Sitting of 3 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Westgate and Birchington Gas and Electricity Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not 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 Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Bishop's Waltham Water Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order).
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Dundee Corporation (Improvements and Tramways) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Bill,
Titchfield District Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of the Intelligence Division, Part II. Proceedings under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, and Section 2, Sub-section (3) of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, for the year 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 2nd April, 1913, entitled The National Health Insurance (District Insurance Committees) (Wales) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners as to Claims for Exemption by Married Women, being Voluntary Contributors under Sub-section (8) of Section 44 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, dated 26th March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled The National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses Amendment) Regulations (Scotland), 1913, dated 29th March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners as to the manner of Appointment of Representatives of Insured Persons on Insurance Committees under Sub-section (2) (a) and Proviso (1) of Section 59 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, dated 2nd April, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 29th March, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 55.]

NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd April; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]
MINES (USE OF SQUIBS FOR SHOT FIRING).
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence and Appendices to the Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report on the use of Squibs for the purpose of firing Shots in naked-light mines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland under the Act, dated 12th March, 1913, affecting certain classes of Shops in the parish of Cambuslang, in the county of Lanark [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for public traffic down to the 31st day of December, 1912, in respect of companies, and the 31st day of March, 1913, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriations; the number of passengers conveyed; the number of miles run by cars and the quantity of electrical energy used during the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively; together with the number of horses, engines and cars at those dates (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 398, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  English Channel (International Sea Fisheries Convention).
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to report any progress in connection with negotiations for the conclusion of an International Sea Fisheries Convention for the waters of the English Channel?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): No progress has been made in the negotiations since the date of the hon. Member's question on the same subject in October last year. His Majesty's Government are now considering the advisability of deputing a representative of the Board of Fisheries to discuss the matter personally with the competent department of the French Government.

  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that Ireland at present does not get a single penny from the Treasury for secondary education, while England and Scotland have for years been getting considerable sums; will he explain what is the cause of the delay in giving the proposed Grant of £40,000; and (2) what is the cause of the delay in giving the promised Grant of £10,000 towards secondary education in Ireland; whether teachers and public bodies have spoken strongly in favour of it; and will he say if any responsible authority in Ireland is opposed to it; and, if not, will he take steps to have this money available for the current year?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member's statement does not accurately represent the position with regard to the assistance given from public funds to secondary education in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The difficulty with regard to the Grant is to devise a scheme which will fulfil the purpose of improving the position of assistant teachers without unduly restricting the powers of headmasters in the constitution of their staffs. All concerned are in favour of the Grant, but all are not agreed as to the details of the scheme. I am in correspondence with the representatives of a very important body of headmasters on the subject, and hope soon to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: How soon?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not wasting a day. There is not a day passes that I am not engaged in discussing the matter.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked (1) why the new Grant of £40,000 promised by him for Irish intermediate education has been withheld for the year 1912–13, seeing that the assistant teachers have accepted the conditions laid down in the scheme; and (2) whether provision will be made in the Estimates now being prepared for 1913–14 for the distribution of the Grant of £40,000 for Irish intermediate education on the conditions laid down last year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the questions on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for West Kerry. The draft scheme which was published last year will require some modification.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that on 31st July last year the right hon. Gentleman did state that the Treasury were going to grant £40,000 in the coming financial year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I said they were willing to grant £40,000 if a proper scheme were prepared. That scheme is still under consideration.

  Irish Instruction Organisers.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Gaelic League has been consulted and, if not, at whose instance most of the officials called organisers of Irish instruction are now employed mainly or wholly at other work; whether in these circumstances they regard their salary as a bribe to them to acquiesce in the neglect of the Irish instruction they were ostensibly appointed to promote, and are deterred from calling attention to this change of policy by the certain displeasure of official superiors; and whether those officials will be at once restored to their legitimate functions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Gaelic League has not been consulted, and that the occupation of the organisers of Irish language instruction at present is the same as it was at the time of their appointment, and they have never been employed except in connection with the
  530
  work of Irish instruction in national schools. The statement in the second paragraph of the question is entirely without foundation. There has been no change of policy such as that referred to in the latter part of the question.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Estates Commissioners undertake to reinstate within the present year all the outstanding evicted tenants, including representatives, noted by them as entitled to reinstatement whose farms are untenanted; if not, whether he will provide in the forthcoming Land Purchase Bill for their reinstatement this year; and, if not, what he proposes to do for the persons who, though entitled, are not to be reinstated in either of those ways?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The applications of evicted tenants for reinstatement which have been provisionally approved and whom the Estates Commissioners on further consideration deem suitable to work holdings will be dealt with as rapidly as practicable, but it is not possible for them to give any undertaking such as that asked for by the hon. Member. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the fact that a person applies for a holding as an evicted tenant does not entitle him to a farm.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer the question whether, if the Estates Commissioners are unable to restore these people this year, he will provide for them in the Bill he is now preparing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I can hold out no promise of that kind.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these people, after waiting ten years, will be restored this year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot give any undertaking of that sort. The Estates Commissioners have the whole job—and it is a very difficult task—in their hands, and they will do the best they can in the hope that these persons may all be restored.
  Mr. GINNELL: Do the Commissioners say that they will ever be able to restore these people?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, I think they do.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary how many of the 303 evicted tenants still to be dealt with belong respectively to the various provinces; and will he now give the names of the Cavan evicted tenants included in the 303, and state in how many cases their applications set out that their evicted holdings are in the landlords' hands?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures by provinces are: Ulster 69, Leinster 38, Connaught 99, Munster 97. The number of applicants in county Cavan who have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners and who have not yet been provided with holdings is seven, and in all these cases applicants' former holdings appear to be in the occupation of other tenants. It would be contrary to the practice of the Commissioners to give a list of those provisionally noted as requested by the hon. Member.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the nature of the interest a tenant has in his land outside the rent or purchase annuity, and what sum tenants can obtain for their interest outside that charge?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A full answer to this question would occupy too much time. A tenant purchaser is owner of his holding subject to the payment of the land purchase annuity and any other charges. Subject to such charges he has the right of free sale. The price he can obtain for his interest depends on the circumstances of each case.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what information exists to show that the price of tenant right has risen very considerably over a great part of Ireland; what prices have recently been obtained for tenant right; what advance do they show over the rights obtained in 1902; and to what cause is the rise in price attributed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that they have no official record as to the prices obtained for tenant right in Ireland, and have, therefore, no means of making the comparison suggested in the question.
  Mr. DELANYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the lands of Bordwell, Owen's estate, Queen's County, and, if so, how they propose to
  532
  dispose of them; whether there are a number of small holders in the locality whose farms require enlargement; and will the Commissioners see that no large farmer gets any portion of this land to the prejudice of the uneconomic holders?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. The wants and circumstances of the small holders in the locality will be fully considered by the Estates Commissioners when preparing a scheme for the allotment of the lands when acquired.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether any negotiations for the purchase of the untenanted lands at Cappananty, near Bruree, in the county of Limerick, have recently taken place between Captain Lyons, the owner of them, and the Estates Commissioners; if so, whether any agreement for their purchase has been arrived at; and, in the event of the Estates Commissioners having agreed to buy the lands, how soon will they apportion them among applicants in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has recently accepted the Estates Commissioners' offer for the purchase of some 316 acres of the lands in the district referred to, and the Commissioners will take over possession of these lands and distribute them as soon as practicable.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any steps to complete the sale of the Mahony congested estate at Mount Collins, Abbey-feale, in the county of Limerick; and, if not, will he explain the cause of delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have arranged to acquire some additional land in the vicinity of this estate for the purpose of facilitating its resale, and when the statutory requirements as to title and other matters have been complied with they will proceed with the resale of the property.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to the case of Thomas M'Goldrick, of Creenagh, county Longford, a sub-tenant on the farm of John Doyle, of Creenagh, who, notwithstanding that he is willing to purchase the tenant's interest in the subtenancy, is yet refused purchase under the Land Purchase Act; and will he direct the Commissioners to inquire into this case

  533
  and exercise such powers as they possess to secure this sub-tenant the benefit of the Land Purchase Act, 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of this sub-tenancy was considered by the Estates Commissioners when dealing with the estate. They were not prepared to declare the small plot of 1 rood and 18 perches a separate holding for the purposes of sale under Land Purchase Acts. They were, however, prepared to vest the plot separately in M'Goldrick if he and Doyle, the tenant of the entire holding, came to terms as to price. This they failed to do and the entire holding was vested in Doyle.
  Mr. FARRELL: Do I understand that the transaction is completed and that this sub-tenant is shut out by the arrangement made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think that is so.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Peter Whitney, Francis Whitney, Pat Whitney, James Fury, and Francis Fury, all of Esker North, county Longford, have been processed for three-years-old arrears of rent, notwithstanding that they have signed agreements to purchase their holdings in 1908; whether he is awre that these tenants are willing to pay interest in lieu of rent as well as the other tenants who signed at the same time; and will he direct the Estates Commissioners to intimate to the landlord that these proceedings are not to be continued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, but no agreements signed by the tenants referred to in the question have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The Commissioners have no power to collect interest in lieu of rent until purchase agreements signed by these tenants have been lodged or to interfere with any legal proceedings the landlord may be taking for the recovery of rent due by these tenants.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these sub-tenants comprise practically half of the whole, and will the Estates Commissioners deal with these, especially having regard to the fact that half the tenants are not signing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Until the agreements have been signed by the tenants they have no power to do more than they are doing.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked why the Government have not adopted the method of financing land purchase in Ireland laid down in Section 5 of the Irish Land Act of 1909?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The method of raising money temporarily by means of bills or bonds has not been adopted because it was not considered to be expedient.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman receive the opinions of various bankers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I received different opinions, but I am sorry to say they are conflicting, and it is very difficult to decide between them.

  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Mr. PIRIEasked whether the witnesses have yet been invited to give their consent to the publication of their evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance; and, if so, if all have been so invited?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Some of the witnesses have already expressed their willingness to have their evidence published and I am communicating with the rest to-day.
  Mr. HORNERasked whether the reasons for suppressing the evidence given before the Irish Finance Committee apply equally to all the evidence of all the witnesses; and, if not, whether there is any reason for refusing to publish the evidence to which such reason does not apply?
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulty of fully understanding the Report of the Committee on Irish Finance by reason of the suppression of the evidence to which frequent references are made in the Report, he will now publish so much of the evidence as is referred to in the Report?
  Captain CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the statements made by the Committee on Irish Finance that the grounds for their conclusion that error exists in the calculations on which the adjustments have been made as between collected and true Irish revenue can only be gathered in detail from a perusal of the

  535
  minutes of evidence, he will publish so much of the evidence of the officials of the Departments concerned as will place Members in a position to judge of the reliability of the figures and of the justifications for the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived?
  Mr. BIRRELL: These questions have really been answered already by the Prime Minister.

  Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the deficit in the capitation Grant to the Limerick District Asylum for the year ending 31st March, 1912, was £683 13s. 6d.; and whether he intends to take any action to restore the Grant to the amount originally guaranteed by the Treasury towards the cost of maintenance of lunatics in asylums in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The deficit is as mentioned in the question. As already stated, the whole question of local taxation is under consideration of the Local Taxation Committee, and it is not possible to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Mr. JOYCE: When this revision is completed, will the money that has been kept back from these district asylums he recouped to the owners of these asylums?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think the hon. Member can expect me to answer that. I am not in a position to do so.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the Chief Secretary at any time in the future be in a position to answer that question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes, Sir, most undoubtedly.
  Mr. JOYCE: I will put another question.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot help that.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect that a definite statement on this subject will be made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When the Report of the Taxation Committee comes out.
  Mr. JOYCE: You are very slow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    VENTILATION.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been drawn to the vitiated atmosphere in the three dining rooms, especially during the dinner hours; and whether he will take steps so as to secure even moderately good ventilation in these rooms?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): These rooms are supplied with fresh air from the river front basement, and have both input and extract fans connected to ducts. It would be desirable when funds permit to instal more powerful fans, but if Members would more frequently allow the windows to be opened an improvement could be effected.
    Mr. PIRIE: How could the Commissioner know that a vitiated atmosphere exists?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The first Commissioner has the very best evidence in the world of the vitiated atmosphere, namely, the statement made by the hon. Member himself.
    Mr. PIRIE: When is the Committee appointed to inquire into the ventilation of the House going to sit?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It has not yet been appointed.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if we have fans they do not operate unless the windows are shut? If so, why does he advise the windows being open? Is it because the fans are inoperative?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No, if you open the windows it merely adds to the number of ducts.
    Mr. PIRIE: Are we to understand that the First Commissioner admits that the atmosphere is vitiated?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I have given the evidence on which the First Commissioner has formed the opinion.

    ACCOMMODATION FOR OFFICIALS.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the present arrangement by which officials are admitted to seats behind the Chair is, in the opinion of many hon. Members, injurious to the conduct of debate in this

    537
    House and does not conduce to the satisfactory examination of administrative matters by the House, he will afford to the House an early opportunity of reconsidering the arrangement?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): When the present arrangement was made it was fully discussed in the House, and received the approval, amongst others, of the then Leader of the Opposition. In my opinion experience has shown that the new arrangement has facilitated discussion of business and has contributed to the convenience of Members of the House as a whole. The hon. Member will, however, have an opportunity of raising the question this afternoon if he desires to do so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I shall do so.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was not the arrangement made for the purpose of keeping the permanent officials as much as possible out of sight?
    Mr. WATT: May I ask whether, when these seats were allocated, it was on the understanding that the officials were only to be there when public business required them to be there?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know about that.

    PROCEDURE ON DIVISIONS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether there is any precedent for throwing out either the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Appropriation Bill as a method of attacking the Government; and if he can see his way to announce his determination to return to the former Parliamentary practice with regard to Divisions in the House that may either affect the position of the Government or involve serious financial embarrassment to the country, so that no Division will be allowed to effect these purposes, which is sprung upon the House suddenly at an unexpected time and without due notice to the Members of all parties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any such precedent as my right hon. Friend mentions. In reply to the second part of the question, I am not sure that the practice to which he refers was ever part of the established usage of the House, and, in any case, I do not see my way to establish it now.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the public may reason-
    538
    ably require some protection against the great inconvenience to which the country might be exposed by a Bill of this kind being defeated without notice, seeing that the matter has always been treated as purely formal?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite alive to that inconvenience.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not ignored what was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London on 25th July, 1895, and by the right hon. Gentleman himself in 13th November last year?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether what are called unexpected Divisions are not a recognised method of changing the Government of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is often resorted to, but not very often with success.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It soon will be.
    Mr. KING: Does the Prime Minister adhere to the promise given at Ladybank on 5th October last, when he said:—
    "I am not going to give up the task to which we are bound by every obligation of conviction and of honour because of two or three snap Divisions in the House of Commons?"
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I have not given it up.

    Central Telegraph Office.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the overcrowding of the staff and of the apparatus in the new section of the C Division of the Central Telegraph Office; whether he is aware that the conditions are such that the duties of the girl collectors and distributors have to be performed by them under improper circumstances in respect of limited space and physical effort; whether he will state when this section was visited by the medical officer; and whether his sanction has been given to the arrangements?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I do not think the case is one which can be properly described as "serious over-crowding." Alterations are going on in the building, and I fear there must be some temporary inconvenience, although not of a serious character. But the matter will be put right as early as possible. It has not been deemed necessary to consult the medical officer.

    Parcels Post (Insurance).
    Colonel YATEasked whether most Continental countries agree to participate in a system of insurance in connection with the parcels post; whether Canada is alone amongst the self-governing Dominions of the Empire in refusing liability as regards loss or damage to parcels in the parcel post within their respective Dominions; and, if so, whether fresh endeavours can now be made to induce Canada to abandon the attitude taken up by them in this respect, to come into line with the rest of the Empire, and thus remove the present drawback to closer trading relations between the United Kingdom and Canada which at present as far as parcel post is concerned are conducted entirely at the importers' risk?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The system of insurance of parcels is in operation between the United Kingdom and all European countries except Greece and Spain. It is also in operation between the United Kingdom and practically the whole of the British Empire except Canada and South Africa. I am keeping the matter in view, and I am neglecting no opportunity of pressing these Dominions to adopt the arrangement.

    Carriginimma Post Office (Secret Society).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that auxiliary postman James M'Sweeney, of Carriginimma, county Cork, is the local parish secretary of the secret sectarian and political order known as the Board of Erin, A.O.H.; that this man is frequently guilty of neglect of duty in the delivery of letters by attending funerals of the members of his order during official hours, and that meetings of this secret society have been held in the Carriginimma post office belonging to his sister; and, seeing that M'Sweeney organised a political invasion from Macroom and Ballyvourney and other outside districts to the Carriginimma Catholic church on Sunday, 23rd March, which nearly led to a riot in the precincts of the church, will he say whether it is with his sanction that a Post Office official organises church parades of a political nature which are offensive and provocative to the majority of the people in the district?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have heard nothing of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but inquiry is being made.

    Telephone Service.
    Major GASTRELLasked how many telephone exchanges were at 31st December, 1912, closed for any portion of the day (24 hours), and of these how many had more than 20 subscribers' lines.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the 31st December, 1912, there were about 580 exchanges where less than a twenty-four hours' service was given. At about 100 of these there were more than twenty subscribers.
    Major GASTRELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will give the number of telephone exchanges as at 31st December, 1912, where additional payments were made by the subscribers for continuous or extended service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number was 100.
    Major HOPEasked the Postmaster-General what remuneration he proposes giving to sub-postmasters for the extra work entailed by the new duty of receiving and discharging telephone subscribers' monthly accounts, which have to be forwarded to the district telephone manager on the same day as received; and if he can state whether it has been possible to reduce the staff at the Edinburgh central telephone office owing to this work, which under the National Telephone Company was performed in Edinburgh, being transferred to local sub-postmasters?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In answer to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar inquiry by the hon. Member for West Bradford on the 20th March. The staff requirements of the telephone district manager's office at Edinburgh are now under review, and any saving of time arising from the transfer of work to post offices generally will of course be taken into account in this connection. I think, however, that it will be found necessary to increase the district manager's staff to meet the general growth of telephone business.
    Major HOPE: If the telephone staff is reduced at headquarters will the right hon. Gentleman be able to remunerate the sub-postmasters for the extra work entailed upon them?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think the matter should necessarily depend on whether the staff at headquarters is

    541
    reduced or not. If the sub-postmasters have any valid claim for remuneration for this particular piece of work remuneration shall be given to them. If not, no.

