieutenant and second lieutenant. The lieutenant gets from 3s. to 4s. 8d. a day, whereas the second lieutenant's half-pay ranges from 3s. to 3s. 2d. a day. Why does the one get so much or the other so little? There is a distinction in the ranks. The second lieutenant is an officer who has served probably in the Cavalry for two or three years, or, in the case of the Guards, for four or five years. It seems to me absurd to say that the retired pay of these two ranks should be the same. The minimum in each case is the same, but we know that the length of service as between the two ranks is very different. At the top

  1315
  of page 104 we see that a general officer who has been in command of a regiment, on retiring receives from £990 to £1,185 a year. The general officer who has not had the luck to command a regiment, but has seen just as much active service, on retiring receives from £600 a year up to £1,000. Why should a general who is lucky enough to obtain command of a regiment receive such a large amount of money compared with the officer who does not receive the command of a regiment? I think it is very hard on an officer who has perhaps not had so much social influence to obtain command of a regiment should retire on £600 a year, whereas a man with social influence who has obtained command of a regiment gets £990 a year. At the top of page 105 I see that the chaplain-general when he retires receives £600 a year. I do not complain of that.
  There is only one chaplain-general, and I think £600 is not too much for him to receive. But when I look at the bottom of the page I see that officers of the Colonial and the Irregular forces who went through the South African war receive retired pay ranging from 3s. to 10s. a day—that is to say, those officers who went through the South African war from 1899 to 1902 are retired at the rate of £55 a year to £180 a year, whereas a chaplain-general, who may never have seen a shot fired, retires at the rate of £600 a year. I submit to the House that that is a very great disparity. Either the chaplain-general is getting too much or these officers are getting very much too little. Personally, I consider that the officers are paid too little. The officers of the Colonial corps, who came forward to help this country in the time of her greatest need when our Regular troops required reinforcement, were men who sacrificed their profession, many of them their businesses, in order to come to the aid of the Mother-country, and yet at the present moment they are receiving the paltry rate of £55 a year, or £1 a week up to a maximum of £3 a week. I should like some information as to the chaplain-general's £600 a year retired pay, and as to the retired pay of a chaplain at the rate of £340 a year, while officers of the Colonial corps receive only £180 a year.
  Mr. TENNANT: The first point is as to the field-marshal who is in Egypt, and the answer to the question put by the hon. Gentleman is that the salary is a matter of private arrangement with Lord
  1316
  Kitchener, who made no objection; in fact, it was an agreement with him that he should be paid whatever he is paid, and that his half-pay should not be given to him in respect of his services, because he is receiving his present salary. I do not know what that salary is.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it only a private arrangement in the case of Lord Kitchener, or is it a special arrangement made under the Regulations?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is both; it is a special arrangement under the Regulations, and it is by private agreement that Lord Kitchener is getting what is paid him now. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the amount?"] I understand that he gets the same salary as his predecessor got at the Foreign Office. I do not know the amount. The hon. Member asked why a colonel and a lieutenant-colonel should receive half-pay at the same rate. I do not see why they should not. These scales have been arranged for a long time. They are not new; and there has never been any particular reason for altering them; nobody has ever suggested that they should be altered. If the hon. Gentleman could give any adequate reason why they should be altered, one might consider it. The hon. Gentleman simply asks the question why two sorts of colonels get the same half-pay, and the answer is that it has always been done, and no reason has been given as to why the course hitherto pursued should be altered. As regards the chaplain-general, whose retired pay is £600 a year, while, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the officers of Colonial corps receive from £55 to £180 a year, I would answer that the chaplain-general is a very distinguished officer, who has been in the Service a long time, and £600 a year does not seem out of place, as I am sure the House will agree. I should like the House to note that while it is the function of this House to keep guard upon the expenditure, all that hon. Gentlemen opposite ever do, as far as I can make out, is to suggest that we ought to spend more money on the Army, and not less.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: On officers!
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: We have not come to the men yet.
  Mr. TENNANT: It is quite true that the officers' pay has not been increased, but that subject is not in order at this time. For officers of the Colonial and Irregular Forces £185 a year does not seem to me at

  1317
  all inadequate. Indeed, I am rather agreeably surprised that they are remunerated on that scale. I think I have answered all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not rise to criticise the reply of the Financial Secretary. He has attempted to answer the four technical points put to him, but I must take exception to what he said. Under our present proceedings the policy of the Estimates can be rarely ever reviewed, and it really is a complete departure from the purpose for which this House exists if a Minister who responds for the Estimates says that there is nothing new in those Estimates, and that they hare existed for ten years. In older days every one of those Estimates was closely examined by this House, and if, now and again, the Army Estimates do come up for criticism, then I say, with all submission, the Ministers who are responsible for them should be prepared—as the hon. Member was—to answer any questions which are addressed to them. I think that must be laid down. When the hon. Member says that we are here to diminish expenditure, I must point out that questions with respect to individuals often raises large questions of policy in regard to which individuals may have a great effect over the whole Army. I must tell the Under-Secretary quite frankly that my hon. Friends are not satisfied with his reply on the Amendment, and, as this is a matter of so much importance, they asked me to move the adjournment of the Debate, but I do not see my way to do that. After this discussion the Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary will give their attention to this matter, and I want, if we can, to get to the very important Vote which comes next, and which deals with pensions, awards, and gratuities of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and men in the Army. That is a matter which has been rarely discussed, and I hope will be discussed this evening.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for War for some information as regards items on Page 109:—
  "Annuities payable for ten years to the National Debt Commissioners for the repayment of sums advanced by them in commutation of pensions for wounds in each of the following years."
  6.0 P.M.
  Then I see, beginning with 1901 and going down to 1904, that no commutation has been made, but I see that in the years commencing with 1905 and ending with 1911 that in each of those years commuta-
  1318
  tions were made amounting in one or two cases to fairly large sums. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers this a wise policy. I know that some Friends of mine on this side of the House will not altogether agree with the views I hold upon this question. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), with whom I was discussing this question, rather disagreed with me and was in favour of the policy of commutation of pensions, whether for wounds or anything else. I think it is a mistaken policy, not from the point of view of the Government, but from the point of view of the recipient of the pension. In nine cases out of ten the lump sum received for the pension is generally spent within a very short time. It is put into some little business, or used for the purchase of a house, or for some other purpose, and very often the unfortunate person who is attracted by the expectation and hope of getting a large sum in his hands finds that he is very much worse off than if he had been content to get his certain allowance, which would have kept him, if not in comfort, at all events out of the workhouse for the remainder of his days. The right hon. Gentleman may get up and tell us that the Government saves money, but, though I am and always have been a great believer in national economy, I do not believe in national economy when you are going to get the better of certain people who have served you well, and without too great remuneration. I have a little diffidence in speaking on this point when there are so many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen connected with the Army. I must not discuss this practice in connection with the men, as it arises on another Vote, but I hope the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), who is a great supporter of the private soldier, will, when the next Vote comes on, support me in preventing the Government saving a little money by commuting the pension of the private soldier. I feel very earnestly on this subject, which I mention, not with any desire to prevent the officer receiving the lump sum, but because I believe he would be better off if he remained a pensioner. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that it is at the option of the gentlemen themselves. That is not the point. You must sometimes look after people and see that they are directed in the right way. The right hon. Gentleman should look after these people and should

  1319
  not put temptation in their way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take my remarks to heart.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Member for Blackpool referred to the retiring allowance of the Chaplain-General, and contrasted it with the allowance given to the officers attached to the Colonial corps in South Africa. I am perfectly certain my hon. Friend in bringing that matter forward did not in the least wish to reflect on the Chaplain-General, who is a very distinguished officer, and it would be well that no impression of the kind should get outside the House. He merely wished to contrast the two things. I desire to ask a question about the chaplains. It appears that for the two years the number of the chaplains has not varied, but the retiring allowances vary by £91, the respective totals being £12,894 and £12,803. As the numbers remain the same, what is the reason of the difficulty?
  Mr. TENNANT: The chaplains are given retired pay according to the length of service, and therefore there is a slight difference between one year and another.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: But the numbers do not vary.
  Mr. TENNANT: It is length of service.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: On the subject of the commutation of pensions, I do not entirely agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), for the reason that I think it would be difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule on this subject, and I do not think it would be fair to do so. There is many a man who wishes to realise, at any rate, a certain portion of his pension. He may want to go to Canada, or he may think that it will be better for him to realise it than to give the Government the advantage if he died in a year or two. I think I am right in stating that only half the pension may be commuted. Under those circumstances I consider it would be far better not to interfere with the present Regulations. As to the point raised by the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) with regard to the pension of colonels and lieutenant-colonels, I cannot understand, like the hon. Member, why, if a lieutenant-colonel receives £300, a colonel should not receive more. It may be that the lieutenant-colonel is receiving too much, but it may be that the colonel is receiving too little. In any case, I cannot
  1320
  see that it is just or fair that a man who who has served in the rank of colonel should only receive the same as the lieutenant-colonel. They are two different ranks. If you do that, why not make the general retire on the same allowance as the colonel or the field marshal. Surely that would not be common sense. A man is not promoted to the rank of colonel unless he has performed good and efficient service as a lieutenant-colonel, and you might just as well say that a subaltern is entitled to the same pension as a colonel.
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad to see that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, is a convert to paternal Government, as he urges us not to allow the commutations of pensions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we get a great many requests from officers for commutation. We impose certain restrictions and, on the whole, I think we have held the balance evenly between the view which he holds and that which has been expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. It is rather hard to impose even as many restrictions as we do because there are many cases where an officer wants a lump sum either to secure a house to live in or for some such reason. With regard to the allowance to colonels and lieutenant-colonels that has been the rate for a number of years, and if we were to alter it we should be exposed to the same attack as we were exposed to in having altered the relative status of officers. There is a great difficulty in making an alteration, though I admit at first sight it is anomalous that a lieutenant-colonel should get the same rate as a colonel. It would be impossible to alter it without criticism, except in the case of future officers, where it would not be effective for twenty years or more.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Can you not give the colonel a little more?
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,917,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; of Out-Pensions; Rewards for Distinguished Services; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  There are two points to which I desire to draw attention. The first is with regard to the pensions given to soldiers when they receive employment in the Post Office or other branches of the public service. I think that the public service, whether in the Army or the Post Office, should be treated exactly the same. I think if a man has been in the Post Office and goes into the Army he ought to be allowed to count his service in the Post Office towards his pension from the Army. Equally so, I think if he goes from the Army to the Post Office he ought to be allowed to count his service in the Army towards his pension. Take the case of two men, one of whom joins the Post Office service and the other the Army. The man in the Post Office counts from the day he started. Then, in the other case, if the man leaves the Army and goes into the Post Office—
  Colonel SEELY: On a point of Order, I would ask whether it is in order that on this Vote, although, no doubt, it is an important matter, and has been discussed frequently, it would not affect the charge coming on the Army Estimates if the proposal which the Noble Lord makes were adopted. It would increase the charge on the Post Office and other branches of the Civil Service.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I was about to interpose. The Noble Lord must raise his point on the Post Office Estimates, out of which the pensions should, in the Noble Lord's opinion, be paid. The pension earned during the man's engagement in the Army is paid to him in any event out of Army Estimates.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I was afraid it might be out of order. If I take the case of a man who goes into the Post Office first and then goes into the Army, the difference will fall on the Army Votes. I know several such cases. It is an important point, and evidently it is one the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to discuss.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister to discuss it is the Postmaster-General.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I hope we shall get an opportunity of discussing it another time, as it affects the
  1322
  question of recruiting, which is a very important one for the Army. I wish also to refer to the Regulations affecting the grant of good conduct medals. The matter is dealt with in Article 1743 of the King's Regulations. Under the Regulation a man, before he can get a good conduct medal, must serve eighteen years. During the last sixteen of those years he must not have had more than six entries on his defaulter's sheet, and he must have an absolutely clean sheet for the the last nine years. There are certain qualifications of that requirement. If a man performs an act of gallantry on service he may cancel one of the entries on his defaulter's sheet, but the entry must not have been incurred during the last nine years of service. A man might have seven entries in the first nine years of his service, and if he performed an act of gallantry he would be able to knock off one of them, leaving six only, which would entitle him to a good conduct medal. Then take the case of another man who during the whole of his eighteen years did not commit a single fault, and had seven acts of gallantry put to his credit during a campaign. The man might have been as gallant as the right hon. Gentleman himself was in South Africa. When the right hon. Gentleman came back from the war no doubt he was very happy, all his friends feasted him, and so on. But he is an educated man, who can look after himself. No doubt, too, he had his mess out there, and was not kept from drink the whole time. But suppose this man had been three years in the war, and had not seen a glass of beer during the whole time. On coming home the War Office gives him his pay in a lump sum. There are a lot of sharks about, who perhaps get him into trouble, and the man in the last few months of his service is run in. For that one entry in the last year of his life in the Army he is debarred from getting a good conduct medal. I think that is eminently unfair. I quite understand what the War Office is aiming at. They say, "We do not care what a man is when we get him. We reform him, and if during the last nine years he has been a really good character he ought to be entitled to a good conduct medal." I hold, however, that a man with six entries at the beginning of his career is not as good a man as the one who never had an entry in the whole of his eighteen years, except for the one accident, perhaps after a campaign in which he performed several acts of gallantry. The medal is enormously prized, and is a great help to

  1323
  a man in getting employment after he leaves the Service. I think the Regulation ought to be altered. I do not want it relaxed in a sense, but I think we do too much at one end of the scale and too little at the other. I agree that the Regulations must be strict, but there might be a little latitude allowed to commanding officers, who know more about the men and how they have conducted themselves, to decide whether or not an entry in the last year of service should be passed over.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the proposed reduction. I agree with every word said by my Noble Friend about the advantage it is to a man in obtaining civil employment if he can show that he has received a good conduct medal. The point I particularly wish to raise is with regard to the reduction in the pensions, compassionate allowances and gratuities, to the widows and children of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. The amount this year is £47,870, as against £52,700 last year. I wish to know why that reduction has taken place. It may possibly be urged that the number of men in the Army is not so large as it was a few years ago. But it must be remembered that soon after we were, unfortunately, blessed with the advent of a Liberal Government the number of men in the Army was considerably reduced. Therefore, I do not think that that would be a very sound argument. There must be some other reason. The probability is that there has been some of what was described a little while ago as "pinching" on the part of the Government. The items on which the Government exercised the very small love of economy which is in them are these small items, which they pick out for economies of a few hundred pounds. They are matters of no importance when one considers the object for which the money is required. Even from the financial point of view there is not much gained by these small economies. I am not as a rule against small economies, but in this particular case they are not very wise. I notice, on the other hand, that out-pensions have increased by £25,000. It seems rather curious that out-pensions should have increased so much while other pensions have diminished.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to page 119 he will find a footnote:—
  "Certain lands and premises, the property of Kilmainham hospital, of the nominal rental value of £67, are let to the War Department, but no rent is paid for them."
  1324

  This is a very small point, but these are the only occasions on which we have the opportunity to criticise the action, and especially the book-keeping of the Government. This is a question of book-keeping. What is the object of occupying the property of Kilmainham Hospital and not paying a rental? I shall probably be told that there is a cross-entry, that it will appear on the one side as an asset of Kilmainham Hospital, and on the other side as a debit to the Army Votes, and that it will come back again in the form of an Appropriation-in-Aid. That is true. But the system is wrong. The amounts actually paid and received should be set out clearly in the accounts, not only of the Army, but of every other branch of the National Service. To leave out any mention of rental for this property and merely put in a footnote of this kind is very slovenly and slipshod book-keeping. I am sure that the Chief Secretary, with his great experience of banking, will agree with me. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I succeeded the right hon. hon. Gentleman on the board of one of the large London banks, and I know the reputation he left behind him there. What does the Undersecretary mean by the nominal rental value? Why is not the real value put in? Does he not know what the real value is? Does not the Financial Secretary know? Apparently nobody knows what it is, and therefore, to avoid any difficulty, they put in the nominal rental. Surely we ought to know whether the most is being made out of this property. I see an hon. Member from Ireland below the Gangway, and I believe Kilmainham is in Ireland. Here is another grievance to Ireland, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will assist me in ventilating. I do not know that I have anything further to say upon that point, but I really do trust that we shall have a further explanation when the right hon. Gentleman replies. On page 118 I see an item, "Pensions to widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men killed or dying during war service," and later I see, "Pensions to the widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force accidentally killed on duty." This latter comes to a very small amount: widows £46, children £22. The next item I note is: "Gratuities to soldiers' widows on remarriage, £600." It seems to me that the £46 and the £22 are very small, and I should like to know why? It has been suggested to me that the reason is that

  1325
  when a non-commissioned officer or man of the Territorial Force is killed on duty that his dependents do not always receive what under this Estimate we in our innocence suppose they will receive.
  I am unfortunately not a member of the Territorial Force. I have been, however, told on very good authority that what happens in a case of this sort is that the Territorial Force is say on duty, and the guns are going into action: The team runs away; two drivers are seriously injured—not killed on the spot. They are taken away, and they linger for a fortnight, by which time the Territorial Force is no longer on duty, its members having gone back to their civil vocations. The men, therefore, are not actually on duty when they die. I am told that the pension to the widows and children can only be granted if their bread-winner is killed while actually on duty. The War Office shield themselves under the plea that the death of the man did not actually occur while he was on duty. I am not making what in my opinion is a very serious charge against the War Office, because I am not really in a position to say whether this is what actually does occur; but the information I am putting forward is from a man who is never, or rarely ever wrong, and I should like some explanation. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and say that I had discovered a "mare's nest," but I am afraid it is not so.
  Another point. I see on page 114, Chelsea Hospital—Assistant Secretary, salary £750. The amount has the letter B attached to it. Looking down I see that B connotes, "Personal to present holder." Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us what there is personal to the present holder which entitles him to receive this amount? I presume the next holder will receive a less amount. In addition to the Assistant-Secretary, I see there are twenty clerks, including boy clerks, employed at the Chelsea Hospital at salaries amounting to a very considerable sum. These staff clerks have salaries rising £350 to £450 per year. I should have thought that was a very large number of clerks to carry on the necessary work at the hospital. I have always held the view that we waste a considerable sum of money in our Army by payment for the civil services of clerks when a greater part of the money ought to go to the militant section. Again, I may be possibly wrong here——[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,
  1326
  hear"]—I did not say I was, I only said I possibly might be; and twenty clerks may be necessary to carry on the work, but I should have thought if we had what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would call a "business Government" the work could be done with less than twenty clerks, and the money given to those objects which I have outlined as requiring a little more expenditure upon them.
  Colonel SEELY: I rise at once to answer the points put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, though (referring to the presence of Mr. A. J. Balfour) the House will note with pleasure that there are two Members for the City of London present. [General cheers.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will realise from the response with which that announcement is greeted that the pleasure of seeing him back is by no means confined to one side of the House. With regard to the points raised, I shall endeavour to reply, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, who has given way to me, has a point to put forward, of course I shall gladly answer it afterwards. I think, however, I had better answer the questions put to me while they are fresh before the House. As to the medal granted for good conduct, it is quite true that it is a very great assistance to the men, but that is only because, it is so sparingly given. If you were to relax the Regulations under which it is given you would pro tanto reduce its value. It is not as though the award of these medals and the consequent allowance which go with them are diminishing. I am glad to say the awards are increasing. No man, even the sternest economist, would be sorry to see that they are increasing. The numbers have increased largely. Speaking from recollection, from 1903–9, six years, the numbers have nearly doubled. If the Noble Lord will look at the provisions in this year's Estimates he will see that during the last year there has been an increase of no less than £2,000.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The right hon. Gentleman mistakes me. My point was that it was the wrong men that get it. You give it to the worst men, and do not allow the better men to have it.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not agree with the Noble Lord in this, as in many other, things. He may be right; I think he is wrong. I think the system that he proposes will not give the medal to the better men; it would only open the door wider