    Education Inquiry (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that the education inquiry in holding its sittings in private is disregarding the wishes of parents, teachers, and the public, and therefore their Report can have no value, he will request them to hold their sittings in public?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the mode of conducting their proceedings is a matter entirely for the Committee.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Is there any precedent for a Committee appointed by this House to inquire into a public matter holding private sittings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think there is precedent on the understanding that all questions and answers are fully reported and made public afterwards.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: As the teachers and public are very interested in having this inquiry in public, cannot some steps be taken to have it held in public?
    Mr. BIRRELL: "Public" is a very wide term. The Committee have thought, having regard to the very delicate and domestic nature of this inquiry into the teachers, on the whole they would be more likely to conduct their proceedings satisfactorily if the public were excluded. I do not say I share that view, but that is the view of the Committee.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any objection to the Press being present to report the proceedings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have appointed a very representative and excellent Committee, with very great difficulty, containing a number of persons who, I am sure, will give satisfaction, and after full consideration and discussion they have come to a particular conclusion. To drag me into it and try to overrule them is, I think, unreasonable.

    Irish Butter.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what is the value of the butter now produced annually by the co-operative creameries in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The value of the butter made in Ireland in the year 1912 was £6,934,000, but it is not possible to state what proportion of it was made in co-operative creameries.

    Irish Meat Trade.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what steps are being taken at Wexford, Dublin, or elsewhere in Ireland to establish and develop an extensive dead meat trade between Ireland and Great Britain; and what number of cattle and sheep are now being slaughtered in Irish abattoirs for the export of their carcases to British ports?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Societies for the carrying on of an export meat trade with Great Britain have been formed at Drogheda, Wexford, and Athy. The trade has been in progress for some time at Wexford and Drogheda. The erection of an abattoir at Athy is about to be commenced, and one has already been erected at Mullingar. The intention to promote a co-operative company to conduct an export meat trade on a large scale at Dublin has been announced. The erection of abattoirs for the purpose at Cork and Waterford is at present being considered by local authorities and others interested in the trade. The Department aid the promoters of such undertakings in approved cases by providing them with technical instruction, and in some instances with loans towards part of the cost of erecting an abattoir. The number of cattle and sheep now being slaughtered in Irish abattoirs for export to Great Britain cannot be stated.
    Mr. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much these loans are which have been granted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. I will inquire from the Department.
    Mr. FFRENCH: In the case of Wexford is the loan nothing at all?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think that is quite likely.

    Steamship "Nicoya" (Loss of Seaman).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any report

    543
    was made or inquiry held into the case of Guy Carrs, a seaman who was lost overboard from the steamship "Nicoya," on her voyage home from the West Indies in October or November, 1912?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): An inquiry into the death of Guy Caws, apprentice on board the steamship "Nicoya," of Glasgow, was held under the provisions of Section 690 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, by the deputy-superintendent in charge of the Mercantile Marine Office at Garston, Liverpool, on the arrival of the vessel. It appeared from the evidence taken that Caws accidentally fell overboard at sea and was drowned on 4th November, 1912. All possible efforts seem to have been made to rescue him.

    Labour Exchanges (Metropolis).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the Labour Exchanges Advisory Board drawing attention to the inadequate accommodation provided for the working people using the Metropolitan Exchanges; whether such communication has yet been considered; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The whole question of Labour Exchange accommodation is receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade in the light of the experience obtained of the working of Part II. of the National Insurance Act.

    Building Trade (Unemployment).
    Mr. FELLasked if any estimates have been formed by his Department of the number of persons employed in the building trade who were thrown out of work owing to the cessation of building which followed on the Budget of 1909, and the uncertainty which has hung over the building trade since that time?
    Mr. BUXTON: No such estimate has been made. According to the trade union returns furnished to us, the proportion of building operatives out of work shows a continuous diminution since 1909.
    Mr. FELL: Cannot the Board of Trade take any note or make any inquiry for the purpose of getting accurate statistics as to the number of persons unemployed in that trade?
    Mr. BUXTON: So far as the general case is concerned we do, but we have no particulars as to unemployment in this particular case.
    Mr. FELL: Is that not because the workmen are emigrating in large part?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, I think not.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    STAMPS ON LOST CARDS.
    Mr. HODGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Commissioners under the National Insurance Act have declared that they are unable to give any credit for the value of stamps placed upon cards which have been lost; and whether, as the employer could certify and verify from his books the number and value of the stamps contained on such lost card, he will have this matter reconsidered by the Commissioners so that full credit may be given for all moneys so paid?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The general question of allowing credit for stamps on lost as distinguished from destroyed cards is at present under consideration, and I am unable to make any statement on the subject. As my hon. Friend no doubt appreciates, the difficulty in acting upon such evidence as he indicates, in the absence of the stamped card, arises from the risk that the card may be used improperly by another contributor to support a claim on the National Health Insurance Fund.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, adverting to the circular from the National Health Commission (Ireland) on the initiation of insurance committees in July, 1912, stating that a Treasury Grant of £100 for each committee was available for special initial expenses, whether he is aware that the Kilkenny County Insurance Committee, as requested in the said circular, made arrangements of a temporary character only for the first six months, and a further request of the Commission has further deferred making any permanent arrangements as to staff officers, etc., up to the present; whether he is aware that the said committee, on becoming aware that the said Grant was available during six months only, made representations to the said Commission at various times from October, 1912, pointing out the reasonableness of having it available,

    545
    whenever permanent initiatory arrangements are being made for expenses of a non-recurring character under such arrangements, and that the operativeness of the Grant has been further limited by a circular from the Commission just previous to the end of the half-year on 12th January, 1913, precluding any expenditure incurred during the said half-year being brought into account unless payment actually made before the close of the half-year, in consequence of which an article of office furniture ordered with the express sanction of the Commission, but undelivered at the said date, cannot be brought into account for the purpose of the said Grant; and, seeing that an apparent further limitation has been effected by an Order making the greater proportion of administration expenses, on the amount of which the amount payable under the Grant depended, attributable to sanatorium benefit, and in view of the repeated expressions of inability on the part of the said Commission to so do, will he take the necessary steps to make the Grant available for office furniture and equipment and other reasonable non-recurring expenses, whenever permanent office, etc., arrangements are being made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Grant referred to was voted for the initial expenses of the insurance committees during the first six months of the Act's operation. It was clearly explained to insurance committees that the Grant was a single one towards the special expenses incurred in bringing the Act into operation, and that after the first half year it would be necessary for them to keep their expenditure within the statutory income. I am, however, prepared to consider how difficulties in connection with any outstanding liabilities incurred during the first six months can best be met.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Shall we have notice of this new Estimate which is going to be passed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Which new Estimate?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman said he would consider any proposal to grant further expenses. Shall we have notice when such intention has developed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, but I think that this proposal can be met without a new Estimate or any fresh expenditure of public money.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Out of what money?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Out of the administrative expenses fund.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: How are these provided for?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They are provided for already so far as the public part of the contribution is concerned by the Estimate which has been already presented.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Surely when an Estimate on this subject is submitted it ought merely to take into account such sum as is then required. An Estimate for this new demand has not been submitted.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There has been money voted for expenses in connection with the administrative work of the National Insurance Commissioners.

    MEDICAL PRACTICES (INCREASED VALUE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has become aware of the increased values of medical practices owing to the National Insurance Act; and whether, with a view of securing to the State some part of an increased value which the State has conferred, he will consider the propriety of imposing in his forthcoming Budget an Increment Duty on transferred medical practices?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am well aware that medical practices have increased in value owing to the National Insurance Act, but I am unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. KING: Why not treat all parties alike? Why treat your enemies, or those why say they are enemies, with greater generosity than other people?

    MEDICAL BENEFIT IN IRELAND (TREASURY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked on what principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded, in the appointment of the Treasury Committee on Medical Benefit in Ireland, in excluding from the Committee all the seventy Nationalist representatives of the provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, while admitting the Nationalist representatives from Ulster, who are the presidents of the Board of Erin Order of Hibernians and Irish National Foresters, respectively, and appointing also on the Committee three of the Irish Insurance Commissioners, who

    547
    have a direct financial interest in the extension of the medical benefit; and whether there is any intention of giving effect by legislation this Session to any report proceeding from such a Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In appointing the Committee the Government proceeded according to precedent by consulting the representatives of the majority of the Irish people. I would also point out that only two of the Irish Insurance Commissioners are members of the Committee. I am unable to make any statement with reference to the last part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what Vote we can discuss his not very candid reply?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "not very candid reply." I have given a straightforward answer, with the actual facts, whether it be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I cannot say offhand precisely on which Vote the discussion can be raised, but I should think the Insurance Vote.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee is now engaged in issuing an ad interim report, and has he any knowledge of that report, or why the Committee is proceeding to do that until we have the report of all the evidence?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have absolutely no control over their report. I received no ad interim report, and have not discussed it with them at all.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can we have an undertaking that the Government will not proceed to act upon an ad interim report until we have got a full and adequate report and the entire evidence, and have had an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member had better give notice of that. I have received no report.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I thought your hands this Session were full already without attempting any more.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETY MEMBERS.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
    548
    aware that a large number of members of friendly societies who are included in the terms of Section 15 (2) (e) of the National Insurance Act are suffering hardship either by being without medical treatment or only obtaining it at an enhanced cost; whether these circumstances have been brought about by reason of the allowance to doctors under the Act having been increased beyond the 6s. assumed by the actuaries; and whether, as he has granted 2s. 6d. a year to such old members as are insured persons for the period between ages sixty-five and seventy, he is prepared to propose any plan which will enable their societies to restore to these members the position they have lost in respect to medical benefit solely owing to the changes produced by the National Insurance Act, from the benefits of which they are shut out by their infirmities?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I have already given to similar questions.

    Road Board (Improvements of Curves and Crossings).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the question of the cutting of hedges at cross roads and dangerous corners has been considered by the Road Board in connection with their schemes for road widenings and improvements of curves and corners; and whether, considering that so long ago as the 15th August, 1911, it was stated by his predecessor in office that hedge cutting at cross roads was one of the greatest reforms that ought to be carried out, the Road Board will now take action in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of the cutting of hedges at cross roads and dangerous corners has been considered by the Road Board, and the Board use the opportunities afforded by frequent conferences with representatives of highway authorities to direct attention to this matter. The Board also, so far as they can do so with due regard to other requirements, consider favourably applications for Grants towards the cost of clearing the view at corners but, except in cases where the special circumstances render it desirable to do so, they do not encourage the rounding of corners as, in their opinion, this frequently encourages increased speed at corners without securing greater safety for the public.

    Wexford County Asylum.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the deficit in the Capitation Grant due to Wexford county for the maintenance of lunatics in the county asylum is £715; can he say if the Treasury has refused to pay the original amount; and, if so, why and what does he propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The deficit is as stated in the question. With regard to the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to a somewhat similar question asked by the bon. Member for Limerick.

    Customs and Excise Department (Staff).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Departmental Committee considering the questions of overtime, Sunday pay, and allowances for the water-guard department, His Majesty's Customs and Excise, arising out of Report (Cd. 6290), issued July, 1912, has yet reported; and, if not, can he state when the Report is likely to be completed and published?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The new regulations as to overtime and Sunday pay for the waterguard staff are now under consideration. The date of their issue cannot yet be stated.

    Elementary Schools (Accommodation).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the official list of schools, as on 12th July, 1912, published by his Department shows that in Birmingham there are seventy-four school departments, thirty-seven of which are in council schools, in which the average attendance is in excess of the recognised accommodation, and that over 26 per cent. of the scholars in Birmingham are in overcrowded schools; whether he has asked for or received any explanation from the Birmingham education authority as to why this state of affairs has been allowed to arise; and what steps are being taken to remedy it?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): The reassessment of public elementary school accommodation on the ten and nine square feet basis caused special difficulty in Birmingham. The Board have been in constant correspondence with the authority,
    550
    and have now before them proposals involving the provision of about 6,000 additional school places.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest published figures show that in Warrington over 36 per cent. of the scholars are in overcrowded schools, and that the average attendance exceeds the accommodation, especially in all departments of Christ Church, Hamilton Street, Ladies' School of Industry, St. Barnabas Church of England schools, and St. Mary's Roman Catholic school; whether these schools have been warned; and whether any steps have been taken to provide further accommodation in the borough?
    Mr. PEASE: The figures relate to school years ending in and before July, 1911. In August, 1912, a new council school for 1,260 scholars was opened, and another for 420 scholars will be opened almost immediately. In addition, the Board have before them proposals which will add 4,000 places to the public elementary school accommodation in Warrington. The five schools referred to in the question will all be either replaced or relieved by these proposals.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the overcrowded state of many public elementary schools and the present prevalence of epidemic diseases among scholars, resulting in the closing of schools and inconvenience and anxiety to parents; whether he has made inquiries to ascertain whether epidemic diseases are more frequent and severe in the overcrowded schools than those suitably occupied; and, if not, whether inquiries will be made into this matter?
    Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I cannot accept statements in such general terms as those contained in the first part of the question. The Board make continual inquiries into cases of epidemic disease, and in such inquiries naturally pay special attention to the nature of the accommodation in the schools concerned.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which will connect the frequency of epidemics and their seriousness with overcrowded schools?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no Returns on the subject, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me any information which he has, and I will inquire into it.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the official list of schools, as on 12th July, 1912, published by his Department shows that in Manchester there are twenty-five school departments in Church of England schools and thirteen school departments in Roman Catholic schools in which the average attendance is in excess of the recognised accommodation, and that over 20 per cent. of the scholars in Manchester are in overcrowded schools; whether he has drawn the attention of the Manchester local education authority to the need for more school places; and what steps are being taken to provide them?
    Mr. PEASE: The figures referred to relate to school years ending not later than July, 1911. In the school years ending during the calendar year 1912 there were in Manchester fourteen departments in which the number of scholars in average attendance exceeded the accommodation by more than five. The Board have been in communication with the authority as to the necessity of preventing overcrowding, and in the majority of the departments referred to the overcrowding has now actually ceased, or proposals have been submitted to the Board with a view to providing sufficient accommodation.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether the investigation by the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the question of the erection of grain elevators and silos similar to those now in use in Liverpool for the better storage of grain at the various ports in the United Kingdom has been completed; whether the erection of these silos has been approved of; and, if so, what measures he proposes to adopt to secure their erection in peace time before it becomes too late on the outbreak of war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is still under consideration.

    Ministers of the Crown (Directorships).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant the Return relating to Ministers of the Crown (Directorships), notice of which stands on to-day's Paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that my hon. Friend's Return ought to be
    552
    granted, as the information which he seeks is obtainable without difficulty from other sources.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that although the information with reference to ministerial company directors is easily obtainable, I cannot for the life of me ascertain what contracts for Government Departments are being executed by companies which have ministerial directors? Will he make a compromise with me and give me a Return of the contracts which the Government had with the Royal Mail Company when Lord Selborne was one of the directors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very sorry to make any such promise. Neither do I think that for the life of me I could grant the Return.

    Agricultural Organisation (Ireland).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Prime Minister if he can give the names of the two Development Commissioners who are to act on the Committee of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society pending the nomination of the proposed eleven additional members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The proposal is that Mr. Vaughan Nash, the Vice-Chairman of the Development Commission, Mr. A. D. Hall, a Commissioner, and Lord Basil Blackwood, an Assistant-Secretary to the Development Commission, shall be the three persons to be added to the governing body of the society.
    Mr. MULDOON: Could the right hon Gentleman not promise to substitute some other Development Commissioner for Mr Vaughan Nash?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that any other Commissioner is more suitable.

    Tuberculosis (Departmental Committee).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed, in pursuance of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis, to establish art advisory body to deal with research work in connection with this disease; and whether, seeing that such body will be largely concerned with bovine tuberculosis, he will include in its personnel representatives of stock owners in addition to scientists and Departmental officials?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When the question of constituting such a body as is referred to has to be taken up, the claims of all interests deserving representation will be carefully considered.

    Bristol University.
    Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he has yet referred the case of Professor Cowl, of the University of Bristol, to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Education; if so, with what result; (2) whether he has received complaints on behalf of or in reference to several professors and lecturers in the University of Bristol to the effect that they are constantly being made the victims of unfair and frivolous charges, which are investigated in secret by the various boards or committees of the university without giving the parties concerned any opportunity of being present or refuting the charges; and (3) whether, in view of the published complaints of general mismanagement in the University of Bristol, and, in particular, of the unfair treatment of certain of the professors and lecturers, he is prepared to appoint a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry or to recommend His Majesty to exercise his powers under the charter of the university of appointing a visitation?
    Mr. PEASE: I must refer to the answers I have already given on this subject in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Hoxton and Bury St. Edmunds on the 19th and 20th of last month.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Is it a fact that this gentleman has been removed from his professorship without any complaint whatever being formulated against him, or his getting any opportunity of appealing?
    Mr. PEASE: I understand that when the college at Bristol became a university all his appointments as professor ceased, and he was not re-engaged, in the interests of the public.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Was his re-engagement recommended by the senate of the university, and did the council deliberately ignore, without giving any reasons, the recommendation of the senate?
    Mr. PEASE: There was, no doubt, a difference of opinion between the senate and the council in regard to his appointment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I shall renew the question.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Would it not be in the interests of other universities in the Kingdom, whose prestige has been seriously injured by the maladministration of Bristol University, that the case should be inquired into before further public grants are made?
    Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest reason to suppose that the University of Bristol would place any barrier in the way of his getting full information on all these questions which have been so largely submitted to the House by graduates of Trinity College?
    Mr. PEASE: I am sure that the University of Bristol would welcome such an inquiry, but it is certainly not one of my functions to hold an inquiry of the kind.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take the suggestion to recommend His Majesty to exercise his powers to appoint a visitation?
    Mr. PEASE: It is a matter for Lord Morley rather than for myself to determine.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: But he is not here.

    Agricultural Education (England and Wales).
    Sir HENRY HIBBERTasked how much money has been paid by the Board of Education during each of the last fifteen years on account of agricultural education in each county in England and Wales?
    Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member will find some information for the year 1907–8 in White Paper, Cd. 4569, of 1909. I can give him figures for the years 1910–11 and 1911–12, but I can hardly think that the labour involved in taking out the information asked for in regard to other years for which figures might be procurable would be justified by their value to the public, and I hope the information I am at present able to give the hon. Member may be regarded as sufficient for his purpose.
    Sir HENRY HIBBERTasked how much money has been expended on agricultural education during each of the last fifteen years by each county in England and Wales, and how much has been paid

    555
    by the Board of Agriculture during the same period on account of agricultural education in the respective counties?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that I am unable to comply fully with the hon. Member's request. The expenditure of county councils on agricultural education in each year from 1899 to 1908 is approximately stated in a table on pages xviii.-xix. of the Board's Annual Report for the year 1907–8 on the Distribution of Grants (Cd. 4802), and the detailed figures for the year 1910–11 are given in the Report for the year 1911–12 (Cd. 6601). I shall be pleased to send a copy of these two Reports to the hon. Member. The Grants paid by the Board before 1912 were in aid of the work done at or in connection with agricultural colleges and similar institutions, and no specific Grants were made on account of agricultural education in the respective counties.