  1327
  to a much cherished distinction. I cannot agree that the proposal of the Noble Lord would be in the best interests of the men, although, no doubt, it is so intended. As to the points put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, I took a note of five. The first point is about pensions to widows. The hon. Baronet asks why they have decreased, while, conversely, the pensions to men have increased. The answer is that only one thing can happen to a man to rob him of his pension. Generally speaking, that is that he should die. Other things may happen to the widow and children. Of course, they can die like other people, but, in addition, the widows may remarry. They then receive one year's pension, and no more. The children, too, only receive the pension up to a certain age. These are pensions given in respect mostly of soldiers who died during the South African war, and on active service. As that period gets more remote, of course, the number of pensions will diminish. I can assure the hon. Baronet that in this case it is not parsimony on the part of the Government.
  The next point was with regard to the assistant-secretary of Chelsea Hospital. The footnote B, "Personal to present holder," means that this higher rate is given to the present holder because of his exceptional long service, and because he is an exceptionally well-qualified man. The note is one meant to all and sundry that the next man will not get so much. This, therefore, is an advance towards economy which I think the hon. Baronet will support. As to the twenty clerks, so far as my knowledge goes—and it so happens that I am ex officio on the committee which dispenses pensions—these clerks are necessary. I agree with the hon. Baronet that a most careful watch requires to be kept to see that the staff does not unduly increase. But I am told that they have plenty of work to do, and that they work very hard as well. Then there is the important point in principle, although not in amount, in relation to Kilmainham Hospital—this nominal rent of £67 per year. I frankly throw myself on the mercy of the House. I do not understand why a nominal rent only is charged, and no one whom I can find on the telephone or elsewhere knows either; but this I do know, that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Birrell), whose reputation as a banker I am glad to find stands so high
  1328
  in the estimation of the hon. Baronet, tells me that it makes no difference whatever to the public purse. It is a fact that what is called a nominal rent only is charged, but it would make no difference at all whether you charge £67 or £6,700, for they both belong to the State. It is a matter of accurate accounting. I undertake before next year that this matter shall be carefully looked into, and if it can be put under a more appropriate heading, or on a more businesslike footing, it certainly shall be done. At the same time I must guard myself by saying that the thing is strictly in accordance with business precedents, and that this is a proper method of accounting for this item. I trust I have now dealt with all the points.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What about the question of the Territorials?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes. I think there are two accounts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it given when men die from accidents or in a fortnight afterwards?
  Colonel SEELY: The point is this hardship may arise in the particular case, in the case, for instance, of a man being run away with when on a gun and dying as a result. His widow would receive a pension or a gratuity; but hard cases often arise, cases which are on the border line, and are sometimes brought to the notice of the House, where the question is whether a man has been on duty. These cases apply not only to the Army, but the Civil Service. A man may be run over when going to his office; the question arises then, was he on duty? According to the Treasury, he is only on duty when in his office, or, in the case of the Army, when on parade. There the case put by the hon. Baronet would not arise, but inquiries are being made as to when liability does arise with the view to regulating compensation where injuries are received, and with a view to seeing whether what is now regarded as being on duty would under an amended scheme be brought in.
  Mr. J. WARD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary a question or two relating to some of the matters in the items that have already been dealt with by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. The suggestion is made that the pensions for the men are increased, but that pensions for the widows are decreased.

  1329
  On turning to the Estimates one discovers there is a deduction of something like £25,000 in the sum total to be paid to the men this year in the shape of pensions by Chelsea Hospital. I get many hundreds of applications from all over the country for pensions from Chelsea Hospital. When I refer to page 116, which deals with pensions and other uneffective charges for non-commissioned officers, etc., I find a reduction of nearly £25,000. I have been wondering whether the Department is tightening up the Regulations as regards the granting of these pensions. At any rate such hard cases have been brought under my notice recently that I have begun to collect the names of the men, the regiments to which they belong, the services they rendered, and the replies they receive when they applied for pensions to Chelsea Hospital, and I have already a budget of men who have done ten, twelve, and thirteen years' service, either actually with the Colours or the Reserve, and whose health has been broken by foreign service, and these men are not entitled to a fraction of compensation or pension in any shape or form. When I get the whole list together it will be an eye-opener for those who look upon the Army as affording a reasonable outlook for success in life. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that service with the Colours only counts, and that no amount of time in the Reserve is calculated for pension in any circumstances? I understand that in order to avoid pensions in the case of poor men, privates and noncommissioned officers, the tendency is to curtail the period of service with the Colours and to extend the period of service in the Reserve with the sole idea of cutting down the expenditure we are now discussing. I am not sure whether that is so, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary whether that is the policy that has been pursued, and whether it does not account a good deal for the grievances of the men whose cases I am dealing with.
  On page 118 I find the hon. Baronet opposite only referred to the case of one or two higher up on the page, but down at the bottom I find that in the last year in the case of three widows the pension is put down at £69. One would scarcely imagine that that pension is sufficient for one, let alone three. Taking the case of non-commissioned officers or men who were either injured or died from war service, I find that in the case of a private soldier
  1330
  being killed his wife is entitled to 5s. per week pension only, and if he left children 1s. 6d. a week is considered sufficient for their keep. Why if these people were to dispense entirely with this charity, for it is nothing else, and were to apply for out-relief, the guardians would not have the impertinence to offer these poor people 1s. 6d. to keep a child for a week. As a matter of fact the rate of out-relief for any pauper is infinitely superior to this sum for the widow of a soldier who has been actually killed in the service of his country. When one considers how we spend money by the million in things that are of very doubtful value, and how cheeseparing we are when it comes to the point as to whether we should give decent recompense to those left behind as the result of the death of men in the service of their country, it is remarkable indeed that year after year this House should allow these figures to continue without making some effort to improve them. I should be out of order if I were to move an increase in the Vote, and I should not like, of course, to move to reduce it. If it was a question of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, I should go into the Lobby with the hon. Baronet opposite so vexed do I feel at the way the common soldier is treated, not only himself, but his wife and family.
  I thank the House for affording me this opportunity of drawing attention to what I consider to be one of the most disgraceful things in connection with Army administration, namely, the small amount of care we give to the dependents of the private soldier who loses his health in foreign service. Here are men who have done six or seven years' service with the Colours, and then after four or five years' service in the Reserve, they are called up to go to war. They were just as good soldiers for effective fighting purposes and they were paid as part of the Army when in the Reserve. Yet when these poor fellows, after so many years in foreign service, and whose Reserve service on the eve of war may just be run out, but who then join and give their services to their country in time of war have the whole of their Reserve service entirely struck out of account. I could give the right hon. Gentleman cases of poor old soldiers asking for a pension who have had twelve or thirteen years' service a portion with the Colours and portion with the Reserve, and whose health is shattered or broken, but who have been refused pensions. If the right hon. Gentleman could see the replies which they have

  1331
  got, I am sure he would feel ashamed, because he is a very honourable and high-minded gentleman. Just as a while ago he threw himself upon the mercy of the House, I am sure if he went through my little budget he would again beg for mercy. I do hope that before this Vote comes on next year he will see that something is done to remedy this injustice.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The Under-Secretary for War is well aware that we cannot move to increase this Vote, and it is sufficient, as every parliamentarian knows, that when anyone is dissatisfied with the policy of the Government or actuated by legitimate curiosity as to what that policy may be, the only remedy is to move a reduction, to show that they are not satisfied. The hon. Member for Stoke, who has just sat down, hopes we shall hear more on this point when this Vote comes on next year. How often during recent years have non-effective Votes been discussed? We were told earlier in the afternoon that we might or might not raise questions in reference to officers on the salary of the Secretary of State for War. Everybody knows if we had a day for discussing the salary of the Secretary of State for War we should deal with these larger questions of policy which we have been debating for two or three days. This afternoon, and perhaps only this afternoon, have we an opportunity of reviewing the provision made by this country for the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Army, their widows and children in the public service and also in the Territorial Force. I confess I have not in recent years, largely because these Votes have not been discussed, been able to follow as closely as I should wish what has been happening in respect of Head C for non-commissioned officers and men. I think it is very important we should go into the matter to which we all know sufficient regard is not given; we all know any sense of grievance in these provisions is one of the most adverse factors in the popularity of the Army.
  7.0 P.M.
  I believe the Board that sits at Chelsea and of which the Under-Secretary of State is a member—at any rate, it was so in my time—under the chairmanship of the paymaster-general, and with the assistance of many distinguished officers, have been working hard at some of these problems, but I do not think their work is finished. Where you have a regulation as the Under-Secretary has said, you will have hard cases. I think the regulations were drawn
  1332
  in such a way as to create hardship. They have to be interpreted, no doubt, very strictly, and through the strict interpretation of these regulations you get a number of hard cases every year. Then I think applications should be made to the Treasury to have the regulations altered. Of course, the definition of what is "duty" is one that is very hard to lay down in a fair way, and we used to get and still get, I believe, absurd results. A boy who is a trumpeter injures himself the first day blowing his trumpet and gets a pension for life. That may be all right, but a man who serves in India and injures his health through service in India gets next to nothing at all. You have the case of young boys accepted improperly for the Army and who break down because of their physical imperfections, and after their service they are saddled upon the country for the rest of their lives. The men who have had their health shattered in this way are thrown back as wrecks upon the labour market. I think, when you get hard cases of that character, it is a good thing these Regulations should be reviewed by the House of Commons. It may be that on this point matters have been put straight, but I want to know what advance has been made. One word about Items F and J, which are the rewards for distinguished conduct, long service, and good conduct, and rewards to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers for distinguished or meritorious services. The Under-Secretary for War said that these rewards were cherished, and that it would be unfair to distribute them more broadly. I notice that under Item F the rewards are £7,750, and that is the total sum. I also find that the recipients number 775 men, and that is only £10 each. I think we ought to have a much larger sum than this to reward services of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman should be obliged to us for discussing this Vote, because when a Vote is discussed notice is taken of it by the War Office and the Treasury, and when it comes up again next year probably some effort may be made to improve it. That is why I am speaking upon this question.
  The other point I wish to put is in regard to Sub-head K, which refers to pensions to widows whose husbands have been killed or have died on active service. I feel that we may reasonably ask the Government to consider carefully this question, and the allied question of allowances to the widows and children of the men who have been killed whilst on duty. The sum

  1333
  involved is not immense. I do not wish to institute a comparison with the sums paid in the United States of America for generations after the war, but it is only ten years since the South African war, and there have been small campaigns in Somaliland and elsewhere, and a great many of our men have been killed or have died in war. It certainly does seem a very small sum to pay £23,000 a year for all the Regular soldiers, Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry who took part in that war. I am simply calling attention to the fact that these sums are not a very excessive charge, and I think I am justified in repeating that, at a time when recruiting is not good, it is in this direction as well as to the pay at the beginning of a soldiers' career that you have to look if you wish to attract more recruits into the Army. Recollecting these facts, I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he does think some change is necessary in the Regulations governing the amount paid to the widows and children of the men who die in the Service. That is important to the whole Army, but when you come to the Territoiral Force, which is not paid, then it is very important that you should not have these hard cases which resound through the whole countryside. You ask a man to serve and you do not pay him, and he has to go to extra expense in order to take part in military service, and if he is killed when doing what you ask him to do, then, if you want the Territorial Force to succeed, that is precisely the case which you have to treat generously.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: Anybody who has served in the Army must have come across cases where dissatisfaction has been expressed in regard to these Regulations, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) has said, to the effect that you are not by this treatment encouraging men to stay on to earn a pension. I think it is a great misfortune that men anxious to serve their country should not be allowed to do so. In regard to pensions given to non-commissioned officers and men after twenty-one years' service, I think somewhat of a hardship is inflicted on those men who are allowed to retire after eighteen years' service, with a reduction of 25 per cent. of their pension. That means that a man who has served twenty-one years is, after he has finished eighteen years' service, allowed to take his discharge, but he only receives a pension which has been
  1334
  reduced by 25 per cent. I think that is a case where a certain amount of hardship arises. I have had several men coming to me who have received reduced pensions, saying they did not understand that the reduction was going to be anything like 25 per cent., and I think the amount of the reduction should be distinctly laid down in the Regulation, and a man should clearly understand that after eighteen years' service he will receive 25 per cent. less in regard to his pension than he would receive if he continued to serve twenty-one years. I think we ought to make that point as plain as we possibly can, because many men have taken their discharge upon a misunderstanding. Therefore I most respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I understand, is a member of the Board which administers these things, to consider this hardship in order to see whether that regulation cannot be better worded and made clearer to the soldier. Such hardships are frequently inflicted, and I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point.
  Mr. ASHLEY: There are a couple of points I want to put to the hon. Gentleman before he replies. I wish to ask, in the first place, a question about meritorious gratuities and allowances. I quite understand the view of the Government, but I put this case as one which I think is a hard one, and which has come under my own personal observation. If, in the Regulars, a sergeant is promoted to quartermaster, he cannot receive meritorious gratuities provided for in Vote C, because, very rightly, he is making service towards a pension as a commissioned officer. But supposing the same man is a sergeant in the Regulars, and he becomes a quartermaster in the Territorial Force, that man is equally debarred from meritorious medal or gratuities. When he is a quartermaster in the Territorial Force he is serving towards a pension, and therefore he is placed at a double disadvantage, and this is a disadvantage not only to the individual but to the Service as well. Because he happens to be promoted to quartermaster he does not get this gratuity medal, whereas if he had remained in the ranks he would. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the great difficulties arising with reference to recruiting, will see the importance of this point. If a sergeant in the Regulars knows that he will be penalised and will not receive this gratuity if he goes into the Territorial Force you will

  1335
  not get the class of men in the Territorial Force you want. I should like the Financial Secretary to answer that point when he gets up, and perhaps he may be able to announce that the Army Council will take this matter into consideration. This would certainly remove a sense of injustice, and it would have more effect than hon. Members might think in getting the best class of warrant officer into the Territorial Force, where they are so much wanted, because it must not be forgotten that the warrant officers are the backbone of any force. With regard to pensions, I do not think they are provided for on a lavish scale. We have heard from all sides that our pension scale is inadequate. Not only is it inadequate, but I think it is felt by the rank and file and by the non-commissioned officers that their opportunities for earning a pension are unduly curtailed. Take the case of a boy who at fourteen joins the Post Office, where he remains until he is nineteen. He then enlists in the Regular Army, and serves on till it is time to get a pension. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office and the Army Council ought to permit that man to count some portion of his previous service.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that question out of Order.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I thought it would be in order to deal with a case of the kind I have given.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, when the case arises, but the hon. Member is dealing with a purely imaginary case.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then, lastly, I wish to ask why why there is this inadequate gratuity to men who have been awarded the Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross is only given in cases of extreme rarity for great valour, and it seems to me you ought to give a gratuity on a very much higher scale. Ninety per cent. of the recipients only receive a gratuity of £10. It is quite arguable whether a man should get a gratuity at all added to an honour given for distiguished service, but if you are going to give one surely £10 a year is ludicrously inadequate when he has risked his life under exceptional circumstances and under conditions which his companions in arms have not thought themselves competent to undertake. Finally, I would ask why there are a few, perhaps half a dozen, of these brave men singled
  1336
  out to receive a larger gratuity? Ninety per cent. receive £10, one gets £50, and three or four £22 and £22 10s. Why do the Government think £10 sufficient in the case of 90 per cent. and why are there a few of these brave men receiving an exceptional reward?
  Mr. GIBBS: There is one item of this Vote, "Civilian barbers at 15s. a week." Why are there civilian barbers at all, and, if they are to be there, why are they paid 15s. a week?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is possible for him to give a clearer definition of "on duty." I know there is a great diversion of opinion as to what it means, but it is a matter of very great importance. It will be within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman and of a great many Members of the House there was a sergeant who was injured at some Yeomanry sports. We had a discussion with the Under-Secretary on the point, and he told us last year the matter was being gone into, and that in a short time we should be able to have some definition as to what view the Army Council took in respect of that man. I do not know that we have had any information since. That was a case of a man who was injured at the regimental sports, and it should certainly come under the definition of "on duty." Regimental sports are practically a regimental duty. Every man and very officer is supposed to take part in the sports, and an individual who does not take part in them loses a certain amount of prestige. It is therefore a matter of great importance that it should be considered "on duty." I should also like to allude to the question of pensions. The present scale of pensions given to widows and children of men who have given their lives in the service of their country ought to be a matter of shame to the country. The sums are very small, and it is only right and fitting that the Government should make it their business to revise the pensions and give an undertaking that they are going to do so.
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), asked me two or three questions, one of which was with regard to remuneration being given to certain sergeants promoted to quartermasters in the Regular Army and denied to those who are promoted to quartermasters in the Territorial Force. That is a matter to which my attention has

  1337
  not been called before. It appears to be an anomaly, and I will certainly have it looked into with a view, if possible, to remedying it. Then he asked me about the Victoria Cross. There are few recipients of the Victoria Cross. There is a definite annuity of £10 a year to each private soldier who has received the Victoria Cross for gallantry, but a special annuity is given in special cases where it can be proved there is a reason for it, such as old age or infirmity occasioned by causes beyond the man's own control. The cases to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, where £22 10s. and £50 were granted, were special cases where it was necessary and desirable to give the men a larger pension. There is one case of £40, another of £30 4s., another of £22 12s., and a further case of £50 in the Infantry. Those, no doubt, are special cases where the men require an extra annuity and where they are not able to keep themselves without it. I am sure the House will approve of that. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) raised the question of pensions to widows and of allowances to children of soldiers killed in action. I should like the House to realise this is not an old charge upon the public fund. It has been taken over from the Royal Patriotic Fund. I do not say that as justifying the amounts, but rather as a reason why they are of that particular sum. My hon. Friend may be perfectly right—I am inclined to think he is—that they are smaller amounts than ought to be given, on the understanding that they are the only means of subsistence of those persons. If that is so, I agree they are too small, and I will see if anything can be done. I must not be taken as promising, but I will really go into this question—this is the first time my attention has been called to it—and see if anything can be done.
  The right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to the question of regulations in hard cases. It is quite true, if you make regulations—and you must make regulations for pensions and gratuities—there must be cases on the borderline, and there may be, and there often are, hard cases which we all deplore. The Noble Lord asked me if I could tell him what is "on duty." That is one of our regulations. If a man is injured while "on duty" he receives a gratuity. The Noble Lord referred to regimental sports. I entirely agree that if a man is hurt during regimental sports, which are almost
  1338
  part of his military duty, he ought, and in point of fact does, receive a gratuity. I want the House to realise that the whole of these cases are being gone into and that regulations are being drawn up. I will give a fair illustration, without laying down any hard and fast law, which will give to the House an indication of what governs such cases. If a man plays football during camp and is hurt, we do not consider that is his military duty, and, sorry as we are, we do not think the public funds ought to be drawn upon in that case. On the other hand, if a man is hurt riding from his own house to parade, he is made a recipient.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Is that so?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; we have arranged it.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am very glad to hear it.
  Mr. TENNANT: That will give an indication that we are not at all disposed to be ungenerous. On the contrary, we want everyone to feel that those in the Army are being treated fairly in such matters. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also illustrated the case of a man who had returned and was ill, owing to long service in India. These cases, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, are considered by the Royal Commissioners at Chelsea. They have quite eminent advisers, and, if they are satisfied that the illness of the man is in fact due to his service, he receives a pension or compensation or gratuity. I admit it is not very easy to decide if a man has rheumatism, for instance, whether it would be held under the Workmen's Compensation Act to arise out of his employment, but where it is established that a man's illness is traceable and is directly due to his duty he receives a gratuity or compensation. The Noble Lord also asked me if I would try and do something to simplify the code by which pensions are granted. I will certainly bring that to the notice of the Commissioners, and it is to be hoped that the code may be so framed that he who runs may read. Finally, I have to deal with one other point. It seems to me very necessary that we should have barbers at Chelsea for the old pensioners. They are very aged and decrepit, and there is no adequate reason why this accommodation should not be provided for them.
  Question put, "That '£1,917,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES.