    Small-pox Hospital (Kirkcaldy).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the outbreak of small-pox at Kirkcaldy at the latter end of last year and to the position of the small-pox hospital, which is alleged to be a danger to railway servants at their work; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Local Government Board for Scotland are of opinion that this small-pox hospital may be a possible source of infection, and are communicating with the local authorities with a view to other arrangements being made for the reception of small-pox patients.

    Mental Deficiency Bill (Scotland).
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland when he intends to introduce the Scottish Mental Deficiency Bill; and whether it will be printed before the Second Reading of the English Bill so that there may be an opportunity of considering whether the two Bills are in any respect interdependent?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sorry I cannot fix a date or say more than that I will print and introduce the Bill as soon as possible.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether this Bill will add more to the financial burden of the local authorities than the amount of the Grant to be given by the Treasury to the local authorities?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course it deals with a matter which must cast some burden on the local authorities, but undoubtedly they will get a Grant from the Treasury.
    Major HOPE: Will the Bill be printed before the Second Reading of the English Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot promise that. The two Bills are similar in their main objects, but there are differences owing to the different circumstances of the local authorities of the country.
    Major HOPE: Are not there some Clauses the same in both Bills?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly.

    Assault by Police Constables.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received representations regarding the case of G. F. Chapman, the journeyman printer, upon whom an assault was committed by three constables, each of whom have since been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment; whether such representations have been considered; and, if so, will he state the result?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Representations have been received and considered, and the Commissioner of Police reports that suitable compensation has been given to Mr. Chapman.

    Felling Colliery.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as alleged by the workmen at Felling Colliery, gas was found in the low main seam in February this year and, notwithstanding this and the protests of the workmen, the management persists in the practice of shooting off the solid in the said low main seam; and, if so, seeing that such a practice under such conditions is a violation of the Coal Mines Regulation Act and Explosives Order, will he cause an inquiry to be made into the above case?
    Mr. McKENNA: This matter has already been brought to my notice and is receiving the immediate attention of the Department.

    Coal Mines (Inspection).
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked when the workmen of a mine request the mines inspector (under the Coal Mines Regulation Act) to visit the mine, or when the workmen appeal to the Home Office under the said Act, whether the mines inspector and the Home Office, respectively, ought to notify the workmen's representative of the date and time of their proposed visit to the mine; and whether the workmen's local mines inspectors are entitled to accompany His Majesty's inspector on his visit down the mine?
    Mr. McKENNA: The inspectors are instructed, when visiting in consequence of a complaint, not to send notice of the visit if doing so would be likely to frustrate the object of the visit; and as a general rule it is desirable that such visits should be surprise visits. If, however, an inspector, when visiting at the request of the workmen's representatives appointed under Section 16, finds it necessary for the purposes of the inquiry to give notice to the management, it would be proper for him to let the workmen's representatives know also. No authority is given to the workmen's inspector by the Act to accompany an inspector in his inspections, but I am not aware that permission is ever refused by the management when the inspector thinks it desirable they should be present.

    Metropolitan Asylums Board.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the percentage of failures to diagnose small-pox correctly, as shown by the returns of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in London, he will consider the advisability of giving instructions for photographs to be taken of any case of illness involving eruptions on the skin for study by experts, and thus diminish the present risks of the spread of serious diseases through mistaken diagnoses.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): It would not, I think, be practicable to require that all persons suffering from illness involving eruptions on the skin should be photographed and the photographs studied by experts, but I understand that
    558
    medical works have already been published in which the problem is approached from the point of view suggested.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether patients suffering from measles, whooping-cough, or puerperal fever in London, who are recommended for admission by the medical officer of health as being incapable of isolation at home, are admitted to the Metropolitan Asylums Board hospitals without charge and without any payment being permitted on behalf of any such patient; whether patients suffering from these diseases, under exactly similar home circumstances, who are recommended for admission by the relieving officer or district medical officer as being incapable of isolation at home, are made the subject of a charge which the board of guardians attempts to collect from the parent or husband of the patient; will he state the ground of distinction between the two classes of cases and the justification for admitting the one set of patients without charge whilst exacting a payment from the other set of patients for exactly the same hospital accommodation, in the same wards, paid for by one and the same rate; and whether, in the interests of the public health and to prevent the hardships now being caused to many very poor people, he will put cases of measles, etc., on the same footing as cases of scarlet fever, making no charge whenever removal to hospital is recommended because of the lack of facilities for isolation?
    Mr. BURNS: All persons treated in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board are admitted without charge, and the cost of their maintenance therein is paid out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I am not aware that it is the general practice of boards of guardians to recover any portion of this cost from relatives of persons sent to these hospitals in the circumstances mentioned, but, if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any such cases, I shall be happy to make further inquiries in the matter.

    Small-Pox (H.M.S. "Conqueror").
    Mr. BENTHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay the result of the inquiry which has been made respecting the contracting of small-pox by three revaccinated members of the crew of His Majesty's ship "Conqueror," before the House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have already communicated the general results of the inquiry in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 13th ultimo. To these I do not think I can add anything.
    Mr. BENTHAMasked whether the demonstration of the uselessness of revaccination in the case of members of the crew of His Majesty's ship "Conqueror" to protect from small-pox will lead to the respecting of the conscientious objections of persons desiring to enter the Service, in accordance with the spirit of the Vaccination Acts, 1898 and 1907?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Three men only out of a complement of over 700 were affected with a modified form of small-pox. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on the 6th of February last, before entry into the Service a man is required to express his willingness to be vaccinated, and I cannot undertake to recommend any relaxation of the Regulations.

    Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if the commanding officer of His Majesty's ship "Impregnable," Devonport, is advertising for a Royal Navy or Royal Marine pensioner to work as a printer at 22s. a week; whether the rate recognised by local employers and employed is 30s. a week; whether it is customary to engage pensioned service men at rates lower than those established as fair in the district; and, if so, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will consider the advisability of bringing the Department into line with local fair employers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The wages offered are 22s. a week as stated. It may, I think, be the case that the work for which the man is required is scarcely comparable with the work in the regular printing trade. I am, however, making further inquiries into the matter.

    Export of Lambs (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he still persists in the twelve hours' detention for lambs imported from Ireland; is he aware that those lambs are taken off the ewes and will not drink milk, and that they shrivel up in condition very quickly
    560
    after being taken from their mothers; and will he say how he proposed that they shall be fed, is it by forcible feeding; and, if so, who is to superintend the operation and who is to pay for it and, in case of accident, who will be responsible to the owners of the animals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A few consignments of lambs have already been landed, and no difficulty has been found in feeding them with milk. As I promised in answer to a previous question on this subject, the conditions under which lambs are imported into Great Britain are being kept under careful observation, and the Board are prepared to make special arrangements if necessity should arise.

    Foot-and-Month Disease.
    Mr. STANIERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any inquiries as to whether an international conference could be got together to inquire into the question of foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax, especially regarding means for the prevention of the diseases being transmitted from one country to another?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The subjects mentioned by the hon. Member will be discussed at the tenth International Veterinary Congress to be held in London in August, 1914.
    Mr. STANIER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information from the Foreign Office on the subject, and whether he will try to get their co-operation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Co-operation is not necessary. This subject will come up for discussion at the International Conference which I have mentioned.
    Mr. DELANYasked whether the President of the Board of Agriculture has seen a resolution adopted at the annual meeting of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, held recently in London, calling attention to the fact that, owing to the losses sustained from foot-and-mouth disease, the Departments, both in England and Ireland, should obtain power to order the destruction of any hay, straw, or packing, which could be used for bedding live stock, imported from any infected country; and can he say what course he proposes to adopt in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a report of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to several questions on this subject last Session.

    Horticultural Department.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture has yet appointed the senior inspector of the new Horticultural Department of the Board; and, if so, whether he will state his name and qualifications?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have appointed Mr. G. P. Berry to be the General Inspector in the Horticulture Branch of the Board. Mr. Berry, who has been engaged in horticulture from his early youth, holds the Diploma in Horticulture of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, and certificates of the Heriot Watt College in Horticultural Physics, and for several years past has been head of the Horticultural Department of the Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture. He has large experience of commercial fruit-growing and market-gardening, and has kept himself in touch with the developments in this industry in all parts of the country.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Thomas J. John applied to the Carmarthen small holdings committee for a small holding in October, 1910; that his application was in due course approved, and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements for fifty acres; and will the right hon. Gentleman state why this man has as yet received no land?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that two offers of land have been made to Mr. John, but neither of them was suitable for his requirements. The Board recognise that the position in Carmarthenshire is not entirely satisfactory, and their small holdings commissioner has for some time been giving special attention to the county with a view to more effectual steps being taken to satisfy the outstanding demand.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Walter H. Wheeler applied to the Wiltshire small holdings committee for a small holding in the autumn of 1910; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his
    562
    approved requirements; and will the President of the Board of Agriculture say whether any suitable land within reach of this man's abode has at any time been offered him during this period of two and a-half years; and, if not, will he explain why no offer has been made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board are informed that Mr. Wheeler was offered thirteen and a-half acres near his home in October, 1911, but he declined the offer. The county council hope shortly to have the opportunity of purchasing some other land in the neighbourhood which might be suitable for Mr. Wheeler, whose requirements, however, appear to be of a character not very easy to satisfy.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Silas Bowden applied to the Devon small holdings committee for a small holding four years ago; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any land has been offered this man during the whole of this period of four years; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Bowden has twice been offered land by private owners, which he refused. He has not approached the council for two years, and the board are informed that he stated recently that he was quite content to wait an opportunity of getting land.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Alfred Carver applied to the West Sussex small holdings committee for a small holding on 22nd July, 1912; will the right hon. Gentleman say why the West Sussex County Council would not approve of this man's application for a small holding; and if they will take steps to investigate the case?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the county council considered Mr. Carver's application, but having ascertained that he required a piece of land on which to build a cottage, and not for cultivation, they decided that the application was not one which came within the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If an application is refused has the applicant any right to receive from the small holdings committee the reasons why he is refused?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know whether the small holdings committee is under an obligation to give any reasons. In the present ease the decision of the small holdings committee was right. The Small Holdings Act provides that land intended for small holdings must not be used for building purposes.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Robert Gladdon applied to the Norfolk small holdings committee for a small holding on the 19th day of March, 1911; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; will the right hon. Gentleman say if any land whatever has been offered this man during the whole of this period of one year and eleven months; and, if not, will he state why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the county council are not satisfied that the applicant has sufficient capital, and, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on that point, they do not propose to take steps to acquire land for him.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is it not the fact that the land was originally approved for small holdings?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe it was approved, subject to there being sufficient capital to work a holding of that size, and it was ascertained that he had not got that capital.

    Detention of Cattle (Wallasey).
    Mr. DELANYasked whether cattle detained at Wallasey lairage, Birkenhead, under the twelve hours' detention, were driven up 300 steps and that they had to be driven down again; and, in view of such treatment of the animals and the disadvantage entailed on their owners, whether the President of the Board of Agriculture is prepared to relax the Order for a twelve hours' detention for Irish cattle on this side?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper cutting containing the statement quoted in the question, and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity of correcting a grotesque exaggeration. The lairage at Wallasey is on two floors, and the upper floor is reached by a slope
    564
    with a gradient which nowhere exceeds one in five, fitted at frequent intervals with battens to prevent any danger of slipping. The same arrangement is made at some of the principal cattle markets in the country; it entails no cruelty to the animals or disadvantage to the owners, and it affords no reason for dispensing with the requirement of the present Order.

    Tobacco Cultivation (England).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the total acreage of land in Great Britain under tobacco cultivation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: One hundred and twenty-eight acres have been approved by the Customs for the cultivation of tobacco in Great Britain.

    Irish Church Temporalities Fund.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether by 1915 and in subsequent years the Irish Church Temporalities Fund will be able to provide the existing annuity of £70,000 per annum to the Department of Agriculture; and, if not, what amount it is estimated that the fund will be able then to bear?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that it is probable that after 1915 the Irish Church Temporalities Fund will not be able to meet in full the charges upon it inclusive of the £70,000 payable for the fifteen years ending in 1915 to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction under the Act of 1899. Owing to the difficulty of forecasting the redemption of revenue of the fund, it is not possible for me to state what amount the fund will then be able to bear. When the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, the Irish Church Fund will be transferred to the Irish Government.

    Law Officers (Salaries).
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inform the House how the present salaries of the Attorney- and Solicitor-Generals were fixed, and state the amount of such salaries; and whether they are allowed to charge fees on all contentious business in addition to their salaries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The salaries of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for England are £7,000 and £6,000 a year, respectively; they are fixed by

    565
    Treasury Minute of the 5th July, 1895, which is still in force. For the conditions under which the Law Officers are paid fees in respect of contentious business in addition to their salaries, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury Minute I have quoted, which was published as House of Commons Paper, No. 431, of 1895, Session 2, on the Motion of the late Mr. Hanbury, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on the 23rd August, 1895.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the year 1895 the Government then in power put a limitation on the income of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and state what that limitation was?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, and I will refresh my memory. There was a limitation, and the fees are now charged under a Minute of the Unionist Government in 1895.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Was not the salary of the Attorney-General fixed at £10,000, and that of the Solicitor-General at £9,000, under the Minute in 1894?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of that.

    Income Tax (Collection).
    Mr. FELLasked if the collectors of Income Tax during the last few days of the expiring financial year neglected to collect Income Tax which was due and which was offered to be paid to them, but which they suggested should not be paid until the first week in April; and, if so, was this done under instructions from or at the suggestion of the Treasury?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion contained in the first part of the question, and the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. FELL: I did not put this question down without good evidence; and may I ask if the collectors were allowed by the Treasury to collect the Income Tax in such a way as to affect the revenue of the past year and of this year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will give me any cases I will certainly look into them.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MEN SERVING (AGE).
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War how many men under the age of twenty were serving in the Regular Forces, Special Reserve, and Territorials, respectively, on 1st January, 1913?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): No figures are available of a later date than those given in the general Annual Report for 1st October, 1912.

    HORSES AND VEHICLES (REGISTER).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the total number of officers employed in compiling a register of privately-owned horses and vehicles for the use of the War Office in case of need; whether such officers devote the whole of their time to the work; and the amounts paid to them in salaries and for travelling expenses during the years 1911 and 1912?
    Colonel SEELY: There are no statistics at the War Office to show the exact numbers of officers employed on the horse classification. In addition to the officers of the Remount Department and the Territorial adjutants, a large number of other Regular officers have been employed on this work, in addition to their ordinary duties. No complete figures of the cost are therefore available.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether, in calculating the strength of the Territorial Army for Home defence, the numbers of those officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who on mobilisation are liable for service abroad should be deducted?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army under an engagement to serve abroad with the Regular Army on mobilisation show an increase since the publication of the General Annual Report on the British Army, 1913; and, if so, will he say what the increase amounts to?
    Colonel SEELY: The strength of the Imperial service section on the 1st January, the latest date for which figures

    567
    are at present available, is as follows:—Officers, 1,152; non-commissioned officers and men, 18,903. The strength on 1st October last was: 1,166 officers and 19,512 non-commissioned officers and men.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Army who failed to pass the standard test, which had risen from 34,505 in the musketry year 1912 to 58,446 in the year 1913, is still on the increase?
    Colonel SEELY: There are no statistics available since the figures for 1912 were published to enable me to answer the question.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked if, as in the Territorial Army, the increased number of those who were absent from camp, with or without leave, was in 1912, 8,720 more than in 1910, any similar increase is anticipated this year; and whether, as in 1912 the number of non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Army under nineteen years of age was 40,747, an increase during twelve months of 8,150, anything is being done to check a still further increase of the kind in 1913?
    Colonel SEELY: As regards the first part of the question, as the increase between 1911 and 1912 amounted to 1,174 there is no reason to anticipate any further large increase in these numbers. As regards the second part of the question, as the number of recruits increased from 39,086 in 1911 to 57,946 in 1912, the total numbers of men in the force under nineteen years of age increased proportionately, and future numbers will depend on the state of recruiting.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether, in the Territorial Army, as the numbers of those under nineteen years of age as well as of those who fail to pass the standard test in musketry and of those who are absent from camp increases, while the strength of the Territorial Army itself decreases, the general efficiency and use fulness of the force as a whole is thereby increased or diminished?
    Colonel SEELY: I am afraid that it is impossible to discuss the general question of the efficiency of the Territorial Force within the limits of a reply to a question.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many of the 101 flying machines acquired by the War Office are of the newest type; whether any of the machines purchased during the last six months are of an old pattern or had been disused by their owners as not efficient; and how many of the 101 machines are considered by the War Office at the present moment to be suitable for immediate use as efficient instruments of warfare?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave yesterday to similar questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford.

    PAY OF OFFICERS.
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War (1) the amount of increase in regimental pay that a captain (of not less than twelve years' service) will receive on promotion to major under the proposed new Regulations for officers' pay; (2) whether the effect of the proposed new Regulations for increasing the pay of officers will be that a number of officers will receive a lower rate of regimental pay for a portion of their first three years' service than they would receive under present Regulations; and (3) the number of lieutenants of the Regular Army who are in receipt of the extra 1s. per diem granted after seven years' service in that rank; and whether any similar provision for officers whose promotion to captain has been unusually delayed will be included in the proposed new Regulations?
    Colonel SEELY: In reply to this and to questions 109 and 110, I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement which I made on the introduction of Army Estimates.

    Director of Public Instruction, Bengal.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken to fill the vacancy in the office of Director of Public Instruction for Bengal; and whether, in making the appointment, effect will be given to the Memorandum made by Lord Morley with reference to this office when Secretary of State for India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The appointment is still under consideration. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for West Nottingham on the 13th February.