  [7.34 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Hayden, Jonn Patrick

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs,, Leek)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barton, William

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Johnson, W.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Boland, John Plus

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brace, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lansbury, George

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Runciman, Rt. Han. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Leach, Charles

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  M'Callum, John M.

  Snowden, Phillip

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duffy, William

  Martin, Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness;

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worces., N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nicholson, sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norton, Captain Cecil W

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nuttall, Harry

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Hackett, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cocke, Sir Clement

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cautley, Harry Strother

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Baird, J. L.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Banbury, sir Frederick George

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Barnston, H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, S. Augustine's)'

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Goldman, Charles Sidney

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bird, Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Howins, William Albert Samuel

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, E. M.

  1340

  1341

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Touche, George Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Younger, Sir George

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Swift, Rigby

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Marquess of Tullibardine and Mr. Gibbs.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Perhaps the Government will find it convenient to state how many Votes they propose to take during the course of the present sitting? They have made very rapid progress, and I think the forecast of business which the Prime Minister threw out has been carried into effect.
  Colonel SEELY: As far as the Army is concerned this is the last Vote we shall ask the House to take to-night, but it is proposed to go on with the Supplementary Votes.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Which Supplementary Votes?
  Colonel SEELY: Those on the Paper.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I presume it is not intended to take the whole Vote for the Insurance Commissioners. I hope the Lord of the Treasury, whom I see on the Front Bench, will be satisfied with some of the minor Votes.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY— [26th February.]—REPORT.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th March] "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscel-
1342
laneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.'"
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Mr. ASHLEY: I do not wish to detain the House, but there is a point—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Yarmouth is in possession of the House, as he was speaking when the Debate stood adjourned last night.
Mr. FELL: I was, at the moment, drawing my remarks to a conclusion. All I desired to do was to call attention to the fact that the Government, when framing their Estimates, might have foreseen that the Session would be prolonged, and might have made provision accordingly.
Mr. ASHLEY: I think we are entitled to some answer to the very cogent argument put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) in the Debate yesterday as to Item N (Parliamentary Debates and Records). The answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury was not satisfactory. My hon. Friend pointed out that the cost for printing the Reports in the Summer Session was 7s. 6d. per column, whereas for the Autumn Session it was 12s. 6d. Although it is quite true that the reporting of Part II. of the Insurance Bill might reduce the cost by 1s. a column, yet, on the most liberal allowance, them is 4s. per column extra for reporting during the Autumn Session than for the Summer Session. What is the reason for this difference?
Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I happen to have a little information about this matter. It is really the simplest Rule of Three sum. The average number of pages per day during last Session was eighty. That is not merely for the Autumn Session, but the average for the whole year. The House sat for 170 days, instead of 120. Seven times twelve is 84, and eight times 170 is 1,360. As 84 is to 136, so is £7,000 to £12,000. It is really an identical sum per page that is charged for the whole year. The estimate was an under-estimate, very largely owing to the large number of questions that were asked through-

1343
out the year, which increased the total number of pages. There is no particular extra cost involved as regards printing.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite follow the sum of the hon. Gentleman, but, as I understand it, the only reason why there was more charged in the Autumn Session than in the Summer Session was because more pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT were recited.
Sir G. TOULMIN: I am sorry I have not made myself understood. The charge per page is identical. The extra sum is not for the Autumn Session, it is for the whole year, the average number of pages in each part for the whole year being seventy-nine, as compared with sixty-nine, so that the whole sum is not simply for the Autumn Session, but for a greater length in all the Session than had been estimated.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Member for his lucid explanation, but it seems that someone has made a rather serious blunder in estimating the cost per page at less than it actually turned out to be. The hon. Member now explains that the cost per page was greater than was anticipated.
Sir G. TOULMIN: No, there were more pages at the same cost per page.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The estimate was that the House would not talk so much as actually occurred. The Government anticipated a shorter Session than actually took place, and what we are now required to vote is the cost naturally arising for any additional cost per page, because the Session was prolonged. In one way it throws an interesting light on the calculations of the Government at the beginning of the Session. We get for a moment behind the minds of the Cabinet early in January, and see that they did not anticipate a National Insurance Bill, or, at any rate, an Autumn Session on that subject. I think the explanation is a very satisfactory one, but I cannot conceive why it was not given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It was given last night.
Lord HUGH CECIL: With the same arithmetical precision?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
Lord HUGH CECIL: We are obliged to the hon. Member (Sir G. Toulmin) for having explained the matter, and I hope he will soon occupy an official position, in which he will be able to give lucid explanations with more authority and equal precision.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not know whether it would be entirely in order to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has framed his Estimates on this particular subject for this year?
Mr. SPEAKER: We are not dealing with this year's Estimates. The hon. Member will see them later.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the repaying Departments from which he gets the £2,000 credit? It is not explained in the note, which says:—
"The receipts from Repaying Departments have proved greater than we anticipated when the Original Estimate was made."
When we were in Committee the hon. Gentleman did not offer any explanation on that point, although I admit that he has been very full in his explanations on other points. On the subject of the whole Vote, I understand it will not be possible to move a reduction now, but, having regard to the enormous increase in this expenditure, I think it is only right we should offer a protest against the way in whioh money is expended on unnecessary publications and challenge the whole Vote on a Division.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 82.

Division No. 41.]

AYES.

[7.55 p.m.

Adamson, William

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Addison, Dr. C.

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Agnew, Sir George William

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cameron, Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John Plus

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Clough, William

Barnes, G. N.

Brace, William

Clynes, John R.

Barton, William

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Cotton, William Francis

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, William B.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Crumley, Patrick

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Radford, George Heynes

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

Lansbury, George

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Dawes, J. A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbrl'r, Cockerm'th)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Leach, Charles

Richards, Thomas

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Donclan, Captain A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Doris, William

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Duffy, William J.

Macpherson, James Ian

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roch, Walter F.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

M'Callum, John M.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Essex, Richard Walter

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Scanlan, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

Ffrench, Peter

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Sheehy, David

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Martin, Joseph

Shortt, Edward

Gill, A. H.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Meagher, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Glanville, Harold James

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutton, John E.

Goldstone, Frank

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hackett, John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Tennant, Harold John

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Mooney, John J.

Toulmin, Sir George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, George Hay

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Morrell, Philip

Wadsworth, J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Neilson, Francis

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Watt, Henry A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whyte, A. F.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wiles, Thomas

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Doherty, Philip

Wilkie, Alexander

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Grady, James

Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

John, Edward Thomas

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

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Johnson, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Jowett, Frederick William

Parker, James (Halifax)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Kilbride, Denis

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

King, Joseph

Pointer, Joseph

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Peto, Basil Edward

Aitken, Sir William Max

Fell, Arthur

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

Goldman, Charles Sidney

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Baird, J. L.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Barnston, Harry

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Starkey, John Ralph

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Swift, Rigby

Benn, Ion Hamilton

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hunt, Rowland

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Bigland, Alfred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Bird, Alfred

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Touche, George Alexander

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Larmor, Sir J.

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Valentia, Viscount

Bridgeman, William Clive

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

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

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cassel, Felix

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Cave, George

Mackinder, Halford J.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Wolmer, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Younger, Sir George

Denniss, E. R. B.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Doughty, Sir George

Perkins, Walter Frank

Duke, Henry Edward

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY— [27th February].

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted
  1346
  to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Indus-

  1347
  tries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. FELL: I wish to move to reduce this Vote.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move a reduction on a Vote for £5.
  Mr. FELL: I was going to move a reduction of £4.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There cannot be a reduction of less than £5.
  Mr. FELL: I can speak on the Question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. Member can speak on the Motion, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. FELL: I should like some particulars with regard to the form of this account. On English Supplementary Votes in each case there is an Estimate for a certain sum which is required—an original Estimate—and then there is a revised Estimate of a larger sum, and then we are asked to vote an additional sum, being the difference between the revised Estimate and the original Estimate. In this Irish Vote, for the first time, we have no original Estimate. I can understand it with regard to the purchase of the dredger, because apparently it was not thought of when the Estimates were framed or it could not be included in the account, but with regard to agricultural research and advisory work there is no sum to make up a balance, and it clearly wants some explanation how this was omitted or why the account is framed differently from the account of the English Votes. It is true that these are to be provided very largely out of the Appropriation-in-Aid, that is for the Development Fund, but I cannot see why we should not have had an original Estimate so that it could have been discussed then instead of waiting for a Supplementary Estimate the next year.
  The VICE - PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The explanation is that this Vote for the dredger, and the Vote for agricultural research, has been granted by the Development Commission, and all the money granted by the Develop-
  1348
  ment Commission has to pass through the Committee of Supply on an original Vote, and the sum granted by the Development Commission has to be added, making up the total.
  Major HENDERSON: There is a cattle disease affecting cattle both in this country and in Ireland. We should like to get an assurance that steps are being taken to stamp out the disease. Undoubtedly it is spreading in this country also.
  Mr. PETO: A point arose which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in Committee, but which I do not think the Committee had any satisfactory explanation about. He told us that this £2,400 was to go, among other things, specially to the investigation and stamping out of potato disease in Ireland. I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that what we know in this country is also known in his Department in Ireland, because it seems to me that, having come directly in contact with this particular disease and having found that by simply applying to the Wye College, I was given the most exhaustive information which I tested in a particularly bad year and found absolutely effective for a cure. By applying at the proper time with liberality, not skimping it in any way, I had my potato plots absolutely immune from disease, while every potato plot all round was riddled with disease. It seems an extraordinary thing that there should be £2,400 additional for agricultural research and advisory work, and that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that one of the principal things he intended to investigate was the stamping out of potato disease. I do not believe there is any necessity to spend 240 pence in research work. I do not say that the sum of human knowledge on any subject is absolutely complete, but it is absolutely certain what the cure is, and if it is applied properly and liberally and at the right time, there is no need for anyone to have a plot of potatoes diseased even if the ground is infected. I should like to have some assurance that them are more abstruse subjects than this for which we are to vote this sum of money, and also that there is absolute co-operation between the research work that is being done in this country and that which is being done in Ireland, because, whether we are to have Home Rule or not, I hope that at any rate one island will always have the benefit of

  1349
  the money that has been expended in the public welfare, and particularly in the industry of agriculture. I should like some more definite assurance than the Committee has had, because I remember the last time the right hon. Gentleman, spoke the Debate came to an abrupt conclusion. I should like to hear exactly what is proposed to be spent, and whether this subject of potato disease is going to be regarded as a terra incognita, or whether the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding with full knowledge of everything that has been done at Wye College and other agricultural colleges. I shall need a good deal of assurance that there is any necessity whatever for a Supplementary Vote more than the cost of printing the instructions, which are now free and open to every small holder and farmer in this couuntry.
  Mr. RUSSELL: There are a good many questions involved in the Estimate besides potato disease. That is only one part of the work carried out by the Department. We have established an inquiry station in the West of Ireland for the express purpose of examining the different diseases of potatoes. There are more diseases than one. Very valuable results have been obtained already through inquiry by scientific experts into the whole matter, and the station is in full working order. The disease is a comparatively new one and a special one, and we have practically stamped it out. The whole question involves inquiry of a scientific character. In regard to the cattle disease referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Henderson), veterinary experts know exceedingly little, and the country, up to the present, has not placed sufficient means at the disposal of the Agricultural Department to investigate these diseases. We are acting in concert with the Board of Agriculture in England. We are keeping a very close eye on matters in Denmark, where the same disease is infecting cattle, and we know so little that we can do nothing now save employ the money, both in England and in Ireland, for the purpose of research. It is a most serious matter affecting cattle breeders in Ireland. The Department is fully alive to it, and is watching it.
  And, it being Quarter-past Eight, 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.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
SUPPLY— [27th February]—REPORT.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Postponed proceeding on Consideration of Resolutions resumed.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and to enable it to make good certain statutory advances."
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is a Supplementary Estimate, which involves certain expenses of a legal character, on which a good deal of discussion took place during Committee Stage and on which we really received no information which was worthy of the name, because, owing to his many duties elsewhere, the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to be here, and the Attorney-General was quite unable to explain what was the nature of the assessors mentioned here and why there had been such a very large increase in the expenditure involved in that Vote. We asked him, I remember, over and over again, without success, to tell us who these assessors were and whether they were all the same or were different. If I recollect rightly a discussion took place as to what was the nature of the supplementary expenditure. I wish to know particularly in regard to the increase arising under Sub-head G (Assessors—remuneration). There is a very large increase of £600 in that item. I know it is said to be due to the large number of wrecks. What I wish to know from the

  1351
  Financial Secretary is whether there were any special circumstances which could not be foreseen when the original Estimate was framed for £2,100. What were the circumstances that caused the increase? I should further like the hon. Gentleman to explain who these assessors are. Are they all of the same character, or is it sometimes necessary to employ an assessor of a more extensive character than others? I should like to know whether the assessors are all paid the same amount, or whether, in the case of certain inquiries, it is necessary to pay more? As to travelling expenses, I say nothing. Of course, if you have an inquiry, you must have travelling expenses to the place of inquiry, wherever it takes place.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It will be in the recollection of Members of the House who were present at the discussion in Committee that the reason why more elaborate information was not given as to the nature of the inquiries was that it was ruled that it would be out of order to give that information. The Chairman ruled that on the Supplementary Estimate the real point for discussion was whether there were more wrecks.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Surely it is important to know whether all the assessors are paid the same sum or whether a special sum is paid to certain assessors.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: So long as the inquiry is conducted on the same principle that question cannot be discussed. The only question is whether there were more inquiries and whether there were more wrecks. I have nothing to add to what was said by the Attorney-General when the Estimate was before the Committee. The "Waratah" was lost in the Atlantic, and a lengthy investigation was required in order to obtain any kind of authentic information which could be made the basis of a report. It is impossible to know when these long and complicated inquiries will take place, and therefore, I submit to the House that there must be justification from time to time for some expense in excess of the original Estimate.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for such of the Salaries
  1352
  and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is another Estimate of a remarkable character, and I desire to move a reduction of £100.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is too late now to move a reduction. I have put the Question that the House agree to the Resolution.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then I will divide the House against the Estimate if necessary. I observe in a note to the Estimate that the money is required to pay the expenses in connection with the trial of the election petitions for East Nottingham, Cheltenham, Kingston-upon-Hull, Exeter, West Bromwich, King's Lynn, and the Northern District of West Ham. That means seven different election petitions. I feel that the House is entitled to an explanation of how a miscalculation was made in regard to seven different elections. I can understand how a miscalculation might be made in regard to one, but there are seven in regard to which the calculation appears to have been at fault. The original Estimate was only £2,000, and this increase of £1,600 very nearly doubles the total amount. I think we are entitled to some further explanation than we have ever received how that miscalculation came about. After all, we have had some experience in election petitions, and we know all the items that go to make up the expenses of them. There is certain expense for the judge's lodging, but I do not know whether that comes on the Estimate. Then there is certain expense for counsel representing the Crown—the Crown prosecutor in effect, and there is a certain amount for printing, but all these items are perfectly well known, and it seems astonishing that there should have been so large a mistake. When the original Estimate was framed I suppose all the petitions had been presented.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: We wish to know then which had not been presented. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were all presented."] The Financial Secretary says "No," and the hon. Member says they had been presented. In any case a large

  1353
  number had been presented, and it is noticeable that the £1,600 by no means includes the whole miscalculation, because the total amount is, according to the note, £4,480, which is a good deal more than double the original Estimate. The reason why it is necessary to grant only £1,600 is that by one of those financial juggles we are familiar with—they are very confusing to those who try to understand the Estimate—£880 is taken from some other Vote, on which there was a surplus, and applied to this Vote. The result is that there is really more than double to be paid than what was estimated for. I would like to know, Was there anything special about these petitions?
  Mr. BOOTH: Yes.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There was something special in their results, inasmuch as they were almost uniformly against the Liberal party. If there is anything special about their duration that is another thing, but as far as the outside public could judge they lasted about the usual time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General gave a very full explanation of this in the Committee stage, when perhaps the Noble Lord was not present. In framing the original Estimates it is exceedingly difficult to know how many election petitions will be presented, how long each will last, and how many will be proceeded with or withdrawn. It is only possible to estimate roughly by what happened in the previous year. The Estimate was framed before the Treasury knew how many petitions were presented, and was estimated roughly on the cost of the petitions after the General Election in January. The fact that there were more petitions presented, and that some of them, especially the East Nottingham petition, lasted an abnormal time, increased the cost. These things are extremely difficult to estimate accurately, and therefore there can be no objection to this Supplementary Estimate.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I hardly think that the answer of the hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. I always understood that petitions had to be lodged within thirty days, and consequently it was within the knowledge of the Government before Parliament even met exactly how many petitions had been lodged; and I should have thought it would have been possible to put down with better judgment
  1354
  how much the eventual cost would be. The actual miscalculation was considerably over £2,000. These Supplementary Estimates are framed for the purpose of misguiding the guileless Member of the House of Commons. I sincerely hope that there will be a Division on this subject as a protest against the considerable miscalculation on the part of the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in an unfortunate position in answering for the misdeeds of his predecessor, and I trust that steps will be taken to prevent a miscalculation of this kind from occurring again when there is every possibility of knowing how many petitions have been lodged.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I support the Noble Lord who has spoken on this matter. I cannot help feeling that the Secretary to the Treasury is repeating something which he has been told without taking any steps to know whether the information is accurate. If my recollection serves me aright, there can be no petition presented of any sort after the lapse of three months. The first has to be presented within thirty days, and no further step can be taken after three months. The elections took place in December, 1910, and any petitions presented would have been known before the end of the financial year 1910–11. The Secretary to the Treasury says that he does not think all the petitions had been presented. I have given reasons to show that that information is incorrect. Then he says he was not certain how many would be withdrawn. But you cannot withdraw unless you get leave from the Court, and when those petitions are presented you have got to assume that they will be proceeded with. In almost all cases they are proceeded with, because a step like that is not taken without grave consideration. If you are going to put your Estimates on something like a real basis you ought to be able to get nearer to the sum required than obviously was done when this Estimate was framed. The original Estimate was £2,400 wrong. It might have been easily foreseen when that Estimate was framed that there would be an extra sum necessary, or they might have had some indication of the very temporary Estimate made when the original Estimate was brought before the House. It is unfortunate that these Estimates are not framed more exactly in accordance with the information available which would enable the sum required to be ascertained. This

  1355
  sum is calculated on a fixed basis and therefore is very easily ascertainable. The answer of the Secretary to the Treasury is an unfortunate one, which I hope he will take the trouble to investigate, because he will find that the information was
  available to enable a more correct Estimate to have been framed.
  Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 66.