    WEST HAM GUARDIANS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: If his attention has been called to the surcharges made by Mr. R. T. L. Parr, the Local Government Board auditor, against the West Ham Union Guardians, varying from a few pounds up to sixty, for giving outdoor relief, and in consequence the guardians in question have gone on strike, and have refused to open tenders by a majority of sixteen to eight; and to ask him whether the guardians are not justified in giving outdoor relief to destitute persons in accordance with the evidence submitted to them by the investigators, and whether it is not the duty of the Local Government Board auditor to pass such accounts without surcharging the guardians; and if he can state what action he intends taking if the guardians still refuse to carry on their duties?
    Mr. BURNS: The district auditor has not reported to me that he has actually made any surcharges of the kind referred to, though I understand he is considering the question of making some disallowances or surcharges. Beyond a brief newspaper report I have no information as to the alleged action of the guardians. A board of guardians cannot legally give relief unless such relief is needed on account of destitution, and where guardians order relief to be given unlawfully they render themselves liable to be surcharged by the district auditor. Persons aggrieved by a surcharge have the right of appeal against the auditor's decision.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the auditor has told the guardians that he cannot define what is a destitute person?
    Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Member will look at the circular dealing with that particular point, a copy of which I shall be pleased to give him after questions, he will find destitution is there set out.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution on Provisional Collection of Taxes, and the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.
  Tuesday, the Plural Voting Bill will be introduced at the commencement of public business, and the Report stage of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Resolution, and the Committee stage of the Prisoners' Discharge Bill, and, if there is time, the Committee of the Army (Annual) Bill.
  Wednesday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Revenue Bill, and proceed with the further stages of the Army (Annual) Bill, and the Prisoners' Discharge Bill, without committing ourselves to the precise order.
  Thursday, we shall take Supply.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not allow for a full time discussion on the Resolution on Provisional Collection of Taxes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We put it down as first Order on Monday.
  Mr. CASSEL: But there are other matters.
  The PRIME MINISTER: After the discussion on the Financial Resolution on the Provisional Collection of Taxes we hope to take the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    DIVORCE BILL.
    "To amend the law relating to the grounds on which a husband or wife can petition for dissolution of marriage; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. ANNAN BRYCE; supported by Mr. Acland Allen, Mr. Burt, Mr. Radford, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Wedgwood, and Sir John Jardine; to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

    BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION BILL.
    "To consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Bankruptcy in Scotland."
    584
    Presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
    "To amend the Employment of Children Act, 1903; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (WOMEN)BILL.
    "To confer the Parliamentary franchise upon Women." Presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Mr. Burt, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Henry M'Laren, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. Walter Rea, Sir John Rolleston, and Mr. Snowden; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to printed. [Bill 75.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  SUPPLY.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.—(CLASS I.)—VOTE 4.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Houses of Parliament Buildings." [NOTE.—£21,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I do not think it is necessary to apologise to the Committee for discussing a matter which is always of interest to the House of Commons, namely, their own domestic conditions and surroundings. I wish to refer to the subject to which I called attention in a question to the Prime Minister a few minutes ago. The Prime Minister stated that some years ago a debate took place upon the arrangement that was made for the accommodation of officials within the precincts of the House, and he stated that the House at that time

    585
    by a large majority—I think with insufficient consideration—approved the arrangement as an experiment which was to be judged by its results. The Prime Minister quoted in its favour words of my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I would, however, call attention to the words with which that speech began:—
    "He was painfully conscious of an unusual and embarrassing amount of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman (the present Secretary of State for the Colonies)."
    My right hon. Friend was candid enough to declare distinctly upon what that painful sense of agreement was founded. It was founded upon the common interest of the two Front Benches much more than upon the interests of the House at large. Time matter was discussed in 1906 after action had been taken by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. We all know how much we owe to the action of that right hon. Gentleman when he was First Commissioner of Works. We were disposed to condone almost any highhanded action on his part, and what with a sense of gratitude and the success of his own blandishments, which we all know so well, we accepted an arrangement, carried out entirely upon his own initiative, which seriously affected the conditions of this House. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. W. Rutherford) disputed the arrangement On the ground of privilege. That, after all, was a matter which we could not have the heart to pursue against the right hon. Gentleman to whom we owed so much. His action was condoned. The House no doubt sanctioned the arrangement, and I am not going again to raise the question of privilege. Nor am I going to raise any mere question of upholstery or anything of that sort. I am going to refer to certain minor inconveniences, and then the ultimate result of the arrangement, which I think has been a very serious detriment to public business in the debates of this House. Most private Members are conscious of a great deal of inconvenience in this intrusion into these sacred precincts, the only place where we are able to escape from the prying eye of those gentlemen of the Press who are so assiduous in the outside Lobby. There is a certain amount of inconvenience in these sacred precincts being invaded by persons who are neither officers of the House nor Members. But I am not going to make much of that. What is the real gain brought about by this change?
    586
    It is the reduction of a few yards in the distance which has to be traversed by those assiduous private secretaries—an institution which has been multiplied to an extent that is suprising to those who remember the House thirty years ago—in order to secure information for their chiefs to meet the exigencies of debate. That is not a very serious object, and I do not think that the House need be put to inconvenience to achieve it.
    But there is something more. I speak as one who was once a gamekeeper, but who has now changed from gamekeeper into poacher. For more than thirty years I occupied a place in the Gallery at the end of the House. I know perfectly well what our experiences there were, and what object we served. In the first place, we were not there merely to serve the Minister; we were there to serve every Member of the House. All Members had free access to us, and use was constantly made of that access. It is very well to say that we can go and consult those experts now. I am a modest man, and I would not venture to intrude within those precincts. I do not know what treatment I should receive if I ventured to do so. I think it ought to be equally open to all Members of the House to consult the experts. I may, perhaps, refer to one notable occasion within my own experience. A large distribution of money had taken place. Some hundreds of thousands of pounds had been expended in certain parts of Scotland. I was perhaps more or less identified with the proposals submitted in a certain Memorandum. I listened to the debate, in the course of which an attack, in the most furious and indignant terms, was made by au Opposition Member upon every suggestion in the Memorandum. According to him nothing but pure imbecility could have suggested the plans put forward. I may say that the proposals were ultimately adopted by the House. At the end of his speech the hon. Member came down to me, and, with a frankness which was refreshing, said, "Could you give me a copy of that Memorandum? I do not think I ever saw it, and I certainly know nothing about it." His fulminations had been of the most general and airy sort. He came and obtained from the bench at that end of the House the information which he might with advantage have secured before making his speech.
    4.0 P.M.
    There is another evil arising from the present arrangement. As the permanent head of a Department, I know that it was

    587
    our habit for days beforehand to coach our political chief, not for one momentary exigency, but in all the main lines of our policy. We wrote briefs for him on various subjects, and he became thoroughly conversant with the whole of the administration of his Department. That is not done now. Political chiefs do not study their briefs in the way they used to do? They trust much more to the immediate prompting on the spur of the moment from the experts at their shoulder, who can be consulted with so much ease. There is yet another evil. When we sat at that end of the House, we were under the eye of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, and we were subject to their rebuke. I do not know what has been the experience of my hon. Friends, but it is certainly my experience that there have been, under the Gallery during debate, exhibitions of partisanship to which I have had privately to call the attention of the Chair. The particular occasion to which I refer was during the debates on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I believe that many of my hon. Friends had their attention called to similar displays of partisanship. But the greatest evil of all is that the arrangement is tending to make the Civil Service the mere aides-de-camp, the close partisans and allies of the Treasury Bench. That cannot but injure debate, injure administration, and in the end tend to the detriment of the Civil Service. There is nothing we have been so proud of as the independence of our Civil Service and its absolute absence from partisanship. These are traditions, let me remark to the right hon. Gentleman, which are not directed by any rules you can lay down. They are long traditions, inbred in the service, kept up by the spirit of the service. You must use every care to preserve them, for the slightest carelessness or neglect of opportunity may absolutely dissipate and destroy them. I say that because the step of bringing these officials, these experts, into parts of the House which are not under Mr. Speaker's eye or under the eye of the Chairman of Committees, brings them into almost personal contact with the Treasury Bench. I am afraid that some day we will have them, with the assent of the two Front Benches, brought in behind the Treasury Bench, and sitting absolutely on the benches of the House. There will then be very little difference in fact to now. [Laughter.] I may re-
    588
    mind the hon. Gentlemen who laugh at that that we would only then be following the example—which is regrettable—of certain Assemblies abroad; for instance, the French Chamber of Deputies, where, I believe, at certain stages the officials not only sit but at times even are heard. If they are to be heard, I would rather that they were heard by their own voices than by the immediate and secret suggestions and hints conveyed in the obscurity of the shadows behind Mr. Speaker's chair.
    The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London, when he spoke on this subject, while he did give, and on what were admittedly selfish grounds—being an occupant of one of the Front Benches—a certain sanction and support to this proposal, declared that he was informed—and he deprecated it very strongly—that already certain what he called, I think—[An HON. MEMBER: "Marconigrams"]—signs and Marconi telegrams had passed between the Front Bench and the technical officers in the Gallery. He said he did not think it ought to be allowed. I would ask the experience of the House whether, during the seven years we have tried this arrangement, this wireless telegraphy has not frequently occurred? I am not likely to attack Civil servants, or have a spirit of enmity towards that service in which my life has been spent, but I do know that there is one atmosphere inside the public offices and a totally different atmosphere—and few perhaps who are Members of the House can speak with as much experience as I can—in the House of Commons. These two atmospheres ought not to be mixed. By all means let us admit our indebtedness to the public officials and to the experts who guide us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes. I fully agree. But remember it was my business, and it is the business of the experts now, to engross and arrange information for their political chiefs, and it ought to come to the House not directly from them but digested, transformed, and arranged in the minds of the political chiefs for the information of Parliament. These are two totally different things—
    Captain MURRAY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the actual position of what is called the Official Gallery has anything to do with what the hon. Member is talking about?
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. My object is to show—
    The CHAIRMAN: So far as I follow the hon. Member, the connection of his remarks is with the alteration suggested and carried into effect some years ago in the arrangements of this House.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Certainly; that is perfectly plain. What I was contending was that this alteration in the position has brought a closer connection and a more immediate influence to bear of the officials upon the Debates in this House, and that that was to the detriment of the Debates, and to the detriment of the work of the House. I have put my point. I think that we run the risk of injuring the Debates in this House. I think that we run the risk of detriment to administration. A Minister now is under the temptation not to follow the lines of policy which ought to be pursued by his Department, but to answer in a scramble by the promptings of the moment, and owing to the exigency which happens to turn up during discussion upon the Estimates or upon any other subject. It does not make a man, as it used to do, master the whole policy of his Department. It is not right that immediate and ready access should be had to those whom he is in the habit of consulting to answer any question or to take part in the Debate. I aver that the result of this is hurtful to our Debates, hurtful to the administration of the country, and I think the greatest evil of all will be that it will tend to increase the partisanship within the Civil Service. I am convinced, and I think many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House are convinced, that there are temptations enough already to go in that direction. Civil servants during these last few years have been impregnated with the poison of partisanship to an extent which never was before, and this will be one of the processes by which that partisanship will be accelerated, and we may regret the day that these new arrangements in the House were ever adopted.
    I have no hope that the Government will not, of course, command a majority on the present occasion, and that the plan adopted, as I say, owing to the skilful and persuasive eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, will not be perpetuated now. I have little hope either that another Government when it conies to occupy the benches opposite will not readily fall into a very convenient arrangement for which they will
    590
    not have to bear the responsibility, but the fruits and advantages of which they will be only too glad to enjoy and to make use of. But there are some other people besides those who sit on the two Front Benches in this House—whoever those occupants may be for the time being. Although they will no doubt follow the custom of their predecessors—any new Government will do that, and reap the advantage of this new arrangement—yet I trust some private Members within this House will see a sufficient reason in the warnings I have uttered to protest against any further extension of this system, and to give any Government which happens to be in power fair warning that the close connection between officialism and the Treasury Bench has gone as far as it ought to go, and ought not to be allowed to go a step further, whether by the arrangements of this House or any other measures that may be taken by those who find it convenient to have experts within their reach by which to foil any attacks made upon them.
    Mr. MILDMAY: With due deference to the hon. Member who sits behind me, and who has just sat down, I do not think there is very much in the objections which he has expressed as to the place where the permanent Civil servants sit at the present time. It must be remembered that they were not introduced into the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. They merely sat at the other end, and presumably, if we prevent them from sitting in the quarter referred to, they would resume their places at the other end of the House. Their presence would not be formally recognised, but, as in the past, they would be there all the same. I want to assist the accuracy of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, and if the presence of these officials contributes to increase that accuracy all the better. We have been told that there have been expressions of partisanship from the quarter referred to. I was not aware of it myself, though I am not doubting it; but perhaps in a momentary forgetfulness some individual may have given utterance to something which he afterwards would rather he had not said. Still, I think the whole House has confidence in the political impartiality of the Civil Service. There is nothing more extraordinary in our present system of government than this political impartiality of the Civil Service, and the way Civil servants suppress their political feelings on

    591
    all occasions in their desire to do the work of the country. But I have not risen for the purpose of dealing with that matter.
    My main object was to say a word or two on what is called the great perennial grievance of the ventilation of the House. I want to know why hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies persist in upholding the present system whereby fresh air is pumped up through the floor of the House, because surely they must admit that, whatever may be at fault, the present system is not satisfactory. I do not see how it can be, because surely the floor of the House is to some considerable extent fouled by deposits from the boots of hon. Members. At any rate, will the possibility be considered of changing the present practice, whereby in winter months on the back benches a current of icy cold air is squirted up the legs of one's trousers? That, I believe, to be a form of torture from which the occupants of the Front Benches are comparatively immune. I hope that they will put their pride in their pockets and try the back benches on a cold day. They will then understand, I am sure, that we have very considerable cause for complaint. During the Home Rule debates in the cold weather I was in the habit of bringing a rug in the House to stop the very disagreeable draught, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who, I believe, initiated this practice—
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I was not responsible.
    Mr. MILDMAY: Well, whoever was, will recognise that after all the important thing is not at any rate to keep hon. Members' feet, but their heads cool. Seriously, I think that hon. Members in every quarter of the House will agree that there is a strong case for complaint with regard to the draughts in the House. We all like fresh air; I wish there was more of it in the House, but I believe that the great fault is that the Chamber is far too small for the number of individuals who have to be in it on important occasions. The condition of affairs is not to be remedied, however, by pouring in cold draughts at certain points, and I hope we may receive some assurance from those in charge that this question of ventilation will receive
    592
    further consideration and that the many complaints made will receive attention.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities hag criticised individuals who have to occupy positions under the Gallery of the House. I am too short a time in the House to know a great deal about these matters, but as one who has sat constantly upon this side, I must say signs of partisanship have certainly never been discernible by me. I think there must be some misunderstanding on this matter, and when we remember that it is individuals from a particular Department who sit under the Gallery and that they only come there at long intervals, it seems to me that the atmosphere of the House must be very strongly impregnated with partisanship during these few hours if it is going to influence their feelings. I rise to support the complaint of the last speaker with reference to the ventilation, and I think that complaint applies, not only to this Chamber, but to the passages and the Library, and to many other parts of the House. When one comes in here sometimes fresh from outside, one feels as if there was a sort of air blanket round one which deprives one of his usual vigour. On a cold winter's day, after sitting for hours inside this House, when people go out into the frosty air it seems to me it speaks volumes for the efficiency of the human machine, and is not a testimony to the ventilation of the House of Commons that they do not get ill. Sometimes it seems as if the air of the House and the atmosphere were charged with warm, stagnant moisture. Personally I am one of those not afflicted with the drawbacks that attach to affluence; and, therefore, when I go outside I have to use my legs and in that way one gets a certain amount of stimulus and improved circulation and breathing not always available to those who travel in motors and taxi-cabs.
    I believe we have a special system of air distribution and of filtering of the air to free it from germs and all that. I do not think there is much in that. I believe we have air properly filtered and distributed according to a scientific principle, and I believe we have an instrument which does that and carries out its instructions to the letter. But it seems to me that there is something wrong with the conception that underlies the system of ventilation in this House. I believe that the air that comes into this Chamber is uncommonly pure as a matter of fact, but

    593
    somehow or another it is not all that could be desired. The other day, thanks to the kindness of Mr. Speaker and the Office of Works, I was able to obtain information from experiments that Professor Hill performed in this House. I must also thank my hon. Friend who represents the Office of Works for allowing that to be undertaken, and, incidentally, I am quite sure many of us feel that we owe him a debt of gratitude in providing us with a stairway down to the Terrace through which we can conduct our friends without having to apologise for the lineoleum. Coming to the air in the House of Commons, it seems to me that for a long time the air is very stagnant. I am not going to give a general lecture on the ventilation of this House, and I am sure hon. Members will acquit me of any desire to do anything pedantic. But we know that a certain amount of loss of heat from cur bodies is very essential or else we get slack when we come into warm, moist air and the skin gets moist and hot and less blood goes to the brain and we feel less active than otherwise. It is unnecessary here to go into any details, but we see the effect of it very often in those who live shut up and confined in a still moist atmosphere, for instance, compositors and clerks and people of that kind who never use more than a small part of the lungs with the result that the parts unused are vulnerable to attacks of all kinds of organisms which bring on consumption. One out of every four clerks over the age of fifteen dies of consumption, and it must be due to something or other in connection with their occupation. I believe it is due mainly to the atmosphere in which they live.
    Professor Hill carried out from my instruction some experiments to show how rapidly we lose heat in this House and how rapidly the air moves. A thermometer in an ordinary comfortable room falls from 100 to 97 Fahrenheit in about three and a half minutes surrounded with a wet jacket and so on. Under the Gallery last Tuesday it took four minutes and thirty-eight seconds with one apparatus, and four minutes and twenty-eight seconds with another. The conditions under the special Gallery were with the first experiment four minutes and fifty seconds, and with the second, four minutes and thirty seconds. In the Library it took four minutes and thirty-five seconds in the first instance, and four minutes and fifteen seconds in the second instance. In the Lobby, four minutes and thirty seconds
    594
    and four minutes and ten seconds. That is to say, the average time it took for this thing to cool down was four minutes and thirty-two seconds, which is a whole minute longer than the average room in which we feel comfortable. You have a loss of heat from your body, and when we are sitting closely packed together, it must be very much greater, because we keep one another heated up—I do not mean by controversy but by preventing the escape of heat—and we have a diminished loss in this House of over 20 per cent. of what it would be in an ordinary comfortable room. I do not suggest that is the sole explanation of the depression many of us feel, but it is certainly an important fact and ought to be taken into consideration by soma responsible body which I hope will be appointed to consider the matter. There is abundance of illustration to show that unless we lose a certain amount of heat there is no cause for us to breathe deeply enough, and if we do not get enough of gases into our lungs, we get depressed and slack, and I believe that is what happens in this House. It is not that we want draughts. I know some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have an exceedingly great and legitimate objection to draughts. Some time ago I was in the room of a right hon. Gentleman, and it was very hot; there were three or four people smoking, and yet he got up and put on his coat and sat near the door.
    It is not necessary in order to keep a room cool that we should get vicious draughts. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies is very adverse to draughts, but I might comfort him by saying it is not in the least necessary to produce a draught which one feels to be objectionable in order to have the air moved about sufficiently to keep it fresh and comfortable. The other day I came across a very interesting and significant piece of information supplied to me by Professor Hill. It bears out exactly this point I am trying to make about the air moving about enough, and I mention it to the House as a matter of general interest. Until quite recently the fishermen of the Lofoden Islands were accustomed to sea-fishing in open boats. In 1907 they began to use motor boats. The result was that the consumption death-rate amongst these fishermen increased from the proportion of five to twelve. The sole change that has been ascertained in their habits of life at sea is the use of these motor boats for