  Division No. 42.]

  AYES.

  [8.35 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Johnson, William

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boland, John Pius

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brace, William

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Lansbury, George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

  Clough, William

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

  Sheehy, David

  Clynes, John R.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Shortt, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sutton, John E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Martin, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Donclan, Captain A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Wadsworth, J.

  Doris, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duffy, William J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mooney, John J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, M)

  Morrell, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Hackett, John

  O'Grady, James

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Forster, Henry William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, Charles Sidney

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l,Walton)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Swift, Rigby

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Barnston, Harry

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Bigland, Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Bridgeman, Clive

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cassel, Felix

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worthington-Evans L.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wortley Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Peto, Basil Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Crofters' Commission."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  This Vote is small; it is for £120, which ostensibly is not a very large increase, but which, as a matter of fact, is a larger increase than it looks, because the original Estimate was for £800, and therefore the increase of £120 is something like 15 per cent. When the House was in Committee upon this question it was asked how it was there could have been such a very large increase as 15 per cent. in regard to a matter which was only connected with travelling. The Vote is entirely for travelling. The explanation which was then given was of a very unsatisfactory kind. If you look at the Estimate you will find that the total for 1911–12 was £4,655 for the Crofters' Commission, and of that the sum of £920 seems to be a very large amount to spend on travelling. In these days of low railway charges—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] Does the hon. Member opposite dispute that? If he does I should like to hear his reason, for my experience is that railway charges are very low at the present moment. There really should be given some explanation, some satisfactory explanation, why the taxpayer is called upon to pay this large increase upon a Vote solely connected with travelling. I do not want anyone to think that I have raised this point because I am in any kind of way hostile to the Crofters' Commission. They may be doing excellent work or they may not; I know nothing about it; but I must say that there seems to be no earthly reason for the very great increase in the charge for travelling. There may be excuses to be made for the Gentleman occupying the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury when we have large Votes before us, and I think the hon. Gentlemen will admit that I have never been too hostile to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, especially when he admits his shortcomings, and when he has an enormous Vote of some millions, and there is a difference of £50,000 or £60,000. But in the case of a small Vote of this character there is really no necessity for an increase of 15 per cent.
  1358
  It cannot be got over by the fact that the House of Commons sat longer than it ought last year. That has been the general explanation of all these Estimates—that the House sat eleven months last year and, therefore, the heavens and the earth are to fall because they had to give a longer time to the consideration of the affairs of the Empire. In this case it cannot be said that the increase in the travelling expenses was due to the sittings of the House of Commons.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I think the hon. Baronet had better not pursue that question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a reason for this increase, and in order to get a satisfactory reason I move the reduction.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I feel fairly certain that I can convince the hon. Baronet that this is an expense which it was impossible to foresee, and that it is entirely legitimate. The extra expense in travelling has been due entirely to the passing of a Bill which put an end to the Crofters' Commission at the close of the financial year. That was the Scottish Smallholders Bill. The result was that the members of the Commission have been clearing up all outstanding matters, and in that process have necessarily incurred travelling expenses. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Baronet will withdraw his proposition.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope the hon. Baronet will do no such thing. The explanation seems to me to be even more astonishing than most of the explanations which have been given by the Government on these Estimates. We are told that this Estimate was caused by the passing of a Bill. Who introduced the Bill—the Government.
  Mr. KING: No.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They passed it, at any rate. No Bill can be passed except by the Government, nowadays. You are not going to tell me that the House of Commons ever does anything. I was not in the House last Session, but an hon. Friend tells me that the Government took it over and gave time.
  Mr. KING: The Noble Lord said they introduced the Bill. I called that statement in question, and I maintain that they did not.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I withdrew that statement in view of the contradiction of the hon. Member, and said that the Government had passed it, and they knew it was going to pass. I never heard a more grotesque explanation than that that has been given to us.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Noble Lord knows well that the Estimates were prepared months before the Bill was introduced.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They had the whole of last Session, and I do not know that the Estimates were prepared months in advance. When were they prepared? The hon. Member does not know. The explanation is like all the other explanations given by the Government on these Estimates, and is no explanation at all. We are no wiser than we were, and the control of the House of Commons over these Estimates is a farce, as I always said it was. There is no point in submitting any of these Estimates under existing circumstances except to fulfil an ancient and historic practice. For my part I shall certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. MORTON: I do not at all object to the criticisms that are made on the Estimates, and I rather hope there will be more criticisms, but I am sorry that the representative of the City of London should try to interfere with the Crofters' Commission, even indirectly, because he would find, if he knew anything about the Commission, that it is the most economical authority or Commission we have ever had in these countries. He would also find that it is not a question of railway
  charges alone, but that you have motoring, or driving, or walking, if you like.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does walking cost much in the Highlands?
  Mr. MORTON: That depends upon whether you pay your shoemaker. I am in favour of criticism, because it is the proper duty of the House of Commons, and their first duty to criticise all Estimates. I am aware we have not had very much lately, but now that we have done away with the Veto of the House of Lords I claim that we ought to be allowed to go back to the old system. I am not going to recognise a Veto of the Government, because that would be utterly wrong. I do hope that the hon. Baronet will not press this proposition, because I should be ashamed of the City of London objecting to a little expense in connection with the crofting. The work of the Commission has gone on well from the beginning, and everybody acknowledges that they have done good service. If they have spent a little more in travelling, we ought to welcome that extra expense rather than otherwise, because it shows that they have visited the works they have undertaken, and have endeavoured to settle disputes. I trust the hon. Baronet will not press the reduction, because it might be misunderstood outside, and would not be worthy of the City.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I very much regret not being able to comply with the request of the hon. Member.
  Question put, "That '£120' stand part of the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 64.

  Division No. 43.]

  AYES.

  [8.58 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Adamson, William

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dillon, John

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, W.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Barnes, George N.

  Duffy, William J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Johnson, W.

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Boland, John Plus

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Joyce, Michael

  Brace, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hackett, J.

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutton, John E.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Martin, Joseph

  Pointer, Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wadsworth, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richards, Thomas

  Wardle, G. J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Grady, James

  Sheehy, David

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Barnston, H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Bigland, Alfred

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootie)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Cassel, Felix

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Mitchin)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY— [28th February]—REPORT.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1911–12.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  The additional sum of £3,500 is caused by a special Grant for the police employed on extra duty during the Royal visit in 1911, and during the labour troubles from
  1362
  July to October, 1911. I do not raise any question upon the employment of the police during the Royal visit, but I wish to do so in regard to their employment during the strikes. The question was raised in Committee, but met with no satisfactory reply. As the Chief Secretary has had a considerable interval in which to reflect upon the unsatisfactory nature of his replies to the Committee, I had hoped he would have been present to-night to explain his conduct during the period from July to October, 1911. I do not in any way say that the police were in fault during that time, nor that the police themselves of their own initiative could have done anything to put down the strikes. Every man has a right to strike if he likes. I am an individualist, and I do not for a moment suggest that any man has not a right to refuse his labour if he so desires. That is not my point at all. I say, however, that if the Chief Secretary had been in Dublin, where he ought to have been during those months, he

  1363
  might have given directions to the police so to maintain order that persons desirous of working would have been protected and enabled to work.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Nonsense.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman says nonsense. I do not know what experience he has of this particular case which justifies him in using that rather strong expression. I am afraid I do not agree with it. It will require more than the interjection of nonsense to convince me that I am wrong. Had the Chief Secretary been in his place I maintain that a very considerable amount of these disturbances would not have happened. I feel a little anxious on this point in regard to my language, because I was going to use the word "riot." I see, however, the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, and I know perfectly well that if I used the word "riot" he would get up and say that there were no riots and that the expression was wrong. I would point out that a large quantity of goods which should have gone to their destination were stopped because the Chief Secretary gave no order to the police. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well that is not the evidence which has been put before this House. If the hon. Gentleman the Vice-President can convince me that I am wrong, that is a different matter altogether. But no evidence hitherto has been brought forward that goods and property were not damaged. It it quite true that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo stated that there were no riots, but will the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo venture to contradict the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) who was actually present apparently in charge of some goods which he could not get delivered?
  Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warrington could not get any carter to cart them away. That was because the Dublin carters were on strike.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not my recollection of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warrington said. My recollection is that he said that he could have got carters provided that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given an assurance that they would be protected. Therefore I object to this increase, because the police did not do what
  1364
  they ought to have done. This was no fault of theirs but the fault of the right hon. Gentleman who was playing golf, or amusing himself in some other way, instead of being at the post of duty. I think I have shown with considerable force and reason that this Supplementary Estimate ought not to be approved by the House, or, if it is approved—because nobody on this side of the House, or, indeed, on the other, would desire to deprive the police of pay which they had earned—it should be shown on this side of the House that, at any rate, we consider the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was wanting in not turning out at a very exceptional time. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may say that the right hon. Gentleman did all that was necessary. It is quite possible that he did what he was told. I am afraid it is impossible that we should get a satisfactory reply. I trust the hon. Gentleman opposite will convey to the Chief Secretary the sense of the House that it is his duty to be on the spot in times of trouble. If one takes a great position, one has to fulfil the responsibilities of it. No responsibility can be greater than that a chief should be present in times of trouble and distress.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not, of course, wish to say anything upon what the hon. Baronet who preceded me has mentioned, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite if he can explain certain figures which are on the Paper before us. If the Vice-President will look at the figures which are opposite the letter M he will see that the original Estimate seems to have been £56,553 and the revised Estimate £56,053. I should have said that £500 less was required, but apparently, according to these Estimates, £500 more is required. Again, if you deduct £500 from £3,000, it ought to leave £2,500, but, according to this Paper, the amount is £3,500. If they conduct finance in that way in Ireland I do not wonder that there is trouble about Home Rule finance.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: This question was fully discussed in Committee, but I offer no objection to it being raised afresh. Even the Members of the Government must have food, and that accounts for the absence for the present of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It so happens that during the whole of the period referred to I was in Dublin attending to my work there. I was a very careful observer of everything that took place. These

  1365
  strikes, in any case, are most regrettable, for they cause a great deal of inconvenience to business men and a great deal of hardship to the general community; they are regrettable in every sense of the word. I am not here saying one word as to who was to blame, as to who was in the right or who was in the wrong. All I say is that it is a most unfortunate thing that they occur. A strike did occur, but let me point out—and it ought to be reiterated in this House—that if ever there was a peaceful strike it was this one. There were no riots. That is a total misdescription of what took place. The police, acting under the orders of their officers, did what was possible, and did a great deal to facilitate traders in getting their goods delivered and in protecting the carts and the wagons. I saw that with my own eyes. It is altogether wrong to say that the traders of the city had no protection while the strike was going on. Business was not dislocated to that extent. I want to say that from my own knowledge and of what I saw in the streets of Dublin that many wagons under police protection did deliver goods.
  It is a total mistake to say that the police were left without orders. The hon. Baronet said that the police did not act because the Chief Secretary was not at his post to give them orders. Really, the police are under the charge of responsible officials of their own. No doubt if the Chief Secretary had been there he would have considered the whole question, but he was not ignorant of what was going on. The authorities at Dublin Castle were not ignorant of his views, and he had a most capable officer in the Under-Secretary for Ireland representing him, and not only was the law carried out but that Gentleman received deputations of traders and everybody else concerned and did what one man really could to settle the dispute, and it was largely owing to him that the strike terminated as it did. Nothing more could be done if the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary was present. I say, first of all, this was a most peaceable strike; secondly, that everything was done to give protection to the traders who were in need of it. It was not for the Government to step in and stop the strike. No one could stop a strike in that way by the use of police and military. A man has a right to stop work if he likes, and no one has a right to compel him to work, and anyone who tries to do so would find himself in the wrong. I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has really got a mistaken idea of what took place in
  1366
  Dublin. I do not mean to say there was no trouble or that people were not inconvenienced, but there never was a more peaceable strike and there never was a strike where the police did more to protect the traders of the country in their business than, in that strike. It passed off without disorder, loss of life, or without anyone being injured. Strikes do not always pass away in that way, and if the hon. Baronet will allow me to say so, I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers. The longer I live, the more I am in doubt of what appears in the newspapers, at all events, in Ireland.
  Mr. JOYCE: At all events in England.
  Mr. RUSSELL: The longer I live, the more I am inclined to revise newspaper reports, and sometimes when they are revised the circumstances are found not to have existed at all. There was damage done, but upon a very small scale. The hon. Member for Westmorland asked my attention to the figures in the Estimate. The difficulty arose in Committee, but when the hon. Gentleman talks about the difficulty of dealing with Irish finance I would like to remind him that these are Treasury figures. The Irish Office is not responsible for making up these accounts. The Chief Secretary was himself very well able to decipher the difficulty that arose on the last occasion. I have the answer now. The question raised as to the difference between the original Estimate of £100,656 and the original Estimate of £95,801 in the same Estimate is based on an entire misapprehension. The sum of £100,656 is the total of two items in the original Estimate, namely, £100,026, and incidental expenditure £630, so that the total is £100,656. The total of £95,801, as is noted in the original Estimate, is made up of the total estimated expenditure under eleven Subheads of the Vote, which amounts to £153,354, less the Estimate of Appropriation-in-Aid, made up of £56,553. The figures of A and D are therefore not comparable in any way. This is the Treasury method of making up the account. In Ireland I hope when we do get to making up our accounts we shall be able to put them clearer than I admit these figures seems to be. That is the real explanation as given by the officials, and I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be content. The Chief Secretary was in Ireland during part of the strike after a holiday. Even the hon. Baronet would not be inclined to grudge him that holiday. My contention

  1367
  is that nothing happened during that strike that would not have happened if the Chief Secretary was there all the time. I say the strike, so far as the police was concerned, was excellently well managed, and we have to congratulate ourselves that it passed off so well and that so little harm was done.
  Mr. FELL: I want some further explanation with regard to the Appropriation-in-Aid. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says these accounts are got out by the Treasury. Yes, but when they are got out with regard to Ireland it seems to me they are always totally different from those of England. In every other case, the Appropriation-in-Aid has always been larger than the original Estimate. When we come to Ireland we find the Appropriation in the revised Estimate is less by £500 than they estimated would be received. We look for the explanation, which is a deficiency in these receipts from the police court fines, but we have no explanation why they have produced less. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was less crime."] No, the explanation I consider is, that the police have not succeeded in capturing the people and getting the fines out of them.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I can only speak again by leave of the House. If the hon. Gentleman knew the city of Dublin he would know there is as competent a police force in that city as there is in any part of the three Kingdoms. The deficit is simply owing to the diminution of crime. The hon. Member says the reduction is due to the inability of the police to capture the criminals. That is not so. It is a bonâ fide reduction due to the reduction of crime.
  Mr. J. WARD: The hon. Baronet who moved this reduction says that the state of lawlessness in Dublin was due to the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, He instanced the case of the hon. Member for Warrington, who could not get some goods conveyed. I venture to suggest that even if there was no strike in Dublin at all, the moment it became known what the goods were no Nationalist would handle them. It is well known the goods were fifty odd boxes of Tariff Reform and Unionist literature, and even if the men had taken them the horses would not.
  Question put, "That '£3,500' stand part of the said Resolution."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 68.

  Division No. 44.]

  AYES.

  [9.25 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morrell, Philip

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Hackett, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Brace, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Johnson, William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clynes, John R.

  Joyce, Michael (Limerick)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, J.

  Richards, Thomas

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lansbury, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Denman, Rt. Hon. R. D.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dillon, John

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Doris, W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Shortt, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Sutton, John E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Wadsworth, John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Wardle, G. J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ashley, W. W.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liv'rp'l, Walton)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Swift, Rigby

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cassel, Felix

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Younger, Sir George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Denniss, E, R. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Original question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,776, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912 for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, including a Grant-in-Aid for the Purchase of Pictures."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £2,776.
  I make this Motion not against the purchase of this picture, but against the way the transaction was undertaken, and more particularly with regard to the way in which the Death Duties on this picture were dealt with by the Treasury. Personally, I am more than glad when the Government sees its way to give any Grant to the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures, and one of the worst things about this particular Supplementary Estimate is the withdrawal of the Grant for next year, which means that during the current year the directors of the National Gallery will be unable to buy any works of art for our premier national collection. With regard to this particular picture, I confess I think that £40,000 is a large sum, although I
  1370
  know we have been told that it is worth more. No doubt an American multimillionaire might have been got to pay more, but I do not believe that this particular picture was £40,000 worth of other pictures from our national point of view. Here we have the National Gallery spending all its Grant for last year and next year, and this extra Supplementary Estimate as well, upon one picture by an old master when there are half a dozen first-rate masters of the nineteenth century practically unrepresented in our National Gallery. Under the circumstances I think it is most unwise that this Supplementary Estimate should go unchallenged. Not only are we asked to pay £15,000 towards the purchase of this picture when there are several other pictures which it is infinitely more important that the nation should possess, but we are asked to pay this sum and to pay back as well the Death Duties that were charged to Lady Carlisle for this picture. I understand that this is the only picture which was left to Lady Carlisle absolutely. What has happened with regard to this £2,776? That is the amount of Death Duties on £40,000, and not on the value of the picture, according to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government in this matter, because he said the other day it was worth considerably more than £40,000. It does not represent the rate at which Death

  1371
  Duties are chargeable upon the whole of the estate. Apparently, this picture has been treated without precedent as an estate in itself, and as a picture apart from all the other pictures in the collection. I think we are entitled to know whether it is to be the established law of the land that if a picture is sold to the nation with a Government Grant towards its purchase Death Duties should not be chargeable upon the full amount, but upon the picture as a separate estate. That is an important point.
  There is another point in connection with this matter. Are the works of art of everybody else in the event of their being sold to be valued for Death Duties not at a valuer's estimate, but at the actual amount at which they are sold? A valuer's amount and an auction sum are very often a very different thing, especially in works of art which vary from year to year. A notable instance of that has happened in the case of the Abney Collection. I was present at the Abney auction last year, and again this year, and I saw the same picture sold in the two consecutive years for a very considerably different sum indeed. There was a very considerable decrement this year. The whole method of buying pictures for our national collection and of paying the Death Duties back to the vendor is, I think, a wrong one. Why does not the Government, instead of having year after year these Supplementary Estimates for old Masters, make a proper grant just as the German Government do to their national collection? After all, our National Gallery is one of the most educative, most valuable, and most important subjects for public expenditure. You cannot have too many of these pictures. I believe these big Government Supplementary Estimates for these old Masters are a wrong and a bad policy. Let them make a substantial grant to the National Gallery, and do not let us have these Supplementary Estimates. Above all, let it be an instruction to the governing directors, as a condition of that grant, that they shall buy pictures not of the kind that are open to competition in the American market, not these old Masters, but pictures which are going to be valuable some day, and which any expert can tell you is a good painting. After all, what is this picture? It is a picture by a late Flemish artist in a particular manner which he himself afterwards threw over to adopt a broader
  1372
  style. I do not wish to run down the picture, though I myself am not very appreciative of its merits as a real work of art. There is many a picture by men who are far greater artists than this late Flemish artist. Compare the price given for the Van Eych at Frankfurt or the Van Eych at Berlin, and you will see we have paid a gigantic price. I do not say an American multi-millionaire would not have paid anything for a picture which had been for some years in the famous collection of Lord Carlisle. It is a boom picture, and a well-known picture. It has, as was said the other day, been described by one critic as a piece of cold-hearted capable picture-making. It is nothing else. It is not full really of artistic habit, but is a careful painting which an American would appreciate. Those are not the sort of pictures which we ought to buy for our national collection, and I move this reduction as a protest against the method of buying pictures for the National Gallery and against this particular transaction with regard to the Death Duties.
  Mr. LLOYD: I rise to second the Amendment for this reason. Recently, when we addressed some remarks from this side of the House with regard to this very question, we were met with most unsatisfactory replies from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Masterman). I want to ask one specific question with regard to this picture. I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and with all that was said in the House last time. The House of Commons is by no means a competent authority to really decide the value of a work of art of this character, but we are most certainly the right authority to decide how much money should be spent upon these matters, and I want to enter a most energetic protest before this Estimate passes from the House against the manner in which this transaction has been carried out. The purchase of this picture has been advocated on the ground that the nation got the picture at a price very much smaller than its true value. The hon. Member opposite has never yet answered us as to why, if the value was much greater than that named, Estate Duty was not charged on the full value instead of on only £40,000. I should like to ask him this particular question, which, I think, has been put down on the Paper for a later date, but which I think it would be well to have answered in this Debate. I should like to ask "Whether any application was made to the Treasury under Section 20 of the

  1373
  Finance Act, 1896, and as extended by Section 63 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, to exempt from Estate Duty and Legacy Duty the picture recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery." I think it would be just as well, before this Estimate passes from the House, that we should have some definite and clear answer to that question. "If so, what is the date of such application, whether such application was granted, and whether there is any precedent for exempting a single picture from duty under the said Section so long as it remains unsold, and what was the date of the sale of the picture by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery?"
  We discussed this matter at considerable length the other day, and we received no answer which satisfies us in the least. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the position perfectly clear in one brief sentence when he said he quite agreed that possibly the transaction was not one which affected the finances of the country at all on balance, but, if you were going to have a book-keeping transaction you might just as well do it correctly as not. This is no doubt an in correct book-keeping transaction, which, I think the hon. Gentleman ought to justify to the House. It is an absolutely novel and indefensible principle that any person in the State should be exempted on any ground whatever from paying Death Duties after an Act for the payment of Death Duties has been passed. That is a clear fact which I do not believe any amount of rhetoric can get round, and it seems to me, if the vendor wished to escape Death Duties it would have been perfectly possible and far better to have included the amount of Death Duties in the price asked for the picture. That would have achieved the same object for the vendor, and would not have initiated a very bad and vicious principle, as we on this side of the House think it. I should like to make one other point. It is a most regrettable fact, which I hope the Government will do something to remedy, that our National Gallery, which commands so much attention and interest, should be closed at an unnecessarily early hour at many times in the year—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.
  Mr. LLOYD: I bow at once to your ruling. I quite thought that under this Estimate we could discuss any matter
  1374
  which affected the National Gallery. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation on this point with regard to the Death Duties, and one more explicit than that tendered on the last occasion.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think we are entitled to further information from the Government on the question of the purchase of this picture by the trustees of the National Gallery, and the point I want some information on has reference to the question of the Estate Duty which was payable upon the picture. I was told the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a question that the Estate Duty paid for this picture was on the sum of £40,000, and that it was at the rate of 6 per cent. I should like to be more fully informed as to the rate at which the duty was charged and, consequently, the amount on which the duty was charged. As to the rate of 6 per cent., under ordinary circumstances this picture would have been aggregated with the rest of the property passing under the will of the late Lord Carlisle for the purposes of Death. Duty, and as very large real estate and other property passed under that will, the rate for the Estate Duty, if the picture had been aggregated, would have been something like 14 per cent. or 15 per cent., rather than 6 per cent.
  I have been at some trouble to try and find out on what ground only 6 per cent. Estate Duty was charged. It has been suggested to me it is just possible application was made to the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, as amended by the subsequent Act of 1910, to exempt this picture from Death Duty on the ground that it was a picture of national, or artistic, or historic interest, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if that is so. Was any application of the sort made to the Treasury? If so, when, and was it granted? If it were granted I should be glad to know whether there is any precedent for exempting a single picture from the Death Duties under the Section in question. I am quite aware it is a common occurrence to exempt collections of pictures or works of art from Death Duties under the Section; but is there any precedent for exempting a single picture until it is sold under this Section? This is a matter which affects a much larger interest than the Carlisle estate or the trustees of the National Gallery, because if the Treasury are going to exempt single pictures under the Section I should like to know if they are prepared to

  1375
  exempt every picture of artistic interest under the Section, and, if not, why not? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us on what principle the Treasury refuse or grant these applications.
  If, on the other hand, no such application was made at all, then it really becomes most important to know why the rate of Death Duty charged was only 6 per cent. instead of something like 14 or 15 per cent. It may be said, quite truly, that in this particular case it does not matter to the Treasury whether it was 6 per cent. or 14 per cent., because the Treasury were going to pay the duty. But it does matter very much, bearing in mind the conditions under which this picture was sold. Supposing a sale were made of some other picture from the Castle Howard or some other collection. It would be extremely important, both for the purchaser and for the seller of the picture, to know at what rate the Death Duty would be charged. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the importance of this question as affecting the general public, and will give an explanation accordingly.
  My second question is as to the value of the picture sold. We were told that the picture was worth something between £90,000 and £100,000, and, in answer to a question I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was told that the experts employed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had stated that the picture was worth far more than the £40,000 paid for it. The question arises, ought not the duty assessed upon this picture to be, not at the amount paid for it, but on its real value. In the case of every item of property which passes on death, the Treasury are bound to find out the value of the property, and, if necessary, to have a valuation made by an expert for the purpose, and to charge duty on the value of the property. In this case I understand no formal valuation was made, but we are assured the picture was worth much more than £40,000. The question, I submit, is this. Why was not duty charged on the value of the picture instead of on the purchase price paid. Let me put a question to the hon. Gentleman showing the importance of this point. Supposing I, or some more important Member of the House, was left a picture worth £100,000, and that was the price it would fetch in the market. Suppose I, out of friendliness to my family, were to sell the picture for £5,000. I should like to know would duty be
  1376
  charged on the nominal sale price of £5,000, or would it be charged on the real value of £100,000? In the interests of the revenue, it should, I submit, be charged on the £100,000. It matters not one iota what I am willing to sell it for. The real question is the value of the picture, and the Treasury, to my mind, are bound to charge interest on that full value. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day as to the reason why duty was only charged on £40,000, and I got a most astonishing answer. It was to the effect that no valuation of the picture was made by or on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but their expert was satisfied that its value was substantially over the £40,000 paid for it. The hon. Gentleman himself says it was £50,000 or £60,000 more than the £40,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:—
  "In the circumstances, Death Duties were charged on this sum only, as representing such part of the total value as was not in the nature of a gift."
  Let us work that out. A picture worth £50,000 is sold by me for a £5 note to a friend. The rest of it is a gift. Am I or is the purchaser only to pay—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was a gift to the nation.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I welcome that interruption because it is quite irrelevant. I am putting the case of my selling my picture worth £50,000 to a friend for £5, and I should be told, if this answer were pushed to its logical conclusion, that because the rest of it was in the nature of a gift either I or the purchaser need only pay duty on the £5. The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, it is a gift to the nation." It is perfectly true that if a testator who owns a picture makes a gift of it to the nation, that gift is exempt from Death Duty, and very properly. I forget the exact terms of the Section, but if he makes a gift to the National Gallery, or to the nation, or to municipal corporations in some cases, that gift is exempt from Death Duties. That is a very proper and desirable provision in order to encourage gifts to the nation. But the hon. Gentleman will see that this is not a gift by Lord Carlisle, the dead man. It is not a gift by the testator, but it is a gift by a person who inherits it from him, and if a gift by a legatee of the picture to the National Gallery is to be free, so far as it is a national gift, from the duty, why is not a gift by a legatee to a private person to

  1377
  be also exempt from the duty? [An HON. MEMBER: "He could sell it for twice as much."] Yes, but he does not happen to do so. If the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman and his ally the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct, the test of the amount on which he should pay duty is not the value of the article but the amount which is paid for it. I submit that is an entirely unsound test. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that there is some provision in the Finance Act, 1894, or of the several amending Acts relating to this matter, which enables a legatee to be exempt from this duty so far as he makes a gift in the nature of a free gift, I shall be glad to know what those provisions or those Sections are. I have been unable to find any such provision. This is a matter of importance, far transcending the particular question which arises in this case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it does not matter to the nation in this particular case. They agree to pay the Death Duties, and therefore it does not matter whether they are at the rate of 3 per cent. or 20 per cent. But it is an important matter for the purpose of keeping the finance of the nation right, and especially important in the case of gifts from private persons or sales to private persons. I should be glad to know why the Death Duty was only charged at the rate of 6 per cent., and why the amount on which duty was charged was only £40,000, instead of the true value of the picture?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The criticism of the action of the Government in connection with this subject consists really of three suggestions. The first is that the Government ought not to have supported in any way the trustees of the National Gallery in buying this picture at all, because it is a comparatively worthless production. The second is that in some dim fashion, owing to a manipulation of the accounts in connection with the Death Duties, the lady from whom the picture was bought has got more for it than she ought to have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] The third is that, although the account is merely a bookkeeping account, and merely represents the transference of money from one Government Department to another, that transference of money ought to represent a different figure. I think that is the point of the last speaker. As to the first, it was fully debated in Committee when the Supplementary Estimate was
  1378

  presented. In Committee I maintained the position that it was no part of my duty to give my private opinion in the least degree as to the value of the picture. My duty was to see whether the Treasury was obtaining good value for the money, in so far as it advanced money for the purchase of the picture. The work of defending the picture itself was taken out of my hands by a most interesting and illuminating speech by the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres), who, as one of the trustees of the National Gallery, was able to assure the Committee not only of the very great value of the picture, but of the very great gain to the nation in having it in its possession, both through pride in its possession and the pleasure that it was giving to large audiences.
  As far as the Treasury were concerned their responsibility ended with the promise to give £17,700 for a picture which was purchased for £40,000, and for which an offer of £80,000 had been made. Therefore, without discussing whether the picture is a genuine example of the Flemish school, I simply state, so far as the Treasury is concerned, that the nation has made a very good bargain, and therefore ought to receive the support of the House. As to the second point, I do not know whether it was specifically raised in the House, but it was certainly raised in Committee, and then it confused the minds of some persons. It was thought that the payment of Death Duties was somehow connected as a bequest with the sale of the picture by Lady Carlisle to the nation, and therefore any alteration of a figure of the Death Duties would have made no difference in the amount of the transaction as between the various parties concerned. I want to make that once more perfectly clear. The picture was bequeathed without any kind of reservation at all on the death of Lord Carlisle to his wife. The picture was offered for sale by Lady Carlisle to the trustees of the National Gallery for £40,000, plus an unknown quantity X—that is, the Death Duties which the picture would have paid had it not been sold to the nation. The trustees of the National Gallery came to my predecessor in office and asked how far we would support them in raising that £40,000, plus X, the unknown quantity, and after some negotiation my predecessor agreed that he might rightly invite Parliament to vote the sum of £15,000, plus the unknown quantity, to-

  1379
  wards the purchase of the picture, provided that £25,000 could be raised from private sources. That was agreed to. The picture was sold under these conditions, and the Government is now asking the House to vote the money, of which £15,000 represents an actual Vote, and £2,776 represents a book-keeping transaction, passing from this Vote to the Inland Revenue, as representing the Death Duties. I do not say that charge was made in the House, but I saw it was made in Committee, and it has been very widely circulated, and it is well that I should be allowed to put that clearly before the House. If the Death Duties amounted to £50,000, or had been charged at the rate of 15 per cent. instead of 5 per cent., it would not have made the slightest difference as far as Lady Carlisle was concerned. The third charge is that in this transference of account from the money voted from the National Gallery to the Inland Revenue we ought to have placed the Death Duties at a somewhat higher figure as a bookkeeping transaction. There, I agree, we had not precedents to go upon, because the Bill which permitted the special valuation of an estate by itself to apply to objects of artistic interest was only passed, I think, a year ago, and I cannot tell, though I will inquire, that there has been any definite case in which any pictures have been valued under these conditions as estates in themselves.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Was that the Act of last Session or of 1909–10?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Finance Act of 1909–10, Section 63.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Under the Act of 1896, was there any case in which a single settled picture was exempted from duty under the conditions of that Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that offhand, but I shall be very glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman will give notice of a question. Under the conditions, of course, the Treasury has acted quite rightly in valuing the picture as an estate by itself, quite apart from the further question whether they ought to have valued it at £40,000. There is not the slightest doubt that the Treasury have a clear right in the case of a picture of this kind, forming an estate by itself, to exempt it from Death Duty until it is sold, but when it is sold it has to pay Death Duties up to its value as an estate by itself.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Was there any application for that purpose made by Lady Carlisle to treat the picture as an estate by itself?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it was a continuous transaction, as it was done at the time. The result was that the value was taken at £40,000. The duty amounted to 6 per cent. of £40,000—£2,400—and 1 per cent. of Legacy Duty brought it up to £2,776. As to the question of the book-keeping transaction, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be a very dangerous precedent if we agreed that in every case the price, at sale, of the picture should be taken as the value, because, under those circumstances, it would be possible to get out of a considerable quantity of Death Duties. There is, I agree, a case for saying that the picture ought to have been valued by an independent valuer, and a different book-keeping transaction been made in connection with the Supplementary Estimates. The case on the other side is fairly obvious. £40,000 represents the amount which was paid for the picture. If the picture had been given to the nation no Death Duties would have been paid, and any value in the picture over that £40,000 given to the nation represents a value on which no Death Duty is paid. Therefore the only necessity for counting Death Duties, is for the £40,000, which represents the actual cash transaction. If, for instance, this picture consisted of two parts, for one of which £40,000 was paid and the other was given, there would have been no money paid on the picture given, and the other would have been valued at £40,000, and, under those circumstances, with no precedent to guide them, I think the Inland Revenue were perfectly justified in this case in taking the selling value—£40,000—as the value for the purpose of Death Duties.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Would the same principle apply to sales to a private person?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I distinctly said that in a case of a private person, normally the sale would be taken as the accepted price, but if there was any reason to suppose that the picture was being sold under the condition which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, of course an independent valuation would be made.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot help feeling that it would have been a little better if the hon. Gentleman had begun by stating fairly the arguments which have been put against this transaction. Take

  1381
  the first one. The hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) never suggested that the picture was worthless. On the contrary, he says it was a picture of considerable value. There is no dispute about it. The point was that it was undesirable to spend this very large sum on single works of art, necessarily of a very valuable character because they are painted by old Masters and are therefore very rare, when there is a great lade of representatives of modern painters in the National Gallery. I do not pose as an authority or a judge in these matters. I do not pretend to have any opinions worth addressing to the House, but the question is not whether the picture was worthless, but whether the money for it, which was to be spent by the State, could not have been better applied in the interests of the National Gallery. The other two points are much easier for the House to discuss and come to an opinion upon. Let me disclaim altogether, I believe for my hon. Friend and certainly for myself, any suggestion that Lady Carlisle got any advantage personally out of this transaction. I never should have thought that was a possible contention on the figures as appearing in this Estimate, and I make no such suggestion.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was made in Committee.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I was not present. The two points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) were in the first place, was it right to take the selling value as the value under the Act. Of course, normally, the value for Death Duty purposes is the market value, but it is evident that the market value is not necessarily determined by the value at which the particular article passes on a particular sale. In such a case as this it is extremely difficult to arrive at the market value. The market is very restricted, and it may be worth £80,000 one year and £20,000 the next. But the market value is the estimate, and at the same time, differing a little from my hon. and learned Friend, I do not see any very great objections to taking the value at which such an article as this is sold, provided it is not a mere colourable value, and I should not see any great objection to it being the rule in all cases because what the State wants to get at is the advantage which goes to the Exchequer. Therefore as long as the successor does not sell the articles of artistic value, he has not to pay duty at all. When he does sell I do
  1382
  not think it unfair that he should only pay duty on the value actually obtained in the sale, provided it is a fair and reasonable value and not a mere colourable value. It is a point of very great importance to the general taxpayer to know whether any rules or regulations or decisions have been come to in the Inland Revenue. I protest, and always have protested, against the tyranny of the Inland Revenue. I have always said that nothing is more unfair to the ordinary taxpayer than the system of taxation under which we live. The ordinary process of recent Ministries has been to take enormous powers under Statute, very much in excess of those which are ordinarily exercised, particularly in such matters as Income Tax, Death Duties and the like. Then the Inland Revenue does not, in fact, exercise these powers normally. It establishes a rule by which it does not exercise them normally, and that is the understanding; but every now and then, by misapprehension or by over zeal, or something, it exercises these powers to the full, and some individual is penalised to the utmost. The words in the Statute are so large that the Department is entitled to do it. That is a most pernicious system, which ought not to be permitted by Parliament. This seems to me to be an exceedingly good example. As I read the Statute, it seems to me perfectly clear that the value that ought to be taken is the market value. I think myself that the selling value would be the fairer rule, but if that is to be the rule it ought to be put in an Amendment to the Act of Parliament at the earliest possible stage, and not left to the discretion of the Inland Revenue, which may or may not be exercised in favour of the taxpayer.
  The next point is very much more important. Why was this taken as an estate by itself? The hon. Gentleman puts it aside as a mere matter of book-keeping. If it was a matter of book-keeping it would have been much better to take the sum of £5, but here you have the figure stated at £2,776, which has certainly an air of exactitude that leads one to think that a calculation of some kind has been made, and I should suspect that it has been made in reference to the practice of the Department, that some regulation exists, or that some decision has been taken which the House, I think, ought to know about. But the hon. Gentleman said he was clearly entitled to treat this picture as an estate by itself under Section 63 of the Act. I wish