    595
    fishing. They have not the same opportunity of exercising their lungs that they had and of stirring up their circulation, and they have become subject to attacks of various diseases, and it is apparently clear that it is largely due to the lack of exercise arising from their use of motor boats. I think it might be expressed in these terms, that they breathe a great deal more stagnant air than before. To a very much smaller extent I believe the Members of this House often feel considerable depression because they are living in stagnant air. I am not an authority on these questions, and I am only taking my information second-hand, but I hope the matter will be given consideration, and I hope the hon. Gentleman representing the Office of Works will have it further investigated.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I feel myself in accord with the hon. Gentleman opposite in this matter which he has brought before the House. It seems to me there are many causes for the depression of hon. Members in this House beside the fact that the air does not cool sufficiently quickly. The experiments of Professor Hill are likely to throw some light upon the causes which give rise to depression when a man is a long while in this House. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mildmay) said it is not a wise proceeding that air should be admitted into this House through the floor. It is quite certain that such air must contain a large number of germs which must cause that influenza which so very often attacks Members in this House. I have on several occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary knows, drawn attention to what I cannot help regarding as the ineffective ventilation of this Chamber. But beside the fact that the air is admitted into the House through the floor, which I think is as bad an arrangement as can be imagined, the inlet of the air from outside is to the lowest part of the House and across the surface of the Thames. The result is, as everybody knows, that when a barge laden with manure is passing up or down the whole effluvia comes into the House, and everybody puts his handkerchief to his nose to stop the disagreeable smell. I cannot help thinking that the whole system of ventilation is wrong. I have consulted many eminent engineers on the subject, and they agree that to alter the whole system would be a very expensive matter. I am inclined to think, however,
    596
    that it might be advisable to incur that expense, in order to secure better conditions for hon. Members who are compelled to remain here for a considerable period of the year. I hope, therefore, that the present authorities will see the advantage, at any rate, of appointing a Committee to ascertain whether it is possible in any way to improve the present system of ventilation. Under the existing system, even in the height of summer, it is seldom that we can introduce fresh air through the windows, and we are told if we do so that we destroy the whole mechanical system of ventilation. I very much prefer fresh air from the upper regions than from the surface of the Thames, and I trust that effect may be given to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. PIRIE: Unlike the previous speakers, I approach this question merely as an ordinary layman who objects to having to spend a minute more than is necessary in this horrible and vitiated atmosphere. I put a question the other day to the hon. Gentleman who represents the First Commissioner of Works about the Dining Room, and he admitted that the atmosphere there was vitiated. Of all the places in this House which should be fitted with the most modern fan to keep the rooms tolerably decent, I think the Dining Room is the most important, and yet the fan there was fixed quite twenty years ago, and represents an out-of-date system. My hon. Friend admitted that the ventilation at the windows might be better, but as a rule the windows will not open, and where they do open they are so small that they will not let in any air. I do not think there is a single second-class public-house in London into which you could not go in the morning and find a sweeter atmosphere than in this place. In the Lobby in the morning you find every window shut firmly, instead of being open, as they should be, all night. What is there to prevent the policemen opening the windows as soon as the House rises, and leaving them open during the night, in order to admit some fresh air? A former Member of this House, Sir Harry Verney, wrote a very good pamphlet upon this subject, but it was put upon one side, and the Government have forgotten it, and they have also postponed the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this subject.
    Whatever the system may be, it gives the worst possible results. I think it is a great pity that we happen to have a First Commissioner of Works who does

    597
    not himself know, from personal experience, what goes on in this House. I admit that the First Commissioner has a very admirable substitute, and I hope it will not be long before the practice of having a substitute for Ministers in this House will be put an end to. If the responsible Minister had to experience the atmosphere of the Dining Room and of this House, then we might get something done in the matter. I wish to fully recognise the great improvements which have taken place in other parts of the House under the late Commissioner of Works in regard to the comfort of Members in the Reading Rooms. I wish to point out, however, that the lights are placed in the worst possible position for Members to read, and I think a little alteration of the furniture, and placing the tables under the window, and moving the seats under the lights, would enable Members to read their newspapers in greater comfort. I would like to ask if the First Commissioner of Works is perfectly certain that the great alterations which are going on in Westminster Hall are really necessary, and what is likely to be the cost of them. There is in that hall a most elaborate scaffolding, and I quite agree that Westminster Hall must be repaired, but I wish to sound a warning note, because acts of vandalism may be carried out. I hope the First Commissioner will make certain that the great expense in this connection is really necessary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I must say that I quite agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities on this subject. When I first came into the House Government officials, whose presence was necessary for the assistance of Ministers, used to sit at the other end of the House, but those seats were not always kept entirely for Government officials. I myself, before I had the honour of being a Member of this House, have sat in that Gallery with Government officials, and I have often seen strangers there. I have sat there with three or four Government officials, who were then considered sufficient to advise the then Ministers of the Crown. The Gallery I refer to is outside the House, and the officials used to come in as ordinary strangers, and they had to pass the door-keepers. By changing the place for these officials to a Gallery behind the Speaker's Chair, they are now in a part of the House itself. The officials do not come in through the doorway, but through the Lobbies amongst
    598
    Members themselves, and it is impossible to know when you happen to be talking with an hon. Member about the iniquities of the Government that you may not be overheard by an official, who is either entering or quitting that particular Gallery, which I think opens straight into the Lobby. I do not think that is an advantageous state of things, and it is much more necessary that the House of Commons should be kept for Members than that Ministers should save a little of their time, and instead of learning their lesson in their office defer it until they are prompted by officials who are seated close to them. In the old days there might possibly be five or six officials at the most under the Gallery. I do not know how many are there at the present moment, but I should think there are twelve or fourteen, and sometimes it is crowded, and it has occurred to me that it is often crowded by officials who do not come to render assistance for the Government, but who come to hear hon. Members, like myself and others, deliver excellent speeches. But, after all, they are paid to do their work in the office, and not to come and listen to us.
    I have seen gentlemen in that Gallery who were not Government officials. I made an inquiry once, and I was told the gentleman I referred to is in some degree connected with the Government, but, at any rate, he was not a Government official, and never will be, and never has been a Government official. Under the old system the officials were not introduced into the middle of the Lobbies without anyone knowing that they were strangers or how they got there. I think these are strong arguments for considering what, after all, is only a modern innovation. There are other points. I think it is now admitted that hon. Members attend this House in larger numbers than they used to do twenty or thirty years ago. The accommodation of this House is not too extensive, and during great Debates, when it really has not been necessary for any right hon. Gentleman to be prompted, the Official Gallery still remains crowded. The accommodation in this House, being by no means extensive, it is necessary that, as far as you can, you should give all the available floor space for the accommodation of Members, and we are losing a great deal by the substitution of the present Gallery for officials for the one at the other end of the House. In criticising a Minister one desires to know very often whether a

    599
    Minister really is efficient and gives his time to his work, and, to use a slang phrase, really understands his job. In the old days, if you saw a Minister walking down to the other end of the House, you knew perfectly well that he did not know the particular case he had to defend, and had to be prompted by officials at the other end of the House. That was patent to everyone, and it is a very good thing it should be so, because it necessitated that the Minister, in order to avoid this, should take the pains and trouble to ascertain the particular points of the case which he had to defend or recommend, as the case might be. All that has gone now, because he has only got to sit towards the end of the bench close to Mr. Speaker's chair, and then if he stands for a few moments where he is hardly observed he can obtain all his information. The result is we get information not from the Minister himself but secondhand from the officials in the box.
    I remember once in Committee of Supply sitting here listening to what was going on. One of my hon. Friends advanced a certain proposition and wanted to get certain information. I will not mention any names, but I trust the House will take it from me that what I am going to say is absolutely correct. The answer of the Minister was given in a very confident and assured way, but it seemed to me to be a very extraordinary one. It was sufficient for my hon. Friend who sat down apparently abashed, but it was not sufficient for me. I knew nothing whatever about it, but I had sufficient self-possession to get up and question the right hon. Gentleman as to his answer. He gave some reply which made the matter even worse than it was before, so I put up one of my hon. Friends to continue the debate. The right hon. Gentleman then made a little sign to me, and I met him behind the Chair. He said, "Oh, look here, I have read the wrong answer." He had been to the official, who had given him two answers, and on his return from that select place he had mixed them up and read the wrong one. Being very kindhearted, I said, "Oh, all right, so-and-so, we will say nothing more about it. Of course, I shall always expect great attention whenever I rise to criticise the Estimates, but beyond that I will take no further action." I therefore asked my hon. Friends to say nothing more about it. I may say the Minister, who happened to
    600
    be a Radical, gave me an assurance that the point should be met and remedied. The matter passed over, and I do not know that anybody until to-day except the right hon. Gentleman and myself ever knew what took place on that occasion. I only advance that as showing that it is not a good thing for Ministers to depend too much upon information given them on the spur of the moment. If that right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly understood his subject the incident would never have occurred, or, if he had been unfortunate enough to have run counter to someone who was not of my kindness of nature, there might have been unpleasantness.
    I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that the ventilation of this House is by no manner of means efficient. Large sums of money have been spent upon it, but it does not at all follow that because you spend large sums of money you get good results. After I have sat here for a couple of hours my feet and legs get very cold and my head gets very hot, which is not conducive either to the carrying on of a debate in an efficient manner or to one's health. I have made this complaint once or twice before, but I have never succeeded in getting any redress. On one occasion, when one of my hon. Friends, who used to be Junior Lord of the Treasury but now fills the office of a Whip, ordered me to sit here from four to seven. I was obliged about seven o'clock to go out, and I caught a very bad cold in consequence. I believe a great number of Members who make a habit of sitting on this bench will agree with me that a large amount of cold air comes up, and the only effect is to make one very cold where he ought to be hot and warm where he ought to be cold. That is not a good state of things, and I think it might be remedied. Occasionally there is a very nasty smell of exhausted air in the House. There was this smell the day before yesterday. I remember certain offices which were heated with hot air, and there always used to be a nasty smell of exhausted air. It was so bad that they did away with the hot air heating and substituted hot water, which was far better, because there was never that uncomfortable smell again. I have hot water in my own house in the country, and I have no fault whatever to find with it.
    I would suggest that we should endeavour, first of all, to ventilate the House by opening the windows; and, secondly, that we should endeavour to

    601
    heat it by hot water. We should thus avoid all this expense of pumping in warm air, and I believe we should all be healthier and more comfortable. I fail to see why on a fine day or night, when the House is empty, we should not have the windows opened. It would be far better than this system of having the dust of our feet blown into our faces. When I first came into the House we always had the windows opened. I remember that in the summer the windows on both sides used to be open, and there was no pleasanter place in London in a hot summer than the House of Commons. The Lobbies, too, were very nice because you could open the windows yourself. Now one is treated like a suffragist, and the windows are all fastened up so that you cannot open them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Forcibly ventilated."] I object to being forcibly ventilated. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) will not be contaminated by the presence of the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt). I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is specially here on this Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not making any objection. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see right hon. Gentlemen in their proper place. I am very glad he is here. His example might be taken by other Members of the Government. There may, however, be another reason why he is here. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, is very fond of his own child, the present system of ventilation.
    Mr. HARCOURT: It is not mine. It was here years before ever I was appointed First Commissioner of Works.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My recollection is that, after my short and enforced absence in 1906, I came back and found the windows which used to be opened closed. I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman, and I was received very courteously, but he told me it would interfere with his system of ventilation. I ventured to say that, after consideration of a variety of things, he would perhaps alter his system of ventilation. Then he practically said, "It shall be taken into consideration. Good-bye—mind the step," which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) is always telling us is the fate of a deputation which goes to see an official. That was my fate, although the right hon. Gentleman put it in rather more courteous terms. Nothing has been done. I may, therefore, be
    602
    excused for thinking the right hon. Gentleman had something to do with it. If he is satisfied with it perhaps he will tell us so, and, if not, perhaps he will assist us in getting it altered. I should like to know what is being done in Westminster Hall. I hope the spirit of reform is not going to reform the old roof, which has been there for several hundred years. If it is necessary to replace some of the timbers, I hope it will be done in a careful manner and that no more will be replaced than is absolutely necessary.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Perhaps the House will allow me on the subject of the seating under the Gallery to give my experience, as I sat both under that Gallery (the Gallery under the Clock) and that one (the Gallery before Mr. Speaker's Chair), and the contrast between the two was very marked. Before, I had to walk the whole way round to reach the seats under that Gallery (the Gallery under the Clock), and, when I was seated there and had to return to the Ministers' Room behind the Speaker's Chair, I had again to take a long walk. Later in the afternoon, if I had to return to the House, I very often found there was no seat reserved for me and I was unable to attend the Debate at all. The officials had the same thing to do. They had to walk all the way round, and they had to pass through the Lobby, where they heard a great deal more gossip than they do now, and they also found it extremely difficult to get seating accommodation if they arrived late in the afternoon, because there were only a few seats for officials, the rest being for the general public. They are now in an extremely convenient spot to be reached. The question is, Does the hon. Baronet opposite wish to receive accurate information or is it his desire to catch Ministers tripping? If he wants accurate information it is as well that Ministers, who cannot always be omniscient, should have at hand officials with figures and statistics to which they can refer and which it is to the general public advantage they should be able to quote. There can be no question about that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And the next thing will be that these permanent officials will sit on the bench at the elbows of Ministers.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think that that follows. They are now practically

    603
    outside the House; they in no way interfere with the sitting accommodation of the House. And I would draw the hon. Baronet's attention to the fact that often that Gallery which is set apart for their convenience is quite empty. Of course I am referring to the occasion of Debates when there is no special need for the attendance of permanent officials. The point, however, is a very small one. The arrangement is extremely convenient for the Government at the present time, and when we cross to the other side, if we ever do, we shall be only too glad to accord to the right hon. Gentlemen who become the occupants of the Ministerial Bench the facilities enjoyed by the present holders. I entirely agree with what has been said on the subject of ventilation, and, as other hon. Members have described their symptoms, I propose to narrate my own. The effect in my case is that I get extremely dry. After I have been sitting in this House for many hours my throat becomes absolutely parched, and I think that is due to the fact that the air we receive is so sterilised and so over-purified that it really does not refresh us in the least degree. I trust my hon. Friend will devise some system of ventilation which will give more satisfaction. I want to ask a question with regard to the erection of statues in London. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for St George's-in-the-East knows, the National Portrait Gallery has a regulation drawn up by the Trustees of the Gallery that no portrait of any prominent man shall be received until ten years after he has died. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is in the power of the First Commissioner of Works to promulgate a regulation of a similar nature in regard to the erection of statues in London.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is only dealing with the Houses of Parliament at this moment.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member seemed to think that the arrangement of seats for members of the Civil Service was a good one, because the officials were saved having to walk a few yards around the outside Lobby. I think that was rather an advantage. Most permanent officials and private secretaries suffer from lack of open-air exercise, but, even if they cannot walk in the open air, the old arrangement gave them an opportunity for some little exericse. We have been
    604
    told that these seats are always open to hon. Members in this House. I do not know how many could be accommodated there, but it appears to me a somewhat crowded space, and I rather fancy there would be disorderly scenes if hon. Members tried to force their way into that Gallery. On the other hand, I think it is a disadvantage from the point of view put forward by the Member for the City of London, because it rather tends to what may be described as a sloppy way of doing business. If a Cabinet Minister is always assured of having a permanent official at his elbow, he is not perhaps so inclined to get up his figures as he was when it was necessary for him, in full view of the whole House, to walk down to the Gallery under the clock in order to consult them.
    With regard to the system of ventilation, I remember the present Colonial Secretary telling us a few years ago that it was a difficult question to cope with, as Members were divided into two classes, "Frousters" and "Rousters." I suppose I may class myself as a "Rouster." The hon. Member complains very seriously indeed of the general atmosphere of the House. It is heated very much too much, and it has a very depressing effect on Members. To a great extent it is due to the amount of attention the air receives before it is pumped into this Chamber. I remember going to see the system of ventilation adopted. We were shown how thoroughly the air was cleansed before it was pumped into the Chamber. It was washed; it had to pass through a screen of water, and there was extra special treatment on foggy days. The result is that the air we receive has the bite taken out of it. The effect is practically the same as that produced on aerated water which has been allowed to stand in an open jug on the table for several hours. The cleansing of the air is carried too far, and a Committee of experts might with great advantage inquire into the whole system of ventilation with a view to affording us some relief. I have observed in the summer months that certain windows in this House have been opened. I do not know whether it is good for ventilation, but it certainly makes a difference to hon. Members. They see a little bit of the sky, and, although it may be a delusion on their part that fresh air is coming into the Chamber, it does affect their comfort to a certain degree. It is not only in the Dining Room and the Chamber that the ventilation is so bad. I hope the hon.