  1383
  the hon. Gentleman to turn to the Section and to be good enough to follow my reading of it in order to see whether there is any such power whatever. The Section says:—
  "In the case of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1896 (which gives an exemption for objects of national, scientific, or historic interest), shall be extended so as to give an exemption from Legacy and Succession Duty as well as from Estate Duty and, as so extended shall take effect whether the property in respect of which the exemption is given is settled or not, and as if the reference therein to national, scientific, or historic interest included a reference to artistic interest, and duty shall only become chargeable when the property is sold, and then only in respect of the last death on which the property passed."
  That is quite clear, and it does not give the right to charge the article as an estate by itself. I was rather puzzled at first by the words—
  "and then only in respect of the last death on which the property passed."
  I apprehend they mean that the property is to be treated as if it had passed on the last death that took place, and that can only mean as part of the estate on which it passed. Therefore, there is no authority to treat the picture as an estate by itself, but actually in the teeth of the clear words of the Statute that is what has been done. I should like to know from the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. McKinnon Wood) and the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna), both of whom have had experience in the office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, what their opinion of the transaction is. I know that the Home Secretary used to take great delight in these problems and difficulties, and I invite them to give their assistance to the House on this point. I ask them to tell the House how this picture was charged as an estate by itself, a proceeding which seems to me to be absolutely in the teeth of the Section. If it be the rule which has been established by the Department, we ought to know that as a definite fact. I very respectfully ask the Government to answer that question.
  Mr. NEWTON: When this Estimate was in Committee I raised a small point on which I did not get an answer from the
  1384
  hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who moved a reduction, also failed to get any answer. The point which I raised, and which has been raised again to-day, is as to the withdrawal of the Grant of £5,000 for next year. The hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the transaction between the trustees of the National Gallery and the representatives of the Treasury. He told us that the trustees said that if the Treasury would grant £15,000 and the further sum of £2,776 then the trustees would be able to raise the balance of the purchase money from connoisseurs and lovers of art in this country. If that is a true statement of what occurred, then I submit that this Supplementary Estimate is in the nature of a fraud, and a very shabby fraud upon the lovers of art in this country who were willing to put up the balance of the purchase money, because the State is contributing the £17,000 with one hand and with the other is taking away the Grant of £5,000 which in the ordinary course would go for the purposes of art. Therefore we are entitled to know what was the bargain with the trustees of the National Gallery. Were they told that if the £17,000 were granted the £5,000 would be withdrawn, or were they merely told that if they put up so much the State would put up £l 7,776? Those lovers of art who put up the money are entitled to an answer to this specific question.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) in what he said just now. I quite welcome the fact that at last the Government have decided that there is some reason for separate valuation on death, and that the system of aggregation is not in all cases being carried out. I raised this particular point with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, and pointed out that in various other matters which are really far more material to the welfare of the country, such as afforestation, aggregation is used against the estate. Having come to the decision to which I have referred I hope sincerely that they will carry it further, and the result will be to give more employment and help the industries of the country.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Am I not to get an answer to my question?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman going to give any answer at all.
  Mr. MOUNT: We ought to get an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not permitted, as the hon. Member knows quite well, to answer, but I may say that I remain totally unconvinced by the arguments that have been put forward.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Several questions have been put from this side, of which the hon. Gentleman has taken no notice whatever. My hon. Friend behind me raised a very important point with regard to the Grant which is to be suspended for the next three years owing to the money having already been taken up by the trustees of the National Gallery. The money voted by this House has naturally to be watched over by Members of this House, and I do not know that any body of men, by whomsoever appointed, have any right to dry up a fund for three years owing to the money having been taken for the purchase of a picture. No doubt they have every right to make the purchase on behalf of the Government, but not to dry up this fund, which has been voted by the House, for the next three years. We may have our own opinion with respect to the picture which has been purchased by the trustees of the National Gallery. None of us denies that it is a very important and valuable picture, and no doubt it will be a great addition to the National Gallery. But some of us on this side of the House may hold the opinion very strongly that there are pictures by other masters which should be added to the National Gallery, and there is some possibility within the next three years, owing to the inroad made upon the fund by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that other pictures far more beneficial to the community in respect of the study of art may come into the market, and there will be no money forthcoming for the purchase of those pictures. That is a very important point in regard to which the hon. Gentleman shelters himself under the Rules of the House. It has been remarked that we are fortunate in having on the Treasury Bench three Members who have had the unique experience of a position of which the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is such a brilliant ornament. There is another point to which I sincerely hope one of the occupants of the Treasury Bench will give an answer, that is with respect to the Death Duties paid by the nation on this picture. What has been done in regard to the pay-
  1386
  ment of these Death Duties is an entirely new departure from anything we have understood in any part of this House. The Death Duties, as a claim on the estate, should have been paid by the vendor of the picture; and I object very strongly to the arrangement, explained in the footnote to the Supplementary Estimate, by which the taxpayer and not the vendor pays these Death Duties. If it were merely a question of book-keeping there would be no loss on either side if it were done in the right way and not in an incorrect manner. The way to do it was for the trustees to name the price plus the Death Duties, and the Death Duties should have been paid by the vendor out of the price of the picture. As the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to treat the House in this way, I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the Home Secretary, who is reading the Statute, and who has the honour of filling a high position at the Bar, whether he will let the House know what his opinion is now he has read the Statute?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The only inference we can draw from the silence of the Treasury Bench is inability to answer the plain question, put by my hon. and learned Friend (Lord R. Cecil), by what authority did they treat this picture as a separate estate. That is a perfectly simple question, and I really think that the right hon Gentleman the Home Secretary, with his long official experience as Secretary to the Treasury and his legal training, might be able to answer it. While he is thinking over it I will give him an easier question. Under what authority, and I presume there is some statutory authority, will any unexpended balance of this Vote not be surrendered to the Treasury. We know that under the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1865 that all unexpended balances of Votes have to be surrendered to the Treasury. What is the authority which in this case overrides the provisions of that Act and the general financial system of the country? That, I think, is a question which the Treasury ought to be able to explain to us.
  Question put, "That £17,776 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 73.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hackett, J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Grady, James

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnes, George N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leeks)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  King, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lansbury, George

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

  Crooks, William

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

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wadsworth, John

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Doris, William

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wardle, G. J

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Martin, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Millar, James Duncan

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, George Hay

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morrell, Philip

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morton, Atpheus Cleophas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Swift, Rigby

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Touche, George Alexander

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

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

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

  Butcher, John George

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cassel, Felix

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Younger, Sir George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Mr. Lloyd.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: With reference to the purchase of this picture I would desire to protest at the mean way the Government are looking at this question. It is not a very generous attitude on the part of the Exchequer. Here we are the richest nation in the world, and because it is spending £17,000 this year in the purchase of a picture, we say we shall not give to the National Gallery the ordinary annual £5,000. Those of us who travel abroad know that foreign nations set great store by their national galleries, and that the galleries at Rome, in Berlin, Paris, and other parts of the Continent are well supplied and well looked after. They are given large and increasing Votes every year for the purchase of pictures for the nation, and for the pleasure of tourists who go to the galleries. I would therefore appeal to the Government to reconsider the matter, for I consider it is the height of meanness on the part of the Treasury to say that because they are spending £17,000 for a picture, therefore for the present year the National Gallery is not to receive any money at all.
  Sir WILLIAM AGNEW: I am bound to say that I echo most heartily the words that have fallen from the hon. Member opposite. A very fine work of art has been purchased by the State, though principally by means of gifts by some rich individuals. I do say, however, that it is really a mean idea that because we have given some money towards the purchase of this picture for the National Gallery, that we should say that for the next year £5,000 should be deducted from the assets of the National Gallery. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to give us some assurance that this question shall at any rate be inquired further into. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool that the great galleries of Europe are more generously supplied with means for getting pictures than is our National Gallery. I do not think we can afford to run the risk of depriving the Gallery of such a comparatively small sum as £5,000. I therefore appeal most sincerely to the Financial Secretary to again look at the question and withdraw that footnote stating that this £5,000 shall not be allowed.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Is it a fact, if we pass this Vote to-night, that any Government which may come into power,
  1390
  and which may wish to give money for artistic purposes, would be precluded from giving money to the National Gallery in future if this Resolution is passed? Does the announcement that this £5,000 would not be given in future preclude a more generous Government which possibly may come into power from giving this money for this purpose?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that the Secretary to the Treasury, when he answered me in a rather discourteous manner a while ago, intimated I regarded this picture as worthless. I did not say anything of the kind. I say we should get a larger Grant for the National Gallery, and that we should have some opportunity of urging the claims of modern painters still living upon the attention of the trustees of the National Gallery. There are hundreds of pictures that come annually into the market which we ought to buy. I have seen pictures bought in London sale rooms by the Berlin Government that ought to remain in this country. From the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury it would appear he cares nothing about our art galleries, but only about these financial transactions. As one of those who has travelled practically all over Europe, I do make an earnest appeal to restore this Grant of £5,000 to the National Gallery.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will do nothing of the kind. We are spending a great deal too much money already, and if the appeal of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, who talks about hundreds of pictures which he knows are in the market and which we ought to buy, is acceded to, this sum of £5,000 will be turned into £50,000. I think we have spent too much money already, and I hope that the Vote will be maintained.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask under what authority the unexpended balances on these Votes are not surrendered?
  Mr. W. PEARCE: May I add my appeal to the appeal of the hon. Members who have spoken. It does seem to me altogether unreasonable that because the nation has made an excellent bargain this year that this unexpended balance should not go to the National Gallery. We have added very considerably to the capital value of the National Gallery by the fortunate bargain the Treasury has been able

  1391
  to make, and it seems to me a very curious argument that, having done well this year, we should withdraw the £5,000 next year. I hope the Government may listen to the appeal made from both sides of the House, and restore this £5,000 to the National Gallery.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I only rise to support the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope). It is a matter on which we ought to have some information. We on this side of the House are extremely anxious to preserve the Government from falling into illegality in these matters, and it surely must be possible, with such an array of ability as the Government Bench presents, for them to tell us by what Statute or authority these unexpended balances will not be surrendered. The question is put perfectly legitimately, and we are entitled to an answer.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I am bound to confess that I do not think it is quite fair to the regular supporters of the Government to bind us, supposing we are in power next year, or to try to bind us, by saying this annual Grant of £5,000 for the purpose of pictures will be suspended for 1912–13. That is the position that no Government, however powerful, can take up. This position can have no other object than to persuade some of us—and it does not persuade me—that the Government wishes to save £5,000 next year because they have done what I think is a perfectly proper thing, namely, taken advantage of the fact that this picture of the Countess of Carlisle's was in the market and purchased it this year. I think that is a reflection upon the artistic tastes and desires of hon. Members upon this side of the House, and I decline to follow the Government in what I call treachery to the best interests of our great National Gallery. I shall support them for £5,000 or £50,000 next year, and I voice whole-heartedly the speech of the hon. Member for Salford and the speech of the hon. Member for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Limehouse."] Then I beg Scotland's pardon, and I congratulate Limehouse upon having a Member so well fitted to represent the best and most intellectual constituency in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] That is a slip of mine. The Government has no right, in the first place, to ask their supporters to consent to the withdrawal of this Grant of £5,000 a year, which is already much too small. In the second place, they can
  1392
  always rely upon the majority of the whole House in any action they take with regard to the purchasing of valuable pictures for our great National Gallery. Because the Government does well this year in the purchase of a great picture, we are now being asked to decline to do anything next year in the name of economy. That is not economy, and I hope one of the many right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will get up and withdraw the last sentence from this Supplementary Estimate on page 13.
  Mr. MORTON: I wish to express my regret that there appears to be nobody on the Government Bench ready to get up to answer these questions. I am aware that the Financial Secretary told us that this question has already been discussed fully in Committee, but that is a childish way of answering, and if he had been about Parliament as long as I have he would have known that the Report stage is to discuss matters over again. Why should the Government not reply? I am bound to say, remembering old times, that, if we were on that side of the House, they would have to answer. We have been told that this is a mere matter of book-keeping. I cannot see that. Supposing Lady Carlisle had not given or sold this picture, she would have had to pay Death Duties, as I understand, on its marketable value, and that would have gone into the Inland Revenue for our benefit. Consequently, it is something more than a mere book-keeping account. I quite agree that the House should discuss this matter, because undoubtedly it is our duty to consider the economical spending of other people's money. If it were our own personal money we should not be squandering it. I therefore welcome the discussion of the matter with a view of controlling some of the people who sit on the Front Bench, and other officials who think they can do as they like with other people's money. We have had speeches from both sides of the House calling upon the Government for an explanation, and there is not a single Member there able to give it. I hope what has occurred to-night will be a lesson to the Government and that they will understand that in future they must have somebody here prepared to answer all these questions, and especially questions in regard to the expenditure of public money. I do not see any sign that any Member of the Government is prepared to give us any reply, and I am sorry therefore I shall have

  1393
  to go into the matter a little further. I should have very gladly given way if I had seen any attempt on the part of the Government to reply to the many questions which have been put to them. I want to know something more about the value of this picture. I want to know whether we have not been wasting our money, and whether anybody is in a position to give us any information, in regard to the picture or its value.
  Mr. BARNES: On a point of Order, is not this covering the some ground as was covered in the previous Debate?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is covering some of the same ground, but I do not know that I could rule it out on that account.
  And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

MINISTERIAL REPLIES ON ESTIMATES.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Under the Rule which exists at the present time I should like to utter a protest against the manner in which the Government have thought fit to treat us this evening. We asked a number of questions on a very important matter, and additional pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury by hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind him. I do not know if those hon. Members would have voted against him in the Lobby, but I do believe if the opinion of the House had been taken the hon. Gentleman's conduct would have been declared deserving of censure. Certainly the attitude which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have adopted to-night almost brings the work of this House to a farce. At the present moment Ministers appear to watch the clock to see if the magic hour of eleven is going to absolve them from any further trouble. We have been discussing a matter of extreme importance. I venture to say that, in any financial measures which we in this House are called upon to vote or to withhold money, it is the duty of the Government to return adequate answers as a matter of courtesy or otherwise. The
1394
matter of courtesy I leave to the hon. Gentleman, but when one realises it was not only the Opposition, but also the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues, who asked the questions which he had not the decency to answer—
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is that a Parliamentary expression?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is any question of decency involved.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I venture to submit that any Minister who treats the House in the manner in which the Financial Secretary did deserves the sincerest censure of all Members of the House.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I think as far as the personal charge is concerned—either of discourtesy or indecency—those who have followed the Debates on the Supplementary Estimates, either in Committee or on Report, will in the main acquit me. Under circumstances which some hon. Members have generously acknowledged, I have had to present the Supplementary Estimates this year, and in every case I have endeavoured to give replies such as are allowed by the House to hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the particular case to which the Noble Lord refers—that of this picture—several questions that were asked to-night were asked again and again on the Committee stage. I made seven or eight short speeches on the Committee stage, endeavouring to reply to all of them. As to the reason why I did not give another reply at the end of the discussion to-night, I may say there was one question which was raised to which I should have replied if there had been an opportunity. So far as I understand the rules, on the Report stage the Minister in charge is not supposed to be continually making speeches introducing fresh matter. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I am prepared to amend my ways, but, so far as I understand them, I have carried out the traditions of the House to the best of my ability, and I hope that the sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord are not the sentiments of the majority of this House.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have no desire to make any personal attack on the hon. Gentleman who has recently come to his new office, for having committed any intentional discourtesy, but I must honestly say I do not think the treatment the House has received in connection with this matter is quite what it is entitled to expect. I do

1395
not wish to go back on my own personal grievance, but I did put a very distinct question. Let me describe what happened. The hon. Gentleman told us that the particular way of treating the Estimate was authorised by a particular Section of a particular Statute. I read the Section of that Statute to the House, and everybody who heard me read it was perfectly satisfied that that Section, as it stood, did not authorise it. I believe that a good explanation might have been given. But the hon. Gentleman says he had already spoken. Surely he could have asked the leave of the House to speak again. If he did not do so, the Home Secretary, who was present, and who had been carefully studying the question for several minutes, could have answered for him. As a mere matter of courtesy, in this case I think it was only what one would have expected from a Cabinet Minister for him to have said, to a perfectly bonâ fide question, "The answer is so and so," or "I do not know the answer," or "It can be given later on." As to that matter, there was no difficulty as regards the Rules of the House. Attention was carefully called by one hon. Member to the fact that the Government proposed to suspend the Grant for next year. That point had not been raised in the Amendment at all. An appeal for the reconsideration of that decision was backed up by four hon. Gentlemen sitting on the hon. Gentleman's own side of the House. It was enforced by several Gentleman sitting on this side. It was a matter capable of being answered in a very short space of time, and I must say that the speech of the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) seemed to deserve a reply.
Mr. MASTERMAN: That was the point to which I was referring where I was prepared to give a reply, although it was fully discussed in Committee.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman had very many opportunities of rising, but he did not rise. He says he would have risen if the hon. Member for Sutherland had sat down. But the hon. Member did not rise till six minutes to eleven, and there would have been ample time to reply. These personal disputes and squabbles are very undesirable, and I do not wish to pursue the matter; but I do think that the Government have not treated the Opposition or the House fairly in regard to this matter.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I may supplement what the Noble Lord has said. I put a very distinct question on the Paper as to why the ordinary normal practice of Parliament was departed from in this instance. It is explained in a footnote that it is departed from, and I asked what the authority was. It was a matter on which presumably the Government knew that they could give an answer in two minutes, with which I should have been perfectly satisfied. And then the question was asked twice by myself and once by another Member, but not one word of reply was given.
Sir A. MARKHAM: When these charges of discourtesy are made against the Financial Secretary, I have sat with hon. Members opposite for many days in Committee upstairs on Bills under the guidance of the Financial Secretary, and the party opposite has said no Gentleman ever treated the Committee with greater courtesy than the hon. Gentleman. When they talk about indecency they ought to remember what they did when in office. I remember addressing many questions and never having the courtesy of a reply. That is not so very long ago, but it was before the Noble Lord was a Member of the House. At all events, so far as the general charge of discourtesy is concerned, a few words ought to be said from these benches. No Under-Secretary in this House endeavours more to do his duty to the House of Commons.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Cost of Living (International Conference).
  Cost of Living (International Conference).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MINIMUM BENEFITS.
  MINIMUM BENEFITS.
  RESERVE VALUES.
  RESERVE VALUES.
  LECTURES.
  LECTURES.
  Coal Mine Assessments.
  Coal Mine Assessments.
  Reduction of Capital Liabilities.
  Reduction of Capital Liabilities.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Valentia Ferry Service.
  Valentia Ferry Service.
  Irish Fisheries.
  Irish Fisheries.
  Turbary Rights.
  Turbary Rights.
  Examinations in Irish.
  Examinations in Irish.
  Naval Strength (Great Britain and Germany).
  Naval Strength (Great Britain and Germany).
  Petty Officers (Royal Navy).
  Petty Officers (Royal Navy).
  Established Men (Dockyards).
  Established Men (Dockyards).
  Naval Establishment.
  Naval Establishment.
  Industrial Disputes (Cost of Troops).
  Industrial Disputes (Cost of Troops).
  Regular Army (Strength).
  Regular Army (Strength).
  Tithe Rent Charge (Wales).
  Tithe Rent Charge (Wales).
  Cotton Manufactured Goods Exported.
  Cotton Manufactured Goods Exported.
  Machinery Exported.
  Machinery Exported.
  Holloway Telegraph Factory.
  Holloway Telegraph Factory.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Post Office Engineering Appointments.
  Post Office Engineering Appointments.
  Women Clerks (Post Office.)
  Women Clerks (Post Office.)
  Illegal Trawling Prosecutions (Scotland).
  Illegal Trawling Prosecutions (Scotland).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Glasgow Water (Charges).