    605
    Gentleman will turn his attention to the Committee rooms, because when there is a matter of serious contention going on in one of them the atmosphere really becomes quite unendurable, and if anyone attempts, especially in the winter months, to open the window the Members sitting close to that window promptly shut it so that no fresh air is allowed to enter the room. I trust the hon. Gentleman will set up a Committee to make thorough and complete inquiry into the whole system of ventilation, and that the result will be to add to the comfort of Members.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I wish to say a few words in enlargement of a question which I asked on Tuesday. I rarely change my opinions in any matter, although there are some examples around me which tend to show that consistency is a doubtful virtue. However, here is a topic on which I have changed my opinion. When, some years ago, a proposal was made that the benches behind the Chair should be allocated to permanent officials who up to that time sat beneath the clock, I very much opposed it. But after five years' experience I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong and that the present arrangement is in every way admirable. It is admirable, too, in an artistic sense. The officials, who are emporiums of information, are placed in the background like the prompters in a theatre. No one in the audience wishes to hear the voice of the prompter. The permanent officials are in a position where it is most convenient to get from them the information which is required by the House. I do not believe very much in inspired Ministers—that is, Ministers w ho speak on the spur of the moment. I have been a Member of this House seven-and-twenty years, and I have come to the conclusion that the ordinary Minister is nothing more or less—indeed, he is sometimes considerably less—than the ordinary Member of Parliament. A Member placed at the head of a Department, knowing perhaps no more about it than an ordinary intelligent man in the street, would be very foolish indeed if he did not get the advice and the special information at the disposal of his officials. It is quite easy for a Minister to go behind the Speaker's Chair for information for which he may be asked, and which can be given him by gentlemen of trained experience. After all, heads of Departments succeed one another in the same way as the dial of a watch is changed. The dial changes, but the works remain inside the case, and the
    606
    permanent officials may be compared with those works. That is one of the reasons why I approve of the present arrangement.
    There is another reason which I should like to mention. I have only been asked twice in my whole life to withdraw an expression, and one of those occasions was due to the use made of the bench under the Clock, which, although it was allocated to permanent officials, was not used by them alone or by men who had absolute expert experience of the subject under debate, but was, theoretically, open to strangers. It was not reserved merely for permanent officials, as it ought to be, but it was also open to persons having a particular interest in the Debate's proceeding. I came in one afternoon and saw the Welsh Members in a state of high excitement, and I saw upon that bench a Minister who had been appointed to the directorship of a public company after he had got his post in the Administration. The House was pretty empty, but the bench under the Gallery was lined with railway officials, and I saw this gentleman going up and down, and down and up—just like Job's Satan wandering up and down the world—between the Treasury Bench and the bench under the Gallery. I remember the occasion because I did not use one Parliamentary word. [An HON. MEMBER "Is it recorded?"] Yes, it is, and I will tell my hon. Friend in confidence where it is. There is another point I desire to press upon my hon. Friend who represents the First Commissioner, and I hope he will accept my apologies for not giving him notice of it. I want, as advocate of a forlorn cause, to implore him to see that the inscriptions in Westminster Hall should be in decent English. One inscription in Westminster Hall is so full of bad English that I declare you could not match it in the King's Speeches when the Tory Government were in power. I can very well understand the love, affection, and veneration with which every Englishman worthy of the name regards Westminster Hall. I have a great affection for it in the cooler light of an historian. I like the memorials in Westminster Hall, but the inscriptions on them should be in English which would not make Lord Macaulay flog his well-known schoolboy to death. Recently, and I do not know why, certainly not at the instance of the present House of Commons, who were not consulted in the matter, a slab was placed in the Hall to the memory of Warren Hastings. I would rather have had memorial slabs to

    607
    the memory of Burke and Sheridan, who unmasked Warren Hastings and all his doings. I came down and saw the inscription. I thought I had not read it correctly. I had mislaid my spectacles and went for them, and when I came back I saw I was quite right, and that there was the inscription:—
    "Here Warren Hastings stood for his trial."
    We have heard of men standing for constituencies, but standing "for" a trial is a word not known in the English language, and would not be understood even in the Law Courts. I do not know who settled it; it is unique in itself. It is not English; it is not even slang. The writer of this inscription, whoever he was, erred from the truth with his eyes on two precedents. First, there is the memorial slab on the place where Charles I. stood on the occasion of his trial. It is there stated that—
    "Here the King stood before his judges."
    The other is where Strafford is supposed to have stood making the memorable speech in his defence:
    "Here Strafford stood during his impeachment."
    Who composed the inscription
    "Here Warren Hastings stood for his trial"?
    I asked my hon. Friend about it, and he asked the First Commissioner, who, being a peer, I suppose has an hereditary knowledge of English. My hon. Friend told me that the First Commissioner of Works
    "thinks the inscription is not ungrammatical."
    I tell the First Commissioner that the term "ungrammatical" is not known in the English language. For the advantage of foreigners, some of whom know our language better than we do ourselves, and for our credit, let the word "for" be taken out, and the word "at" inserted. I shall be glad to hear my hon. Friend's explanation of the matter. We can stand for a drink, but we cannot stand for a trial. I ask that this word should be eliminated in the interests of the House of Commons, of Westminster Hall, and of foreigners who will say, "What astonishing people these are! They do not even know their own language, and cannot write inscriptions in decent English."
    Mr. HODGE: We have heard a great deal of the ventilation of the House, and that subject has been well ventilated. I wish to turn to something else. Unfortunately all the questions I intended to raise cannot be raised upon this Vote and
    608
    the only point I desire to put before the representative of the First Commissioner is with regard to the contract for the cleaning of the Houses of Parliament. During last Session some of my colleagues from time to time put questions with regard to this particular contract and received in every instance very courteous replies, which were of the usual Departmental character, to the effect that the Department could not see any necessity for any change. I think that when the circumstances are narrated to the Committee they will be of my opinion that the contract ought to be abolished, and that the cleaning so far as the House of Commons is concerned, which although technically done by a contractor is under the direction of the resident engineer, should be placed under the resident engineer altogether. It is rather a curious thing that although this contract has changed hands on many occasions, the cleaners never change. It does not matter who the contractor is, the men are really the permanent employés of the Houses of Parliament. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that these men take their orders not from the contractor but from the resident engineer, I would appeal to the Department to see that the contract is abolished, and that the cleaning should be permanently put in charge of the resident engineer.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not think the subject with which the hon. Member is now dealing comes under this Vote. It comes under Class II., Vote 2.
    Mr. HODGE: May I say that I consulted Mr. Whitley before raising it, and it was decided I could do so on this Vote.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It all depends whether it comes under "Works and services connected with the Engineering Arrangements, and the Wages of Men in connection therewith." If that is the Class to which the hon. Member is referring he is in order, but if he is referring to the general question of cleaners, he is not in order.
    Mr. HODGE: I have practically got in all I wanted to say, and I shall be delighted to have a reply from the representative of the First Commissioner. May I say one thing more?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on that point.
    Mr. HODGE: It is not on that point. We have had some criticism of the First Commissioner of Works with respect to the ventilation of the House. I desire to pay my tribute to him for the sympathy and spirit he has always displayed towards either those who clean the House or those who work under contracts relating to work which comes under his Department.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I intended to wait until the Minister spoke on the subject of the modern arrangements for the accommodation of private secretaries and Civil servants, but perhaps I had better say what I have to say before the Debate wanders to subjects of a different kind. I have from the first disapproved, for what my opinion may be worth, of this new arrangement, but when I give expression to that opinion, I wish to qualify it by saying that I think this House is much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies for many other excellent improvements he has made in the arrangements of this House. It is only this one with which I wish to find fault. In my opinion it goes far beyond the mere question of the structural arrangements of this House. It is not merely a case of changing the position where certain persons have to sit. My hon. Friend the Member for the Totnes Division (Mr. Mildmay) was wrong when he said it was merely a question of making these gentlemen sit in one place instead of another. As the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said, the place where they sat before was a Strangers' Gallery, and when not wanted for private secretaries, it was accessible to strangers; therefore, by this arrangement we are not only reducing the quality of the accommodation for Members of this House, but also reducing to some extent the space available for strangers. In my early days in Parliament I was bred up to value the sanctity of those parts of the precincts of the House which are behind the Speaker's chair, that part of the precincts to which none but officers of this House or Ministers can obtain access. That was part of an arrangement by which it was secured to Members that there should be some part of the precincts where they should be entirely out of the reach of Lobbying. The hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) says he has changed his opinion upon this subject, and he seems to think that the proper way of treating the matter is to regard
    610
    these gentlemen—upon whom I do not wish to make any kind of attack; it is not necessary to my case—as if they were prompters, and that their place has been changed for the better because, as he said, it more resembles the position of a prompter's box. That is a profoundly mistaken view of the position that these gentlemen ought to occupy in regard to this House. To reduce it ad absurdum, if you want to put them in a prompter's box, you had better put them under the Table, where they can speak into the ears of Ministers who want to consult them. I hope that reduces ad absurdum the suggestion that these gentlemen are to be regarded, wherever they may sit, as prompters.
    Let me give my testimony. Not only upon the occasion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir Henry Craik) referred have I heard ejaculations and interruptions of debate take place. I have heard it happen upon more occasions than that. That it should take place upon one, two, or more occasions, and whether it was influenced by party spirit or not—I do not say that it was—I say that is enough to condemn the arrangement. It is not necessary to say that the Civil servants are more likely to be influenced by party spirit by this arrangement. It is natural that advisers of Ministers should be keen in supporting the execution of the advice they have given to Ministers. That advice may be entirely independent of party considerations, and in the great majority of cases it is so independent. It is creditable to them that they should show keenness in trying to procure the execution of the advice they have probably most properly given. It is done in a way which interferes with our debates and lowers the dignity of our proceedings, and considerations preventing that are far more important than any consideration of making easier the relations between Ministers and their advisers and access from one to the other.
    This arrangement has the effect of dispensing Ministers from the necessity, for which we pay them, of learning. It has to be put thus bluntly and plainly. It is not a case merely of obtaining accurate information. If it were merely a case of obtaining accurate information by this House, it must be borne in mind that there is no one to whom this House is more generous in its treatment than the Minister who, in Committee of Supply, finds himself compelled to say, "I am

    611
    sorry to say this question refers to a detail to which I cannot remember the answer, or of which I have not had time to learn the answer, and I hope the hon. Member will wait till the Report stage and I will give him the answer." I have never known the House show any undue severity or critical spirit to a Minister who plainly and frankly made such an answer. The danger is the substitution for accurate information of a substituted judgment in a case where the House has the right to a judgment from the Minister himself. We do not want on questions of policy the judgment of men who are not here in a representative position, and who are not sensitive to, and accessible to that public opinion which is the foundation of the jurisdiction of this House, not merely in legislative but also in executive matters. I remember, from my own experience as a Minister, that it was really a terror before one's eyes if, before one's Votes came on in Committee of Supply, one did not know one's case and had to learn it, as it was one's duty to learn the details of one's policy on the Estimates one had to defend, and one would not be able in the last hour to gain supplementary information without its being known by all present that one was so gaining it. There is perhaps one case in which an exception should be made. I now refer to perhaps the most hard worked of all our public servants, and that is the draftsmen of our Government Bills. I really think there ought to be some special arrangement made, and I believe arrangements are made in foreign assemblies, for making them readily accessible indeed to Ministers, to consult them almost instantaneously and on very short notice upon extremely difficult points of draftsmanship. I do not speak on this matter without positive experience. During the tenure of the present Ministry, not to say also possible in the case of other Ministries, there have been cases of the most deplorable ignorance on the part of Ministers even where due notice had been given of the most elementary facts in matters which they were called upon to explain, advocate, or defend. That has occurred in cases which were not those of any Member of the Ministry whom I have the pleasure of seeing before me.
    Mr. WATT: I have had the infelicitous experience this afternoon of assuming the
    612
    perpendicular every three or four minutes in order to catch your eye. I concur with the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) in his observations about the transfer of the servants of the Government, Civil and otherwise, from this end of the Chamber to the other. I have been long enough in the House to remember the change and to remember the Debate which took place on that change, and to remember the conditions which were attached to the occupancy of those seats behind the Speaker's Chair. There were two conditions attached which I think have been broken. The first was that when the bench was not occupied by servants of the Government, Members of Parliament might have a right to go in there. I do not know whether any Members here present have had the temerity to go in there when the bench was only half-filled, but, as I have an unfortunate capacity of going where angels fear to tread, I on one occasion ventured in there and sat beside these officials. They did not receive me with open arms. They drew away from me as women draw away from an unchaperoned belle at a fashionable ball. They ostracised me. That was one of the conditions which was attached to their transfer to that bench. But it is seldom occupied by Members of Parliament, for they seem to be afraid of venturing in when there is nobody present, and my experience was such that I would not venture again. So the spectacle is seen of Members of Parliament occasionally in big Debates sitting on the steps of the Gangway, sitting in the Galleries, clinging to all sorts of out-of-the-way supports, while that bench is empty and reserved for these distinguished gentlemen. The other condition was that it would only be utilised by these gentlemen when the business of the House was such as to call for their assistance to Ministers. Now that has been departed from because, when these same gentlemen think there is an interesting Debate about to come on, and when the demand for seats for our distinguished constituents is very great, we cannot even supply the demand. The dress circle is full of these same gentlemen to whom I have referred and they have the advantage of getting, what is in great public demand, a seat from which they can hear the interesting Debate which is anticipated. I do not think that that is what was intended. Indeed, it is quite clear that that was not to be a term of the gift, so that I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) and the

    613
    hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) in saying that the transfer from this end to that has been a dismal failure.
    But there is another matter to which I should like to draw attention. I asked the hon. Gentleman a question yesterday as to accommodation for the ancient game of billiards in this House, and I regret to say that his response was not encouraging. I understand that the game of billiards is contrary to his high moral standing, and that he disapproves of the game, and a fortiori disapproves of it in the precincts of this sacred House. He wishes the outside public to continue to be deluded into thinking that the Members of this House, from a quarter to three every afternoon till eleven, are listening to the words of eloquence which are poured forth from these benches. I do not think the public are so deluded. It is not generally believed that we are present in the Chamber all the hours that we have to be in the precincts. I think that the view that is taken outside is that when we hear the call from you, "The Clerk will now proceed to the Orders of the Day," then when the flood of oratory rushes in the flood of Members rushes out. So that if that be so, if it be known outside that that is so, why should recreation be in any way limited for Members of Parliament? Why should my hon. Friend, in his position of dictator of what games are to be played here, say that the homely game of chess and the highly intellectual game of dominoes should be permitted but other games should not be permitted? I do not see why my hon. Friend should have refused the suggestion that this game should be introduced, seeing that games are and have been played for some years. I hope he will reconsider the matter and will realise that his standard of morality in that respect is perhaps not the standard of the majority of Members and that a number of them are desirous of having this game.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL: I agree with the hon. Member in not thinking it necessary that simply the game of chess and draughts should be permitted in this House. I cannot help thinking that a little more advantage might be given to hon. Members who have to sit here and listen to dull and uninteresting Debates. But what I am particularly desirous of bringing before the hon. Member is a question with regard to the grille. I may be written down as a Suffragette. I am under no circumstances in favour of any question with regard to the Suffrage movement, but
    614
    I have thought, when I have been upstairs in the place supposed to be the Ladies' Gallery, that some very great improvement might be introduced in order, at all events, that that dull, dismal, heavy place might be improved. I do not see the necessity for that heavy grille being there. Practically every lady who goes into that gallery is in a prison. I do not think it is necessary that we should impose such an embargo upon ladies who visit the House, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give that his consideration. There is another question, also on behalf of the ladies. I am perhaps treading on thin ice because, under certain circumstances, I have not given that support which might be desired, but there is, practically speaking, no reasonable accommodation for those Members who employ the services of ladies as their secretaries. There is at the end of Westminster Hall one huge room where hon. Members will find six or eight ladies who come to do their work at the House of Commons. If, however, it happens, as it does occasionally, that there is a meeting of Members of the House of Commons, those ladies, though the Members may be going into some important details, have to go outside and stand at the door. I think, taking into consideration the number of ladies who are earning their living by secretarial work for Members of the House of Commons, the time has come when there should be for them the same recognition as there is, poor though it be, for male secretaries. There should be a room set apart in which the lady secretaries could be accommodated.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Donegal said that, so far as he was concerned, he was in favour of information being obtained from the fountain head. I entirely agree with him, though I do not agree with him as to who is or should be the fountain head. I consider that the Ministers who sit on the Front Bench are the Gentlemen to whom we should look for information and not to the permanent officials. Surely the country recognises that Ministers themselves ought to be the fountain of information. There are times when it is not possible for them to deal with every point as it comes on. But there has never been a question raised with respect to which the Minister has stated that he had not the information before him when the House has not dealt with him in the most magnanimous manner. Therefore, I think we should

    615
    put forward every possible effort to see that the government of the country is carried on by the Ministers who have been elected to the House by the votes of the electors. I am entirely averse—I say this with all deference to the officials for whom I have the greatest respect, and towards whom I have no feeling of antipathy—to the government of this country being placed in the hands of paid officials. It is to the Ministers we look to carry on the business of the country. If a Member of the House of Commons goes into the Officials' Gallery, I do not think he should be received in the way stated by my hon. Friend. I have not myself attempted to tread there, and I do not intend to do so, but I think the Members of the House should have all the accommodation that can possibly be given to them. I fully recognise that it is necessary under certain circumstances that some of the officials should be handy in case of any specific information being desired. Speaking generally, I am averse to Ministers having to seek their information from officials in this House. I trust the hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the matters of which I have spoken.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): It will, I think, be for the convenience of the Committee if I answer some of the questions which have been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I cannot offer any more encouragement than I did in the answer I gave yesterday about the provision of a room for billiards. Of course, personally, I am the servant of the House of Commons entirely, and I fully share their wishes in most matters, but I do not think there is any sign whatever of a general desire on the part of hon. Members for the provision of a billiard room. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member (Mr. Frederick Hall) in reference to the grille in front of the Ladies' Gallery. It is an architectural feature of the House, and I think if the hon. Member were to take the opinion of the ladies who come to the Gallery, he would find that a considerable majority of them are not in favour of the alteration he proposes.
    Mr. F. HALL: I have consulted a great many ladies.
    Mr. BENN: I am stating the information which I have been able to accumulate on the point, and it is quite the opposite of that stated by the hon. Member. As to secretaries, I am in hopes that some more
    616
    accommodation may be provided this year as the result of certain rearrangements which are being made with respect to existing rooms. Some of these rooms, I hope, may be used in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. An hon. Friend below the Gangway yesterday raised the question of the engineering contract for this building. The contract is being carried out by a firm who work on the basis of a percentage on the wages paid to the men, and although the percentage is very small, they superintend all the labour and carry it out to the satisfaction of the Office of Works, and I hope also to the satisfaction of hon. Members. There is no question of the men not being paid a fair rate of wages. I do not think that my hon. Friend makes that suggestion, and as we find it more convenient, and probably more economical, to carry out the work in this way, perhaps he will allow the arrangement to remain as it is. There were only two other matters raised with respect to the House. The first referred to ventilation, and the other to the position of the Officials' Gallery. As to ventilation, those who have followed the Debate will see at once what is the real difficulty of ventilating this House to the satisfaction of hon. Members. You have a large number of Members who view the question from different standpoints, and who take opposite views as to the form of ventilation which should be adopted. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) thought the House is too hot, while the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London complained of cold draughts.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said my feet were cold and my head was hot.
    Mr. BENN: Whatever may be said about the air in the House, I do not think you can say that it is stagnant, because it is changed every few minutes. As to the windows, I should be very sorry indeed to deprive any hon. Member of the satisfaction they may derive in contemplating the blue sky through the windows. This House is ventilated from the floor to the ceiling, where there is an exhaust fan drawing the air out through the illuminated bays. If the fresh air came in at the windows and went out at the ceiling, there would be no opportunity of escape from the air we contaminate, if we contaminate any. The hon. Baronet objects to the air coming in from below, and he pointed out that we get in that