Glasgow Boundaries.

Glasgow Corporation (Water).

Loch Ericht Water and Electric Power.

Lothian Railways.

Lanark County Tramways.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LANARK COUNTY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  LOCH ERICHT WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    Presented, and read 1a.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of Five Members to join with a Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships Message of Tuesday last, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Wednesday next at Two o'clock.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to extend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, 1882 to 1900—Was presented by the Lord Southwark; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 13.)
WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL. [H.L.]
  BAWTRY AND TICKHILL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]

    BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]
    PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Barrymore be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of The Lord Biddulph; read, and agreed to.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Local Authorities to Acquire, &c., Existing Ferries.
(1)—(1) A county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, purchase or accept the transfer of, and the owner of any existing ferry may sell or transfer to a county council, upon such terms as may be agreed on between the owner and the council, any existing ferry which is within the area of that council or which serves the inhabitants of that area.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament under which the ferry was established awl to the rights of my other persons, the county council may work, maintain, and improve the ferry and charge such tolls as were legally chargeable in respect of the ferry before the sale or transfer thereof to the council, or such other tolls as the council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, may determine; or, with the approval of the Local Government Board, the council may, if they think fit, free the ferries from tolls, and shall have the rights and powers which the owner of the ferry possessed and shall be subject to the obligations and liabilities to which he was subject.
(3) A county council may join with any other county council for the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry under this Act, or may contribute towards the expenses of the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry by another county council.
(4) In this Act the expression "existing ferry" means any ferry legally established by Act of Parliament or otherwise at the date of the purchase or transfer, and includes all boats and other vessels, landing stages, approaches, apparatus, plant, and other property used in connexion with the ferry.
(5) The purposes of this Act shall be included amongst the purposes of the Public Health Acts, and the powers conferred by this Act shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with the provisions of those Acts, and the power conferred on the Local Government Board by the Public Health Act, 1875, of repealing, altering, and amending local Acts by Provisional Orders shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act, include a power of making by Provisional Orders such repeals, alterations, and amendments of local Acts as may appear to the Local Government Board to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to agreements under this Act:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing a county council from delegating to any committee to whom they have delegated powers relating to highways any of their powers under this Act which they can delegate to a committee.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, I indicated when I accepted the Second Reading of this Bill the other day that the Local Government Board might have a few Amendments to move in Committee to bring the Bill into a little better shape, and I venture to hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will agree to the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper. The object of the first of the additional subsections standing in my name is merely to give the county council power to borrow for the purposes of purchasing a ferry if necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("ferry") insert:
"(5) A county council may borrow for the purposes of this Act, under section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that section."—(Viscount Allendale.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The next subsection which I propose to add to Clause 1 is to meet the case in which a ferry is merely of service to a particular part of the county. In that case the county council might wish to charge the expense to the particular part of the county which is served by the ferry. It is solely to meet that point that this Amendment is proposed.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new subsection:
"(6) A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county, charge those expenses upon that parish or those parishes as special expenses; and where any expenses are so charged as special expenses, any receipts in respect of the ferry shall be carried to a special county account for the benefit of the parish or parishes upon which the expenses are charged."—(Viscount Allendale.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I agree with the principle embodied in this Amendment, and I have an Amendment later on the Paper to carry out that idea; but I should be perfectly willing not to move my Amendment if the noble Viscount will now accept a slight amendment of his Amendment. I propose that the noble Viscount's Amendment should be altered so that it would read—
"A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry, not being for the purpose of a main road—
because my view is that where a ferry is a connecting link between two main roads which are maintained by a county council the whole of that charge should fall on the county council—
"should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be, to an amount not exceeding one-half, specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county."
and so on to the end of the proposed new subsection. If the noble Viscount will accept those alterations of his Amendment, I will not move the Amendment standing in my name.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The alterations proposed in my Amendment seem perfectly reasonable, and I am quite prepared to accept them provisionally. But if it should appear between now and the Report stage that there are objections which do not occur to me at the moment it may be necessary, on reconsideration, to ask the noble Viscount to agree to a further Amendment. Meanwhile I accept his amendment to my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The next subsection which I propose to add to Clause 1 is the customary adaptation of Section 87 of the Local Government Act, 1888, under which the Local Government Board are entitled to hold local inquiries with regard to matters within their jurisdiction. Presuming a county council required to borrow money for the purchase of a ferry, the consent of the Local Government Board would be necessary, and if objection were taken to the proposal it might be desirable to hold a local inquiry to ventilate the proposal and at which persons objecting could be heard. But should there be no objection to the proposal, it would not be necessary to hold an inquiry, and in that case there would be no extra expense involved by the insertion of this Amendment.
Amendment moved:
Insert the following now subsection:
"(7) Section eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1888, which provides for local inquiries, shall apply to any cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under this Act as it applies to cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under the Local Government Act, 1888."—(Viscount Allendale.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: As long as it is clearly understood that an inquiry is not compulsory in every case, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: I understand that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The purpose of the next Amendment is to include the council of a county borough within the expression "county council." It has been thought desirable to extend the Bill so as to include the councils of county boroughs, and obviously the term "county council" would not, without some express provision such as this, cover the case of a county borough council.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new subsection:
"(8) In this Act, the expression 'county council' includes the council of a county borough, and the council of a county borough shall have the same power of borrowing for the purposes of this Act as they have under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the execution of those Acts."—(Viscount Allendale.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I did not desire to extend the scope of this Bill, but if the Local Government Board attach importance to this Amendment I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: I now move to omit from the Bill the present subsection (5).
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 6 to 21, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Allendale.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: I move to insert, after Clause 1, a new clause providing for the protection from injury of passengers and the general public in regard to the working of ferries. In the case of an ordinary ferry with a footpath where people are taken across in a boat, there would be no occasion for anything of this sort; but there are a good many ferries worked by mechanical power, and in those cases some such provision as is contained in my Amendment is necessary. My attention was directed to this matter by a horrible accident which occurred at Devonport. A number of children were playing on the beach across which heavy chains run in connection with the ferry, and I saw the foot of a girl caught in the chain and a ghastly accident resulted which could easily have been averted if proper precautions had been taken. I have made the clause permissive, so that the Board of Trade would only make regulations where required. I made inquiries at the Board of Trade in regard to the case to which I have called attention, and was informed that they had no responsibility as the laud belonged to the Admiralty. The Admiralty also disowned responsibility. I think there should be protection for the public in regard to all ferries of this kind, and I therefore move the insertion of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
". In the case of every ferry acquired under this Act regulations with regard to the working may be made by the Board of Trade for the protection from injury of passengers and the general public."—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: We should all naturally wish that every precaution should be taken for the safety of passengers and the general public, but whether it is necessary to bring in another Government Department I do not know. I should have thought that the care of this matter might be left to the Local Government Board. I am anxious, however, that the public should be protected, and if the noble Earl thinks it would make it safer that the clause should stand as it is I have no objection to it.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: As far as the Board of Trade are concerned, they have no objection to the insertion of this clause. The noble Earl who moved it made out a good case for it, especially with regard to ferries worked by mechanical power. The clause, as your Lordships see, is purely permissive, and under it the Board of Trade can exercise jurisdiction or not as they think fit.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Board of Trade consider the new clause which I now propose as necessary to safeguard Crown rights. Your Lordships are aware that a great many ferries are worked in tidal waters, and for this reason the Board of Trade are of opinion that this clause, which is a usual one, should be inserted to safeguard Crown rights in this case. I trust that the noble Viscount will not object to its insertion.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
". Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown, and in particular nothing herein contained authorises any county council to take, use, or in any manner interfere with any portion of the shore or bed of the sea or of any river, channel, creek, bay, or estuary or any land, hereditaments, subjects, or rights of whatsoever description belonging to His Majesty in right of His Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or of the Board of Trade respectively without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be, on behalf of His Majesty first had and obtained for that purpose (which consent the said Commissioners and Board are hereby respectively authorised to give)."—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday the 25 th instant, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 14.)

IRISH FINANCE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the contents of the Report of the Committee on Irish Finance, or any part thereof, or its general import, have been shown or communicated to any member of either House of Parliament, except Ministers, or to any other person, and, if so, to whom.
The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will remember that on Tuesday last I placed on the Notice Paper the Question which I have repeated to-day. Although that Question had been on the Paper for several days, the noble Marquess to whom I addressed it declared himself utterly ignorant with regard to any answer he could give. I confess I was greatly astounded at receiving such a reply, and at the same time I said that I considered the reply extremely discourteous. On those grounds I have repeated the Question to-day. I do not think the noble Marquess can again repeat that he is ignorant of the answer, as he has had now, after the warning I gave him, plenty of time to make himself master of the details. If he again thinks it right to plead ignorance I am bound to say I shall consider the ignorance wilful and premeditated. The noble Marquess is a prominent member of His Majesty's Cabinet, and he told us the other day that he will be in charge of the Home Rule Bill when it reaches your Lordships' House. Consequently he must be in a position to have access to every Paper and to make himself master of every fact and detail in connection with that Bill. The Report to which I have alluded is a most important item in connection with that Bill, and I say deliberately that if the noble Marquess again pleads ignorance or does not give me a direct answer, we—and there are many of us—shall believe that this Report has been submitted to Nationalist Members, and that His Majesty's Government are ashamed and afraid to acknowledge or justify that action. I beg to put my Question.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I was sorry to observe from the speeches of the noble Marquess and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, the day before yesterday, that in their opinion the reply which I gave to the noble Marquess on that occasion was wanting in courtesy.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I scrupulously avoided that. I said I would not call it unfair, but I could not say that it was fair.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid that is somewhat faint praise of my attitude on that occasion, but I should be exceedingly sorry to treat any member of the Party opposite either with discourtesy or unfairness. If I desired to adopt that attitude, the last man that I should desire to subject to it would be the noble Marquess opposite. What I said on Tuesday was that in my view the question whether this confidential Paper had or had not been shown to any individual outside the Cabinet had no effect whatever in limiting the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in relation to the financial terms of the Home Rule Bill which will be introduced next month in another place; and in order to impress upon your Lordships that view I added that so strongly was this my conviction that I had not even taken the trouble as a member of the Government to inquire for my own information as to whether any individual had or had not seen the Paper. I was careful to add that, even if I had made the inquiry, its result could have had no effect upon the answer which I should give to the noble Marquess, because for the general reasons which I have given of the history of the affair, and of the private and confidential nature of the inquiry, that fact made it impossible to reply either "Yes" or "No" to the question. On that point I am afraid I can give the noble Marquess no further information. I explained that the inquiry was an informal one for the benefit of His Majesty's Government and to assist them in the preparation of the Bill. The existence of that inquiry was, as the noble Marquess himself pointed out, casually, and surely quite harmlessly, mentioned by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary—mentioned, it is reasonable to conclude, merely as a piece of evidence that His Majesty's Government were paying close attention to that side of the question. But the inquiry was, as I have said, an altogether informal and confidential one, and it would, I think, involve a complete departure from precedent to discuss whether a particular confidential Paper had been shown to any person outside the immediate circle for which it was prepared, and thereby to invite a discussion as to whether a
482
Paper, the contents of which, after all, are so far not known to the public, ought or ought not to have been seen by any eyes but those of His Majesty's Ministers. I fear, therefore, I have nothing in substance to add to the reply which I gave to the noble Marquess the day before yesterday.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Marquess has nothing to add, but I think he has forgotten his last answer. He stated distinctly on the last occasion that he did not know whether communication had been made of the Paper to any one outside the official list of the Government. That was the point to which I addressed myself when I spoke. Now the position is this. The Government do not recede from that statement. The noble Marquess does not say now whether lie knows or does not know. That is the difference between his answer now and the answer which he gave the other day. Does he know or does he not know now? He has not said that. This is a document obviously of importance. It must play some part, I would say a considerable part, in the statement of the ease by the Prime Minister elsewhere. It must be commented upon here by the noble Marquess who is going to be in charge of the Home Rule Bill. It is obvious that when the debate is opened any side of the House which is informed of the contents of that document will have a considerable advantage. They will know how to deal with it; they will know how to qualify it if it needs qualification; they will know how to rely upon parts that are in their view worthy of being examined from a critical point of view. It will be a distinct asset in the debate to have a knowledge of that document. The noble Marquess's position is this. He can make a solemn oath that would be accepted by everyone that the document was not communicated to any member of the Opposition, but when he is asked a question which covers Mr. Redmond and his Party the position of the noble Marquess is that "where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I understand we are justified in believing that the document has been shown to members of the Nationalist Party and has been refused to the members of the Unionist Party?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not think the noble Marquess is justified in believing anything beyond what I have said.

IRISH JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of certain magistrates in Ireland, namely, Mr. J. K. O'Connor, of Castleisland, Co. Kerry; Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, of Killarney; Mr. Patrick Scott, of Scribbagh Garrison, Co. Fermanagh; and Mr. John Sweeny, Burton Port, Co. Donegal—

1. In relation to the conviction of these magistrates in a Court of Law.

2. Their still retaining the office of Justice of the Peace; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in calling the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of certain magistrates in Ireland I do not intend to enlarge upon the evil of keeping on the Bench magistrates who have been convicted in a Court of Law of certain offences which I will mention. That, I should think, was palpably clear to everyone, and I hope it will be much clearer when I state the cases against these magistrates. The first case I will take is that of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan. He was a candidate for the representation of East Kerry in the House of Commons and was elected, but there was an election petition in relation to that contest, and Mr. Justice Madden and Mr. Justice Kenny, who tried the petition, reported that corrupt practices were proved to have been committed with the knowledge and consent of the said Eugene O'Sullivan, and that the nature of such corrupt practices was "undue influence and intimidation exercised in order to induce voters to vote for the said Eugene O'Sullivan or to refrain from voting for the petitioner, John Murphy." The result of that petition was that the election was declared void, and the decision of the Judges was reported by Mr. Speaker to the House of Commons on July 11, 1910. But there was something further which was rather serious, and which Mr. Justice Kenny mentioned, with regard to Mr. O'Sullivan. Mr. Justice Kenny, in delivering judgment in the East Kerry election petition case, said—
"The Firies district a quarter of a century ago was the scene of a terrible crime. It is hard to credit any decent law-abiding person identifying himself with that terrible outrage, yet we find the respondent (Eugene O'Sullivan) delivering a speech of a very shocking character in connection with moonlighting in the Firies district."
484
Mr. Justice Madden, too, said that of the speech of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan and the sentiments that prompted it there could be only one opinion amongst those who had any respect for the law or any regard for the good fame of the county of Kerry. That is the record of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and, as far as I know, after this occurred he was made a justice of the peace for the county, and for all I know remains on the Commission of the Peace. There I leave Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan.
I now come to the case of Mr. J. K. O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor is a justice of the peace for the county of Kerry and stood as a candidate for the county council for the division of Castleisland. That election will long be remembered, because Castleisland swam in porter, and treating and drunkenness prevailed. So bad was it that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry, in the Lentern Pastoral, referred to it. He said—
"Another matter which a sense of duty compels me to mention is the manner in which some of our local elections are conducted. The language used, instead of being informing and elevating, is grossly personal, lowering, and demoralising."
And he concluded—
"Worse still, some of these elections are conducted without even an appearance of public decency. They become the occasion of wholesale drunkenness, and sometimes even of violence."
Mr. O'Connor, at the Castleisland election, headed the poll. He is a most successful merchant in that town, and a wave of porter—you can describe it as nothing else—landed him safely on the county council beach. He headed the poll with a majority of thirty votes. But, alas!there was an election petition. Mr. O'Connor appeared as respondent, and this was the result of the Commissioner's finding: He found that the respondent had been guilty of corruptly supplying drink to voters for the purpose of corruptly influencing such voters, and that the respondent was also guilty of corrupt practices, and he declared the election void. The Crown Solicitor of Kerry represented the Attorney-General for Ireland at the Commission. It is, I believe, laid down by Statute that the Attorney-General should report to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland any one guilty of corrupt practices at an election. That, however, was not done in this case. A long correspondence ensued between Mr. Peirce Gun Mahony (a Kerry gentleman) and the late Lord Chancellor, but nothing came of it

485
whatever. Mr. Mahony also wrote to the Lord Lieutenant, and again nothing came of it. He also wrote to Mr. Redmond Barry, then the Attorney-General and now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and received an answer that the matter had his attention. I would not have brought this before the House, but as far as I can gather the authorities have treated the whole matter with the utmost unconcern, and as far as I know this Mr. O'Connor is still a justice of the peace. But whether he is now or not, I am perfectly certain that he was for some time after this occurred in consequence of the authorities not acting at once as they should have done. That is the case against Mr. O'Connor.
Now let me take the case of Mr. Patrick Scott, who is a justice of the peace for the County of Fermanagh. Mr. Patrick Scott has repeatedly been fined for drunkenness, especially in May, 1909, at Belleek. He became an ex officio magistrate for the County of Fermanagh in October, 1909, by virtue of his election to the office of chairman of the Ballyshannon (No. 2) Rural District Council. A year after, while still a justice of the peace—namely, in November, 1910—Mr. Scott was brought before a magistrate out of petty sessions at Enniskillen and fined 1s. on a charge of intoxication. That was, as I say, after he had been appointed a magistrate, and that has been admitted, in answer to a Question, by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons. I am a magistrate for my county, and I am perfectly certain that if I was fined for drunkenness and then proceeded to sit on the Bench the first person who would ask a Question in the House of Commons about it would be the Nationalist Member for my county, and I should be removed—and very properly so—from the Commission of the Peace at once. But Mr. Scott goes on as chairman of the Ballyshannon Rural District Council and also as a justice of the peace administering justice, notwithstanding that after he was made a magistrate he has been fined for drunkenness.
The last case I shall refer to—and I am sure that your Lordships are tired of hearing of the ill-doings of these magistrates in Ireland—is that of Mr. John Sweeny, who is a justice of the peace for the County of Donegal. Mr. Sweeny was, on February 14 last year, convicted of selling drink on premises not duly licensed, and was fined £50. Mr. Birrell, in answer to a Question in the House of Commons,
486
admitted that Mr. Sweeny had been convicted of the illegal sale of spirits and beer at his hotel in Burtonport, which is not licensed, and that he was fined nominally £50 in each case, but the fine was reduced by the magistrates to £12 10 s. in each case with a recommendation by the Bench that the amount be further reduced to 10 s. in each case.
Those are the cases which I wish to bring before your Lordships. It is well that you should know the excessive supineness of the authorities in Ireland with regard to these cases. Surely the county Benches in Irelard ought to be kept as clear of these sort of men and their actions as possible. I am sure you will all admit that, and we ask that they should be. I do not care under what form of Government we are, nothing tends to the social welfare of a community more than that the magistrates who deal with small offences in a county should be above suspicion and should be men of integrity and high standing. That holds good in every country in the world and in no country does it hold so good as in England, where everyone is proud of the county magistrates. We ask that Ireland should be treated in the same way, and that there magistrates when they commit offences of this sort should be at once removed from the Bench. I have a sort of idea that perhaps some of these men are no longer justices, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how long after these offences were committed were they allowed to remain on the Commission of the Peace. That is the question I wish particularly to put. I beg to move for Papers if there are any available on the subject.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the position of certain magistrates in Ireland in relation to their conviction in a Court of Law and to their still retaining the office of Justice of the Peace.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the Motion of the noble Earl is another instance, of which we had au example yesterday, of the drastic o and disciplinary action which noble Lords opposite are always urging the Government of Ireland to adopt towards people who happen to be their political opponents. I do not know whether that is intentional or not, but the noble Earl will see that it must deprive his Motion of much