    617
    way the smell from underneath. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury likes it, and thinks it gives bouquet to the air. We have had tests made, and we find that the air at the top of the Victoria Tower is very much more impure than the air of the Terrace level. If we took the air from the top we should have air containing soot, and instead of being subject to the odour which might be passing underneath, we should have impure atmosphere. As to what has been done, I have here a list of the amounts of money which have been spent in pursuing the investigation of this matter, not only by this Administration, but by preceding Governments. A Committee sat and had the advantage of the very great knowledge of a great ventilation pundit—Dr. Gordon.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will you ask Dr. Gordon to come here and sit for a few hours?
    Mr. BENN: The Committee reported, large sums of money have been spent, and continuous efforts have been made to improve the ventilation of the House. I would like to say, in reply to the criticisms that have been made, that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Captain Murray) has been interesting himself in this matter. He circulated a memorial for presentation to the First Commissioner of Works proposing some form of inquiry into the matter. If the House desires it, the First Commissioner will offer no objection to the appointment of a Committee. This matter will then be gone into and improvements could be suggested.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point I have raised, and it is really a serious one. It is really most unpleasant to sit here in the draught to which I have alluded. Could not something be done to stop it?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member will understand that the temperature in this House is about 62 degrees Fahr., and if you were to raise it, it would be very much too hot for us to endure. Experiments have been made, and I assure hon. Members that, if we can add to their comfort in the way suggested, we will do it. As to the position of the Gallery occupied by members of the Civil Service who come down here for the purpose of giving information to Ministers, I think the sole criterion in this much-debated matter should be the interest of Members of this
    618
    House, and not that of officials. I shall deal with the subject purely on that basis. First of all, as to accommodation, I have to say that while hon. Members on this side lost a certain number of scats at this end, they gained two additional seats at the other end, so that their accommodation has been increased in quantity, whatever may be said as to quality. The officials have seats near the Sneaker, and though they cannot speak, they can answer questions when applied to by Ministers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They are quite useless here.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) said it was very inconvenient for hon. Members desiring to seek information from public officials, that they should have to come to the Government side of the House to secure it. I would remind him that if the officials were to be underneath the Strangers' Gallery, Members of the Opposition would have to come to the Government side in order to secure information, and it does not seem to me that there is anything material in that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, when Leader of the Opposition, supported the change that was made, believing that it was for the interest of Members of this House that they should have readily available the facts of the case under discussion. It is impossible that Ministers could have at their finger-tips every little item of £20 appearing in the Estimates, and it is desirable that the officials who understand these matters should be immediately available to give the facts. I would remind the House on this point that, on a specific Motion made seven years ago, the House approved of the change, and I would invite the House not to go back on its previous decision.
    Sir W. BYLES: I would ask the hon. Member to deal with the very serious arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield upon this very subject of the consultations with permanent officials.
    Mr. BENN: I thought I had dealt with that point.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the movement of the permanent officials from one end of the House to the other, the House will quite understand, on the

    619
    first opportunity of reviewing the decision come to seven years ago, that the approval which the House gave seven years ago was given after the change had taken place. The Ministry of the day made the change, and the House gave a sort of an ex post facto approval to it, but with a very distinct condition contained in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, that these seats should be available for Members of the House when they are not being used for Civil servants. I think that the implication was, that when they were not being used by Civil servants, or necessary for the information of Ministers when Votes were under discussion. With the very greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, there is no more efficient Minister who ever takes charge of maintaining before this House a Vote of this kind, and yet he finds it necessary to have no fewer than twelve or fourteen Civil servants to assist him.
    Mr. BENN: I am very anxious that any information which hon. Members ask for should be immediately available. I have done my best to inform myself on all matters coming before the House, but there may be others on which I shall be asked questions, and there are eleven Votes in Committee of this Department which are all down on the Paper.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am complimenting the hon. Member who, I feel sure, with the ability which he has so often shown here and in his speeches, knows all the details of the Votes so fully that it could not be necessary for him to have twelve or fourteen Civil servants here to help him. He has shown to-day that he has not needed any of these officials. The serious point of the Debate was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, that Ministers really do not properly get up their points when they come down to speak in this House. We are the representatives of the people and Ministers are representatives of the people. We are a governing body, and yet more and more one finds in all the Departments of the Government that we are being governed by permanent officials. We are sent to this House not merely to legislate. We are sent as an administrative body as well, to check and control the administration of all the great spending Departments of this State, as well as to take part in legislation, and we find that
    620
    the whole trend of modern legislation has been to throw control out of the House of Commons into the hands of permanent officials. I am not going to say a word against the permanent officials. On the other hand, I am not going to apologise to them for making these remarks. They are our servants, and we are entitled to criticise them. I do not specially wish to criticise the way in which they give their information, but I do criticise very strongly the open way in which Ministers go up and consult these officials about matters which they ought to know themselves. I trust that we shall not come to the position which I believe obtains in some. Parliaments in foreign countries. I think I am right in saying that in France the permanent Civil servants have the right to come into the Chamber and explain their views. I hope that it will be very many years before such a thing obtains in this, House.
    We have almost practically got it now. We have got the views of Civil servants given to us, merely filtered through the voice of Ministers opposite. It is not the views of the Ministers we get. We see them go up there and we get not their views and opinions, but the views and opinions of the permanent Civil servants. The permanent Civil servants control the administration, and through the administration they control the Government and the affairs of this country. I want, as a simple, ordinary, non-official Members of the House of Commons, to raise my voice in support of the rights of the House of Commons to control and not be controlled by the bureaucracy. With regard to the grille, I am not what is called a ladies man in any way whatever. I have taken no part in the Suffragette Debates one way or the other, but I differ, with very great respect, from the hon. Member opposite when he says that the majority of the ladies who attend up there desire to maintain the grille. I can only say that I have never yet met one single lady who approves of the accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery. It may be a question whether it is desirable to have them hear our Debates or not, but we have decided that they may come, and, if they do, we certainly ought to provide some better accommodation than at present exists; and to ask ladies here, to issue tickets for them to come here, and then to put them behind a grille like that is absurd. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London says that it is rather nice. I

    621
    would advise him to go and sit there for half an hour, and if he did not get cold feet, he would certainly get a very hot head indeed. The atmosphere up there is abominable, and I would ask the hon. Member opposite, when he is going to consider the question of the ventilation of the House, to go and sit up there for a quarter of an hour, and at the end of that time he will be perfectly certain that, whatever portion of the House wants ventilating, there is a very strong need for some alteration being made in the Ladies' Gallery.
    Mr. KING: There are quite a number of points which I think appropriate to be mentioned here which have not been touched upon, and all the more so because I notice that, though some questions are somewhat acrimoniously debated here this afternoon, they are not the questions about which a great deal of trouble was raised a year ago. I congratulate the hon. Member for St. George's on the fact that he has had no difficulty whatever about those questions about which there was such argument and opinion and diversity of views a year ago. Let me remind hon. Members about the discussion which we had then as to whether we should have gas or electricity as the illuminant of our Chamber. I was entirely in favour of electric lighting here instead of gas, and I notice from the figures in the list that there has been less gas but more light, and that an economy has been effected at the same time. There has been an economy of £1,100, so that really nobody can say that we have an extravagant Government. Why was not this dragged forth to the light by the hon. Member as an effect of this economy? I believe he will like me to refer to this question of the new staircase, which is now being made. I consider that a great improvement and a great amenity. It is an absolute pleasure to go down to the Tea Room, and what it will be when it is completed I do not know. I think it will be one of the great beauties and conveniences of this House. I hope that it will be finished without any great delay, but I cannot congratulate him on taking £2,000 in this Vote in order to restore a passenger lift, and I think that we ought to have more information about that. Where is this passenger lift to be installed? I believe that the one lift which we have from the vicinity of the Dining Room up to the Committee Room corridor is quite enough.
    I do not think that we want any more lifts here. I believe that one of the best
    622
    exercises in which a person of sedentary habits can indulge is to walk upstairs, and personally I go up and down these stairs very frequently as a mere matter of pleasant and healthy exercise. If the hon. Member is going to throw temptation in my way by having a very convenient and luxurious lift, I may possibly in my lazy moments seize the opportunity, but when it comes to the end of the Session, and I consider how much my health has been improved or maintained, I shall not thank him for this luxury. I hope that it will be some time before this lift is installed. There is another point touching the amenities and conveniences of this House. We want, I believe, as much as a room for our secretaries, whether they are gentlemen or ladies; more accommodation for newspapers. The Newspaper Room is absolutely the worst room in this House. As one hon. Member has already stated in the course of this discussion, it is very inadequately lighted. It is very draughty, and very often if you get into a good position you are baked on one side, and frozen on the other side, of your body. Very often it is overcrowded, and you go into the Newspaper Room, hoping to read the newspapers, and you come out feeling that there is no opportunity to get a comfortable, well-lighted seat. Besides this, it is a passage to the Tea Room. I suggest that before long a new Newspaper Room altogether ought to be provided, even if it were necessary to make very serious alterations in the offices or rooms of Ministers.
    I am not at all sure that I would not turn a Minister out of one of his comfortable apartments in order to have the necessary accommodation, and I should especially like to press for shelves in which some of the most important newspapers might be filed for a week or a month past. Great papers like the "Yorkshire Post" or the "Manchester Guardian," and some of the leading London newspapers, ought at least to be filed for a week past. They often contain most important reports and information which are wanted in the course of a discussion, and there is no means of getting at them. I believe that a file of newspapers is kept in many of the other Parliaments of the world. Take the German or French Parliament. There you see the important newspapers of the day filed for the Session. They say that "Punch" is the only paper filed in the Newspaper Room. I do not want to say anything against "Punch," but I do hope

    623
    that our reading of newspapers is not always of a light and frivolous character, but is often directed to a serious study of the questions of the day. There is one more point which has not yet been touched on. I want to see as soon as possible the erection of Rodin's beautiful bronze figures, the "Burghers of Calais." We took the money a year ago to erect that magnificent group, but the work has not yet been done, and we have to revote the money over again this afternoon. If the hon. Member makes any further reply, I hope that he will give us a little information, and say when he expects that this beautiful group may be erected, and at the same time refer to some of the other points which I have brought forward.
    Colonel YATE: I also should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who represents the First Commissioner of Works, on the provision of £2,000 for the purpose of constructing lifts in this House. I would like him to tell us what lifts he is going to give us. I hope we may not only have a lift from the Cloak Room downstairs up to the Gallery, but that we shall have one on the other side from the Dining Room downstairs to bring us up to this floor and also to the Committee floor. We want a lift which would take us from the level of the Terrace right up to the level of the Committee Rooms. I hope the hon. Member will take that suggestion into consideration, and if he cannot provide all that out of the £2,000, I trust he will bring forward a Supplementary Estimate, and get the work done as soon as he possibly can. I would also like to say a word in support of what has been said in regard to the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery. I think that those who have been in that part of the House all realise that it requires proper ventilation. Another point to which I desire to call the hon. Gentleman's attention is this: We are allowed to take ladies up to the Gallery, where they are able to take their seats before prayers, without any objection. But in regard to the Strangers' Gallery, if I bring my wife and my brother with me, she can take her seat in the Ladies' Gallery before prayers, whereas my brother has to stand outside until prayers are over. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any objection to visitors being admitted to the Strangers' Gallery before prayers—
    Mr. BENN: It is not needful for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to continue his
    624
    remarks in reference to the admission of strangers; it has nothing to do with the Commissioner of Works; it is a matter for the authorities of the House.
    Colonel YATE: I will not pursue my observations on that point, but I trust that the hon. Gentleman will take the matter into consideration and see those who are in authority with a view to ascertaining whether what I suggest is possible.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think perhaps the House generally has no ground to complain of the way in which the accommodation of Members has been looked after by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and by his predecessor the Colonial Secretary. On the contrary, a very great deal has been done in improving the accommodation of the House, owing to the very great attention paid by those Gentlemen. There is a small matter to which I wish to call the attention of the hon. Member. The Library corridor has long been the only place in which independent Members so-called—who are not provided with any kind of room—can consult, free from disturbances and distractions. Within the last few weeks a Stock Exchange ticker has been put there, and it is a source of great annoyance. There is ample room for it elsewhere, and the Dining Room corridor would be a suitable place. The Dining Room corridor is not used by those who have to hold consultations, and I suggest that the proposal I make would be for the convenience of those who have to use the Library corridor for their consultations. They should not be disturbed by the eternal click, click, click, which is an annoyance that ought to be done away with. For myself, I hate the entire invention, and I certainly should like to see it put in the Cloak Room, or, if possible, some still more remote portion of the House. I hope that this new instrument of torture will be removed somewhere else. Otherwise, we shall have to apply to the Government for some place where our consultations can be held. A rather curious phrase fell from the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Benn), a phrase which is quite new to me. He spoke of the "Official Gallery." I maintain that there is no such place in this House. I quite recognise the necessity of Ministers having officials to consult within the precincts of the House. Nor do I take a severe view of the fact that Ministers bring officials to this House.

    625
    I very often think that it is a most useful thing that these officials should have an opportunity of listening to the views of Members, and of hearing the questions which are asked. Certainly my experience is that those Civil servants, instead of contracting the liberties and freedom of Members of the House, are very often of the greatest assistance to the House. I do not complain at all of the fact that they should have a proper and suitable place within the Assembly, but what I do object to is this strong arrogation of power to provide this accommodation in the way in which it has been given. No Minister, I care not who he be, should have the right, on his own initiative, to allow these gentlemen to come into our Lobbies and into our Gallery. Formerly the custom was that those officials sat in the Gallery at the other end of the House, and the Minister, by a system of reservation, had the opportunity of putting some high-placed gentleman there, but there was some check upon the amount of room allowed to be occupied. That is not so now. When the space under that Gallery was not occupied we had the right of passing strangers into that part of the House, and it was a most valuable addition to the accommodation for strangers. The result of giving officials what has been called the Official Gallery is that we are deprived of accommodation which we had previously for our constituents, who do not understand that the accommodation afforded by these Galleries is extremely limited, and they go away dissatisfied. While I do not join fully in the complaint that has been made, I do condemn the creation of that Official Gallery. It is, I think, a regrettable misfortune, and I hope the gentlemen will be allowed to go back to their place at the other end.
    There is another reason in support of my suggestion. It is that when those officials were under the other Gallery Ministers made up their cases better. But now they pop round in the most grasshopper sort of way to consult the officials. We see them running away from the Treasury Bench and going behind the Chair in a way that was never seen in former times. I remember very well that when a Minister had to consult an official at the other end of the House he did so furtively, as though he was doing something that was irregular. When a Minister was challenged I have seen him creeping up the floor as if he were almost ashamed to consult the officials. Consultations are necessary, and abso-
    626
    lutely necessary, in cases of drafting, and it is no doubt a convenience to Ministers to have them nearer at hand. But the present arrangement leads, I think, to slipshodness on their part. I am not saying that there is any amount of slipshod work, nor am I blaming anybody; but I think that it would be better if those officials were put back in their old places. I do not say that there should not be proper provision made for those officials, and I think the Ministers should have the right to pass in those whom he trusts and whom he wishes to consult. But the present system of indiscriminately filling up the Official Gallery is a deplorable change, though I am very sorry to have to offer any criticism, having regard to what has been done by the hon. Member representing the First Commissioner of Works and the Colonial Secretary in effecting improvement for the accommodation of Members.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I think, without touching on the question of women's votes, that the present House of Commons is to be congratulated on having paid so much attention to the comfort of ladies who wish to attend the Debates in this House. I am sometimes favoured with their visits, and, on this burning question of the grille, on which there are differences of opinion, my impression is that the ladies do not like the grille, and would like to see it abolished. To put it in the words of the poet, "They are content to see, and happy to be seen." We would all be the better, I believe, if we had these visions before us. We have been talking this afternoon about ventilation. I think it is quite in accordance with the speeches and information given before that I should put this question: I want to ventilate in the interests of the Ladies' Gallery, and I desire to know whether it is true or not, as I have been credibly informed, that the bad air of this part of the House is ventilated into the fans in some way by pipes, or something going through the Ladies' Gallery, thus adding to the intolerable heat and closeness of which hon. Members have complained to-day?
    Mr. BENN: That is not so.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I am extremely glad to hear it. In the interests of the fair sex I wish to bring another slight grievance to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, an annoyance which I know rankles in their minds, that under the present system