487
of the moral force to which it would otherwise be entitled. Yesterday the attack took one shape against one individual, to-day it takes another against other individuals, but the objects and motives are always the same. I will say this, that if the suitability of every public officer in view of Ins speeches and actions is to be impartially considered, and if any departure from the best traditions of his office is to be visited with indiscriminate severity, there are other individuals occupying more important and more responsible positions whose actions would come under the consideration of the Irish Executive and whose dismissal from the offices which they occupy could, I think, be better defended in the public interest.
Yesterday noble Lords opposite thought they had a good case, but they cannot expect to be always equally fortunate. I think the noble Earl who has moved this Motion had some misgivings in the matter, for he has no less than three times edited and revised the "black list" which he has submitted to your Lordships. But, even so, he has not succeeded in eliminating all the mare's nests which his original document contained, because the first gentleman to whom he called attention—Mr. J. K. O'Connor—is no longer, and has not been for a considerable time, on the Commission of the Peace. Now with regard to these cases, in the first place I must decline to discuss the cases which have been subsequently added to the list. I think the noble Earl himself will agree that when the subject involves the private character of certain individuals and the discretionary power of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it is only fair that longer notice should be given than that which he has been able to afford. One name was only put on the Paper to-day, and another name was only put down yesterday—I refer to Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan and Mr. John Sweeny. Therefore I shall have to ask the noble Earl to be good enough, if he wishes to raise those two cases, to put them down for a future day. With regard to Mr. O'Connor, I have already stated that he is no longer on the Commission of the Peace. Mr. O'Connor, as the noble Earl has stated, was elected to the Kerry County Council in June, 1908, and was unseated on petition. For some reason or other, which is not very clear I admit, the fact was not brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and there was some doubt whether he could interfere
488
in the matter in view of the fact that he had no official information on the subject. But subsequently, in view of a decision given by Mr. Justice Kenny in another case to the effect that the office of a magistrate was ipso facto vacated from the date of the making of the report, the name of Mr. O'Connor was removed from the Commission. Therefore in that case the noble Earl's indictment is a little out of place.
I come to the case of Mr. Patrick Scott, the only other case with which I shall deal to-day. It is true that Mr. Scott was on one occasion brought before a magistrate and convicted on a charge of intoxication and fined the sum of 1s. The matter was reported to the Irish Lord Chancellor, and he, having considered the circumstances of the case, did not consider it incumbent upon him to take action. The noble Earl also mentioned that this man had, previous to his appointment to the Bench, been convicted of a similar offence. With regard to that I should like, in the first place, to say that this gentleman was an ex officio magistrate. He owed his appointment to the Act of 1898 passed by the Party opposite, by which the chairmen of rural district councils and such like bodies become ex officio members of the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland has always considered that, although he is, of course, responsible for these magistrates as he is responsible for all magistrates, his responsibility with regard to them is of a lesser character than if he had been responsible for their appointment, and he is always less inclined to intervene in those cases than if it was a case of an ordinary magistrate who owed his appointment to the Lord Chancellor's discretion and authority. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite will bear me out when I say that.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Why?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am surprised that he does not. I think he was Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1905.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: At that time it seems that the noble and learned Lord took the view that though these ex officio members fell within his jurisdiction, yet in a sense he was not so strictly responsible for them as he would be for a gentleman whom he had himself appointed.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The Lord Chancellor does not appoint these ex officio magistrates. He is, of course, directly responsible for those he does appoint.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Mr. Walter Long was asked a Question in the House of Commons in 1905 concerning a Mr. Kelly. I dare say the noble and learned Lord will remember the case of Mr. Kelly.
LORD ASHBOURNE: There are a good many Kellys in Ireland.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: This was rather a well-known Mr. Kelly. He was chairman of the Loughrea District Council, and this is what Mr. Walter Long said in answer to a Question in the House of Commons with regard to certain observations made by this gentleman—
"I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor whose observations are as follows: Mr. Kelly became a magistrate under the provisions of the Local Government Act without the need of any previous sanction or approval from the Lord Chancellor, and he only thereon became amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor under the enactment which places him in the same position as other Irish magistrates with regard to conduct after he became a magistrate. But this power does not authorise the Lord Chancellor to inquire into speeches made several months before his election."
LORD ASHBOURNE: That is common sense.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I agree, and that is the point I am trying to make. The noble Earl endeavoured to make a considerable point of the fact that this gentleman, who was in the same position as Mr. Kelly in that he was an ex officio magistrate, had been convicted of intoxication before he joined the magistracy. Then, of course, there was the subsequent charge after he had become a magistrate, and there, as I have said, the late Lord Chancellor, having the circumstances of the case before him, did not consider it sufficiently grave to justify him in removing this magistrate from the Commission. The fact that Mr. Patrick Scott was only fined 1s., which is a nominal fine, proves that it was not a serious offence. Anyhow, all I can say is that that is the position of affairs. With regard to the other two cases, I shall be glad to answer the noble Earl upon them on a subsequent occasion if he will put a further Notice on the Paper.
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask whether Mr. Sweeny and Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan are still magistrates?
[No answer was given.]
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I had not when I came down to the Home by any means made up my mind to speak, though I had made myself acquainted with the facts of the cases cited, and after the explanation that has been given I think I ought to say one or two words. I heard with great regret the opening sentences of Lord Ashby St. Ledgers's speech in which he attributed to my noble friend political motives in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. I hope that will not be assumed about all of us, because I certainly, speaking for myself, know nothing of the magistrates mentioned, and except from what I have read I know nothing of the incidents beyond those I ascertained when the matter was brought to my attention. I really must ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that it is a legitimate thing for noble Lords in this House to bring before the Government cases which affect the administration of justice.
The pure administration of justice in the petty sessional Courts of the country is of the utmost importance to all classes of the community. I do not for a moment suggest that you can select magistrates from a particular class. I should be very sorry to say that. I believe that cases where objection is to be taken are not many in Ireland. I know that in my own county I am associated on the Bench with magistrates, some of whom are tenant farmers and, I believe, hold strong Nationalist principles, but who administer justice as well as any magistrates that I know of. I work with them on the pleasantest relations. So I start with no feeling whatever in the matter. But I do say you ought not to put aside an inquiry concerning a magistrate, who occupies a judicial position and exercises judicial functions, as a purely Party matter to be dealt with as such. My noble friend said very little of the case of Mr. O'Connor, and I will not deal with either of the cases with regard to which the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government said he had not had sufficient notice.

491
The case of Mr. O'Connor deserves a little more notice than has been given to it, because it has a very curious history. Mr. O'Connor was appointed a magistrate, as I understand, in 1907. I take no exception to his appointment, but whether or not he was appointed without sufficient inquiry—and I do not attribute blame to the then Lord Chancellor for a moment—he was unseated on petition, in the circumstances to which my noble friend has called attention, in 1908, and, that having happened. Mr. Mahony, the gentleman to whom my noble friend referred, being interested in the matter, communicated with the Lord Chancellor. I think his letter was written in August, 1910, and in April, 1911, he received a letter from the Lord Chancellor in which the case was dealt with as follows—
"As to the case of Mr. J. K. O'Connor, of Castleisland, who is stated to have been reported by an Election Court for corrupt practices, neither the report of that Court nor the evidence on which it was based has been transmitted to the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Statute. The Lord Chancellor does not, accordingly, consider that he is called upon to decide whether under the circumstances any action by him should or should not be taken or to express au opinion on the legal aspect of the ease."
You get in that way to a most extraordinary position.
The Attorney-General, under a section of the Corrupt Practices Act, has a Ministerial duty thrown upon him to report every case in which a justice of the peace has been reported by an Election Court for corrupt practice. It was my duty for many years as Director of Public Prosecutions to perform that duty in this country, and it is not a matter in which any discretion is exercised. It is a mere Ministerial act, and, of course, it is possible that the Attorney-General's attention was not drawn to the omission of some one to write the letter for him to sign. Anyhow, you get to the position that it is not reported, and the Lord Chancellor stated that not having received the report there was nothing for him to do. It does seem that the result of that is entirely to neutralise the effect of the Act of Parliament, because it is a perfectly clear statutory duty. The report is to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor then exercises his discretion. That does not appear to have been done at this stage, and, as we were told by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, it was
492
not until the case of another magistrate—an ex officio magistrate—was heard and the question was raised that the Lord Chancellor realised or thought that he ought to take action in the case of Mr. O'Connor—in the year 1911 I think that was. That meant that Mr. O'Connor was exercising judicial functions from 1908 to 1911 without it having been considered at all whether he should or should not remain a member of the Bench.
I am afraid it does not end quite there, because, as I read the Corrupt Practices Act, I am disposed to think that Mr. O'Connor was incapable of exercising his functions at all after the report of the Election Judges. The Statute seems to be clear, because what it says is this—
"If a candidate is reported for treating or undue influence he is subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the report he had been convicted on indictment of corrupt practice."
And another section runs—
"A person convicted on indictment of corrupt practice shall for seven years not be capable of holding any public or judicial office, and if he holds any such office the office shall be vacated."
A judicial office is, in the interpretation clause, to include a justice of the peace. I should have hesitated to express that opinion if it had not been the exact point in the case before Mr. Justice Kenny when he quashed the conviction of a person convicted by a magistrate sitting under those circumstances. The result really is that Mr. O'Connor has exercised judicial functions for something like three years when he ought not to have sat at all. That was due, no doubt, to some official mistake at the beginning, because I have no doubt whatever—and anybody who knew the late Sir Samuel Walker will agree—that if he had realised the seriousness of the case some action would have been taken at the time.
This has been altogether a most unfortunate state of things. I have no feeling whatever about Mr. O'Connor, and I can assure the noble Lord that I have no political feeling in this matter at all. But I think it is a most important thing that justice should be justly administered, and that people of all classes should believe that it is justly administered. If there once arises mistrust

493
of the administration of justice communities begin to take the law into their own hands. The law is the protector of the weak and the guardian of everybody's rights, and its administration is of much more importance than whether it is a good law or a Lad law. I can only say that I am glad that at length the question of Mr. O'Connor has been settled.
As regards Mr. Patrick Scott, I do not think there is much to be said. People may hold different opinions as to whether one conviction of drunkenness should involve removal from the Bench. I confess that if I had to give my own opinion I do not think leniency is much in place in dealing with magistrates so convicted. I am not, I hope, a hard man, but I think that to allow a person who has been convicted in the locality to sit on the Bench in judgment on other people charged with similar offences a very questionable thing. It is a case, perhaps, where severity against the individual may be necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.
My working life has been passed in a responsible position connected with the administration of the criminal law. It is a matter which is near to my heart, and I do think that the case of Mr. O'Connor ought to have been a little more developed and explained. I desire to repeat that I make no attack on the distinguished Lord Chancellor of Ireland who has unfortunately passed from among us, or on the Attorney-General of the time. I am sure there was some mistake. I do not know whether this discussion will be of much use, but I am quite sure that the distinguished lawyers who now occupy the positions of Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General in Ireland will need no stimulus from this House to do their duty, and I recognise gladly that the particular wrong to which my noble friend referred has now been righted.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords. I should not have intervened in this discussion had it not been for the rebuke, I think the wholly unjustifiable rebuke, which the Paymaster-General of His Majesty's Forces thought proper to address to my noble friend and those who have supported him on the present occasion. The noble Lord told us that we were not for the first time advocating drastic and
494
disciplinary action towards our political opponents. A more unwarrantable imputation of political bias was never, I think, made in this House. Does the noble Lord suppose that it is only those who hold our political opinions who are interested in the fair administration of justice by local Benches in Ireland? I say it is a matter which concerns all classes of the community, the humblest as well as those who are in a higher position. I believe it is notorious that many of these local Benches are at the present moment recruited in such a manner that nothing but a denial of justice can be expected from them in cases of a certain class. I have no doubt that if this attack had been anticipated we should have been able to bring forward examples in support of the view which I am endeavouring to express, but amongst the papers which I happen to have by me I have one or two to which I will venture to refer in order to convince the noble Lord that this is not, as he supposes, a mere Party move on the part of my noble friend and others.
Here is the report of a case which was heard at Omagh before Judge Todd in the mouth of October last. His Honour said that the evidence was perfectly and absolutely clear and there was no contradiction, yet a number of magistrates expressed the opinion that the defendant should not be convicted. Judge Todd observed, upon that, that—
"It made him ashamed that some gentlemen, after the evidence which had been sworn before them, should act contrary to it."
That was the opinion of a learned Judge.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: When was that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It happened in the month of October, 1911, at Omagh. Then in the case of Patrick Scott, referred to by my noble friend, I will read what the learned Judge—Judge Craig—had to say. He said—
"He had often spoken about the class of persons appointed to the magistracy in both Counties Monaghan and Fermanagh. It was a disgrace to the administration of justice, and if the people who appointed such magistrates could only see them they would be ashamed of themselves."
I will give the noble Lord one more quotation. The Roman Catholic Lord Bishop

495
of Elphin, in his address at Roscommon in June last, stated that—
"Magistrates too often had no respect for their obligations to dispense the law justly and without favour. The Bench of Magistrates was sometimes so packed that culprits, although guilty, were certain to be acquitted."
With observations of that kind from a right rev. Prelate and from learned Judges, it is a little hard that we should be told when we draw attention to these matters that we are actuated only by political motives. I must say that all I have heard about the manner in which the Benches are recruited in Ireland leads me very strongly to the opinion that just as we had an inquiry into the appointments of justices of the peace in England, so it is high time that a similar inquiry should be instituted into the manner in which persons are appointed to the local Benches in Ireland, and the manner in which they are allowed to remain on those Benches after they have been guilty of conduct obviously and clearly rendering them unfit to perform judicial duties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely rise with reference to the point raised by my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Desart) to express the satisfaction which I feel that in drawing the attention he did to the case of Mr. O'Connor he entirely exonerated the memory of my friend the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland from any imputation either of unfairness or of negligence. I am quite sure that all those who knew Sir Samuel Walker would know well that he was incapable of either. And in saying that I do not at all dissociate myself from the regret expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Cross Benches that the oversight, or however it ought to be described, should have occurred by which the case of Mr. O'Connor, which seems to have been a simple one for action in the sense that his removal from the Bench was necessary by Statute after his adventures at the Castleisland election, was not dealt with.
The noble Marquess opposite appeared to resent the observation which my noble friend behind me made at the beginning of his remarks. It is surely one of the unfortunate features of all discussions about Ireland that by common repute, when attention is drawn to a matter by one side or the other or when steps are taken by
496
one side or the other which may be described as being severe, motives are almost always imputed, and it is said that the action is due to some form of Party feeling. We all know and regret how high both Party and religious feeling run in Ireland, and if noble Lords opposite are on an occasion like this subjected to the possible imputation of motives by those outside—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: By those inside.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am equally convinced that if it should fall to our lot at any time to be obliged to take action of a disciplinary character against those who are politically opposed to us, imputations of a similar character would be made, and supposing, for instance, at any time we found it necessary to deal with a prominent Orangeman in a disciplinary manner we should undoubtedly be told in the North of Ireland that we were simply actuated by Party feeling and opposition to Unionists. Nobody regrets more than I do that such a state of feeling should exist in Ireland as to make such imputations possible. It was certainly not the intention of my noble friend to accuse noble Lords opposite of being simply actuated by Party feeling, but he was within his rights, I think, in drawing attention to the fact that such imputations were not unlikely to be made.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Marquess, who was in some difficulty in making the somewhat laboured remarks which he has just made, must be conscious that the noble Lord who dealt with this question on behalf of His Majesty's Government made a grave mistake in commencing his remarks with the charge that this matter was brought forward for political motives. I ask any of your Lordships who listened to Lord Mayo whether the case could possibly have been presented in a more impersonal way. There was no suggestion that he knew anything of the politics or religion of any of the gentlemen mentioned. I myself do not know them. But the noble Lord who rose to speak in reply began by denouncing the whole matter as "a Party move." It is not a question of what would be said outside; it is a question of what has been said in your Lordships' House by the representative of the Government. I say the imputation was improper, it was unbecoming, it was uncalled for, and it should have been

497
repudiated by the Leader of the House. The noble Marquess who leads this side rightly commenced his remarks by administering a dignified reproof of the language which had been used, and it would not have been unbecoming if the noble Marquess who leads the House had said some words to show that he concurred with what had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition.
The noble Lord asked that two of the cases mentioned by my noble friend should stand over. Accordingly they will stand over until a future date. As to the case of Mr. O'Connor, the noble Lord informed the House that he is no longer a magistrate. That case occurred in the time of my lamented friend the late Lord Chancellor, for whom I had the most unqualified respect. He was a dear and valued friend of mine, and is no longer alive to give a statement of the grounds on which he dealt with the case, but I am sure he was animated by a high sense of duty. As to the other case in which he exercised a discretion, I have no doubt that when he did apply his mind to it he did so with an anxious desire to do what was right and what was required by the exigencies of the case. When attention is called at a subsequent date to the other cases mentioned I am sure they will be presented by my noble friend behind me with the same moderation that he has displayed to-day, and I trust that the matter will be dealt with on the next occasion by the Government without any suggestion of political motives.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I am sure it is not necessary for me to repudiate the statement that I had any political motive in bringing this matter forward. What I do object to is that when I call attention to the cases of these magistrates and their actions I should be accused of introducing "mare's nests."
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The object of the noble Earl's Motion was to secure the removal of these men from the Bench. As one of the men is no longer on the Bench I think my term was applicable.
THE EARL OF MAYO: But a man who was convicted of drunkenness is still on the Bench. I will, however, withdraw my Motion to-day, and deal with the cases of the other two magistrates on a future occasion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
SHOPS REGULATION ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Lord Ashby St. Ledgers). (No. 15.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.