    627
    they are suspected and not allowed to get into the House, nor to come even with their husbands who are Members of Parliament, into the inner circles of this Assembly, and they have to wait outside there in St. Stephen's Hall—
    The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this particular Vote. It is not under the control of the Commissioners of Works.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I was not aware of that, and I shall leave the rest of my remarks on that point to private intimation. I pass from that to the more important subject of debate, namely, the use of the official quarters behind the Chair. I, who have served for many years in the Civil Service, and who have served in many places, responsible to Ministers and members of the Cabinet in India, would fain say that although those high officials made the utmost use of information supplied to them by their secretaries by means of précis writing and other things, they always exercised their own judgment on the matters which were in question. It would be foolish for anybody to suppose that they were in the hands of their subordinates, however high in the official hierarchy, and however experienced and capable those men might be, and the Ministers always exercised their own judgment in matters, their time being saved by the expertness of the Civil servants in the various Departments. So far as I have noticed during the three Parliaments I have had the honour to sit here, Ministers have never shown any signs of being under the dominion of the gentlemen of the various Departments who occupy that Gallery, while the time of Ministers must be very greatly saved. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench do not carry in their heads, when dealing with financial questions, all the figures; or when they are sometimes dealing with foreign questions, they cannot carry in their heads the exact boundaries between two territories, and it is therefore highly convenient to have a map at hand, and some expert in the Civil Service whom to consult. Innumerable matters of that kind must occur to the mind of everybody. I therefore think on that, as well as on other matters, and this question of the grille, that my hon. Friend has well answered the questions that have been put.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I would ask the hon Member, when he is taking into consideration, as he has promised, the provision of sound proof compartments for Members, where they can dictate privately to their secretaries, that he will not put them too far away, because, probably, we shall want to use those rooms when the House is constantly dividing. I gathered from his answer that Westminster Hall was mentioned, but that is a very long way to come when the Division bell rings, and I think they should be placed within easy access of the Division Lobbies. I would also like to suggest, if he is able to get any more room in the House, that he ought to do something to improve the present Dressing Rooms downstairs. They really are a scandal. They are worse than any public school, and ought to be improved in some way. Very often Members are obliged to change there, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary life, and the crowding and discomfort down there would, I think, on a crowded night, scandalise any person who saw it. I would ask the hon. Member to give his consideration to this matter.
    Sir J. D. REES: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his statement with which I find little fault, and especially upon the new staircase down below, which I think a great improvement. I think he is also particularly to be congratulated on having hardened his heart and refused to provide billiards and other amusements, and inducements to Members and supporters of the Government to attend this House, an attendance which might be very much needed, and which should not be provided at the public expense. As regards the Gallery for officials, may I ask is it the case that private Members of the House are entitled to consult the officials who attend here for the purpose of assisting Ministers, and are they at liberty to ask them questions. I can hardly believe it, although I would gather that it was so from speeches that have been made, but for other reasons I think obviously it cannot be so. If it were the case, private Members might request the presence of important public officials, and many Members might beseech them for materials for speeches or with calls for information. I take it that the assumption which underlay some of the speeches that the officials in the Gallery are available for private Members is erroneous.
    Mr. BENN: I cannot lay down any principle in this matter. I can only say, so far as the office I have the honour to represent, we are very anxious at all times, whether here or in the office, to give all information to hon. Members.
    Sir J. D. REES: I know that, but the hon. Gentleman has beside him a very experienced right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt), who himself fulfilled with extreme efficiency the Office of Works, and was most attentive to Members of this House. He could tell whether or not private Members were supposed to have a call on the attention of the officials.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to ask whether the Office of Works is in any way responsible for the conduct of Members of this House or for the conduct of officials in the Gallery?
    The CHAIRMAN: I could not, of course, allow a debate on that point, but the question I think arises in some degree out of what we are discussing.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not intend to argue the matter. I was a Member of the House when they were moved from the Gallery they then occupied to the one they now occupy. I must say, though I differ in this from some of my hon. Friends, that it seems to me obvious that, if they are to come here at all, it is best they should come to the place in which they can be of most use to Ministers. The other argument seems to me hardly tenable. It is quite true a Minister must simulate omniscience, but there is no reason why the importance of the permanent official should be dissimulated on that account, nor should there be any shyness about Ministers consulting them, because it is obvious, no matter how well Ministers may get up their case, they are fed by information from permanent officials, and I cannot see any objection to their being able to refresh themselves as regards their briefs from time to time. If it really were the case, as was suggested, that this led to a development of something like a party spirit in the public service, that would indeed be deplorable, and a disaster of the first magnitude. I have the highest confidence in our public officials, and think too highly of them to believe that they are likely to succumb to the temptations to which they are exposed. I should like to defend the English of the First Commissioner of Works. An hon. Gentleman beside me, with a great deal of confidence—I will
    630
    not say of arrogance—declared that the description in Westminster Hall, stating that—
    "Warren Hastings stood for his trial"
    was bad English. I submit it is perfectly good English. I know what the hon. and learned Member had in his mind. It was the ordinary expression "stood his trial," like "stood a drink." Those are not classical expressions. It is quite true custom has sanctioned their use, but I feel quite sure Gibbon if he had had the chance would have said, "Warren Hastings stood for his trial," though Justin McCarthy or some other recent historian might say, "Stood his trial." It seems to me to be a pity that an attack of that sort, which is wholly unjustifiable, should be made. As regards the question of ventilation, I have often addressed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) in the past. I submit we hear familiar explanations to-day about the necessity for bringing up the air through the dust-laden floor, and the necessity for keeping the windows shut, though they might, at any rate, give some semblance of fresh air. There was a defence made of the character of the air in this Chamber, but it is perfectly odious, and it so exhausts and depresses everybody who is exposed to it, that, after sitting here until eleven o'clock, it is only a night on Hampstead Heath, or on the Alpine heights of Harrow-on-the-Hill, that is likely to bring any Member of Parliament to the scratch next morning. So odious is the atmosphere here that an open window with a whiff of Wandsworth or a breeze from Bermondsey would be a positive delight to the jaded legislator. I hope time Committee will be set up on this question. We hear about the air going through so much cotton wool, but the fault is that all the bite and all the virtue is taken out of it, and that it reduces Members of this House to the condition of the anæmic plants you sometimes see in glass cases in windows. We are told how fortunate are Members, but in the happy valley of Rasselas the people were not satisfied until they got away. There is not enough movement and change in this atmosphere. An Englishman is brought up in a changing climate, and everything is disagreeable to him in the atmosphere provided here. I desire to ask a question about the clock, "Big Ben." I see a sum provided on page 18 (b) Maintenance and repairs, for last year of £10,950, which, as I understand, was spent upon "Big Ben," and in this year there is a sum of £10,800.
    Mr. BENN: It is £105.
    Sir J. D. REES: What are the Estimates then in the next column?
    Mr. BENN: The item the hon. Member asks about is the maintenance of the whole building. A sum of £105 is for the winding and regulating of the great clock.
    Sir J. D. REES: What is the item "Internal and external repairs and miscellaneous charges, £10,800."
    Mr. BENN: That is for the maintenance of this building.
    Sir J. D. REES: The whole building or the Clock Tower?
    Mr. BENN: Yes.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is very misleading. It might be put far more clearly. Nobody would think it applied to the repairs of the whole of the Palace of Westminster. Let me say a word about the grille. I hope it will be left as it is. I was sitting in this House one night when the proceedings were interrupted by papers being thrown down on to the floor of the House, and when there were shouts disturbing the proceedings of the House. I went up there and a lady had chained herself to the grille, and she and the grille were carried away together. If you removed the grille there would be an open means by which anything might be thrown from the Gallery down on to the floor of the House. I deprecate that, and having been a witness to that disgraceful scene I am glad there is a grille, and until we are free from the attentions of the ladies who are known as suffragettes I hope the grille will be maintained in its present position.
    Mr. LYELL: I have heard a large number of speeches for and against the proposition that the officials should sit at one or other end of the House. I am reminded of nothing so much as of the celebrated conflict in Gulliver's Travels of the "big enders" and the "little enders." It seems to me that the last hon. Member hit the mark in his statement that, given that officials were to assist Ministers by their presence in this House, then obviously it is the most sensible thing to put them in the place where Ministers can most rapidly get at them. It is not often I find myself in complete agreement with any remarks of the hon. Member, but on this occasion I do. Certain exception has been taken to the presence of those officials on the ground
    632
    that Ministers are continually consulting them, and that in some way or other responsibility is destroyed. I think Ministers may be allowed to have opportunities of verifying details which it is impossible for them to carry in their heads. In all circumstances they have always been ready to shoulder a full measure of responsibility, and to shield any official who advises them in the most complete, frank, and full way. The hon. Member who spoke last raised the question whether he or any other private Member was entitled to go to the Official Gallery to the official for advice. I am perfectly certain if he goes, no matter who the official may be, that he will be received extremely courteously, and whether he gets an answer to his question depends obviously on a great many other circumstances, it must be remembered that the officials under the Gallery own as political chief the Minister whose Department is concerned in the discussion, and to him alone they owe allegiance. They owe no such allegiance to any private Members.
    Sir H. CRAIK: They are servants of the House, not of the Minister.
    Mr. LYELL: They owe allegiance to nobody except the political chief of the Department to which they belong. I wish to refer also to the question of Westminster Hall. In Westminster Hall we have what may fairly be described as a unique national possession. It is almost in the state in which it was left by the builders under Richard II. I believe it is the fact that the roof is in almost exactly the same condition, and that very much of the original timber remains. To my mind, the whole appearance of the Hall is debased by the modern statues and the modern methods of lighting. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me when the statues were erected and the lighting arranged for. The statues do not appear to me to have any merit, either historic or artistic, while the chandeliers are certainly out of keeping with a great mediæval hall. I do not know what was the original method of lighting the hall, but I am certain that in these days when electric lighting has reached such a pitch of perfection it would be quite possible for the First Commissioner of Works, at a comparatively small cost, to reproduce with a very fair accuracy the medix00E6;val lighting effects in the Hall. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this point and also that of finding a more appropriate place for the statues.
    Mr. GRANT: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's reply with regard to the ventilation of the House. He told us that some people find the House too hot, and that others find it too cold. He might have told us that he can find hardly anybody who is satisfied with the present condition of affairs. I hope that something will be done to do away with the great discontent which is felt on all sides. I wish to refer to an item under "Maintenance and Repairs" for the salary of the assistant architect and surveyor. I do not know whether this official is under the Board of Works, nor do I know what his duties are. From the amount of the salary I presume that he is not an architect of very great standing, and that he does not have any very great responsibility. I do not understand why we should have an assistant architect and surveyor while the building is under the control of the Office of Works. Is the building entirely under the control of the Office of Works, or has this official any control over what is done? I agree, to a very large extent, with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite about Westminster Hall. Any work or any alteration in connection with such an historic hall is so important that I hope there is some further control than that of an official of the standing represented by the salary to which I have referred. The item for horticultural work amounts to £745, and represents an increase of some £160 on last year. That is a great deal to pay for looking after what are more or less plots of grass. Reference has been made to the decaying of the stonework of the whole building. That decay is very obvious. I understood that there was a Committee considering the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can inform us whether anything is being done, and, if so, what, to arrest the process of decay.
    Sir W. BYLES: I wish to ask the Office of Works to give serious consideration to the suggestion that a lift should be put outside the newspaper room in the well of the staircase leading down to the public smoking room and up to the Committee rooms. There is no portion of the precincts of this House more frequented, and I feel perfectly certain that some day or other the House of Commons will be provided with a lift there. There is in the Estimates an item of £2,000 for the installation of a lift. I do not know where that lift is to be put, but, wherever it is, it could not be so convenient as one at the place to which I refer.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness in saying that he will endeavour to stop the cold draught which rises from the floor. I would remind him, however, that he did not answer my questions as to what was being done with the roof of Westminster Hall. I attach very great importance to the preservation of that roof, and I would press for information on the point. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that we should attempt to go back to the medix00E6;val style of lighting. Even if we succeeded in producing something like it, it would only be a sham, and it would cost a considerable amount of money. I would prefer to see it left in the state in which it has been for a considerable time. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave a sufficient answer to our objections in reference to the Gallery. No doubt the present arrangement is for the convenience of Ministers. We, however, were thinking not of the convenience of Ministers, but of the efficient discharge of business. We hold that the efficient conduct of business is to some extent injured by the change that has been made. However, I suppose it is not much use discussing the point, as it is no doubt a convenience to both Front Benches. There is an old saying that when both Front Benches combine, private Members on both sides ought to combine also. I do not know whether that will take place to-day.
    I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his refusal to remove the grille. Those hon. Members who ask for the removal of the grille must, I think, have forgotten what occurred in ancient days when there was no grille, and ladies were allowed in the open Gallery. There was a tremendous scene one evening. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, because certainly one duchess led the rioters. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not in this building."] No, it was in the old building. But that does not alter my case. It was in consequence of that disturbance, which lasted four or five hours, that alterations were made in regard to the admission of ladies. If there were no grille, good-looking Members like my hon. Friend beside me would be continually looking up for the approval of the ladies in the Gallery. The consequence would be that we should have a number of speeches made with the view, not of influencing the opinions of Members, but of attracting the attention of the ladies there. We might even have handkerchiefs fluttering

    635
    or gloves dropped on the benches below, and that sort of thing would take away from the seriousness of this Assembly. My hon. Friend referred to the item for horticultural works. I do not see how we can spend 750 on horticultural works. There are only a few plots of grass.
    Mr. BENN: And an amount of garden.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That makes a difference. Still you can get a great many gardeners for £750 a year. The hon. Gentleman was congratulated upon the reduction in the cost of gas and electric current. I am afraid I cannot join in those congratulations. It looks as if in previous years there must have been very great waste.
    Mr. BENN: It is due to the substitution of a different kind of lamp.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That alters the case. Speaking generally, I think that both the Colonial Secretary and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Benn) are to be congratulated on the way in which they have attended to the comfort of Members during the last six or seven years. I have not had to find fault with what they have done, always excepting the ventilation. I am inclined to think they have done rather too much, and have spent a little too much money. It would perhaps have been better if we had not been made quite so comfortable, so that Members would have been more inclined to attend the Debates in the House. The only other thing that I want to mention, and that complaint has been made about, is the Newspaper Room. What has been said is no doubt true, but it must be remembered that this place is limited. It is quite impossible, however much we may desire, to do all that might be wished. With the exception of the few items I have mentioned, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are to be congratulated on the position in which matters are.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I want to ask the hon. Member for St. George's to clear up one point, rather important, to private Members on both sides of the House, and which arises out of a speech made by an hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member for St. George's justified the placing of certain Government officials, certain Civil servants, in a particular quarter of the House, and he asked the House to accept the Vote on the ground that private Mem-
    636
    bers had an equal right to go and consult these permanent officials.
    Mr. BENN: I did not say equal right.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Well, perhaps not an equal right, but have a right, to obtain information. The hon. Member behind him said that private Members might go and ask for the information, and that they would probably get a courteous answer, but that they were very unlikely to get the information they sought. That is very important for private Members of this House. I would like to know which of the hon. Members is right, and whether we, as private Members, are entitled or not—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I think that is a question which the hon. Member in charge of this Vote has answered as far as his office is concerned. The general question does not come under this Vote.
    Lord A. THYNNE: But, Sir, on a point of Order. The hon. Member in charge of the Vote asked us to assent to this arrangement on the ground that it was for the convenience of private Members as well as for the convenience of Ministers.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman gave an answer as regards the particular officials for whom he is able to speak: obviously he could say no more.
    Mr. HOGGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put this Question. Debate resumed.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: In the year 1853 a standard yard measure and a standard pound weight were embedded in the walls of the Grand Staircase leading up to the Committee Rooms. I understand that every ten years—that is, in '63, '73, and so on—they were to be examined. I shall be glad to know whether they have been or will be examined this year, whether there will be any ceremony in connection with the function, who are the officials to be present, and whether the standard yard measure and the standard pound weight are compared with those in the Guildhall or at Windsor Castle?
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not know why the hon. Member opposite should be in such a hurry to close the discussion on this Vote. He must know perfectly well that those in charge are not only willing but anxious to give an answer to the profoundly interesting questions as

    637
    to what is being done. The question in relation to Westminster Hall has not been answered. When the hon. Member has been longer in the House he will know better.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I must point out that under the Standing Order of the House, once the Question has been put, it is well within the competence of any Member in any part of the House to move that the Question be now put; of course, it depends upon the Chair as to whether or not the Motion is accepted.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I submit there remains the question of the discretion with which that right is exercised. I wish to ask the hon. Member in charge of the Vote a question, If he cannot answer it to-day I shall not require him to go to those under the Gallery and get an answer. I shall be perfectly content to have the answer either on Report or subsequently. Under Sub-head C there is the maintenance and repair of Abingdon Street, St. Margaret Street, Old and New Palace Yard, etc. The hon. Member may remember that all these are in connection with the improvements to the Embankment. When the approaches to this House on the south side were made it was generally understood that the piece of very rough and disagreeable roadway that was still existing should be improved in the way that those parts of the road have been improved which are under the jurisdiction of the London County Council. There remains a certain length of road which is paved with old-fashioned granite setts—which some people call "cobble stones"—which are not worthy of the surroundings of this House. I want to know whether the expectations raised at the time I refer to, that that difficulty should be improved away, can now be fulfilled. It is entered upon this Vote, and points to the fact that the maintenance of that particular part of the roadway is vested as an obligation in the Office of Works, and not in the London County Council.
    Mr. BENN: I hope that when I deal with the points which have been raised, that the House will see fit to give me this Vote in order that we may get on with the new works which are referred to in the Vote, and which cannot be entered upon before the Committee stage of this Vote has been passed. With regard to the observations of several Members, the difficulty about the provision of a lift has been
    638
    to find some place where we can get up from the bottom to the top of the building in one shaft. You cannot do that under the stairs which go from the Committee corridors, so that rules that part of the House quite out of the question. Fortunately in making the new Palace staircase we have found a place where we can get from the cellar right away to the Committee corridor in a comparatively accessible place. Consequently we decided to put the lift there. I hope, therefore, it will be found a convenient place. Hon. Members in taking ladies to the Dining Room from the Ladies' Gallery, will be able to put them into the lift at the foot of the stairs, and allow them to go to the Committee Room corridor, instead of making a long detour as at present. Hon. Members mentioned the question of the sound-proof boxes. We will see whether such may be fitted up in connection with the Westminster Hall improvements. But I must ask hon. Members to remember that we have stone buildings, which are not elastic, and it is hard to find all the accommodation required. In respect to the question put by the hon. Member behind me as to the statues in Westminster Hall being incongruous, I agree. They were not meant to be placed there at all. They were intended for somewhere else, but it is very hard to know where to put them. If the hon. Member suggests some suitable place the First Commissioner will be quite willing to have them removed. An hon. Member asked concerning Westminster Hall. In another place we have taken £600 for this continuing service. We propose to make various repairs that may be necessary this year.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not objecting to the amount; I only wanted to know what, actually is to be done.
    Mr. BENN: The first item is for £350 for the assistant architect. This official is the resident assistant. I am very glad of the opportunity given to me by this question to say how much I am indebted to this official. I cannot speak too highly of his services.
    Mr. GRANT: I made no criticism as to the work of the assistant architect.
    Mr. BENN: No, I perfectly understood that; but I am just mentioning in this connection the work of Mr. Collins, the architect, and Mr. Ridge, his assistant.

    639
    The stone work of this building is constantly being watched by the architects, and sums are included in the Estimate so that the architects may make good any decay which may make itself felt. As to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we are waiting for the Westminster improvements to be completed, in which case the county council will have the duty of making good a certain part of the street, and the remainder will be done by us. There is only one other question, the one put by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. There is a standard yard measure and a standard pound weight in the wall in the grand staircase. There is not an exactly statutory obligation to examine these, but they have been practically examined every twenty years, and this year happens to be the twentieth year. The officials concerned are the Speaker of the House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade, and the First Commissioner of Works, who merely comes in in his capacity as causing the removal of the stonework to get the measure and the pound weight out. The comparisons are not made with the standards referred to
    by the hon. Member, but with the ordinary standards which are kept in a specially constructed chamber called King John's Jewel Tower, opposite the Victoria Tower. I think that disposes of all the points subsequent to those I answered earlier in the evening. We must get these Votes to-day if we are to get on with the new works which are absolutely essential for the efficiency of the public service. I would suggest to hon. Members that that will be a convenient course—to reserve fuller criticism for Class II., Vote 26, which includes the salary of the First Commissioner and gives a perfectly wide range for criticism.
    Sir W. BULL: May I ask the date when the inspection and comparison of the standards will take place?
    Mr. BENN: I shall have to consult the convenience of the Speaker and the President of the Board of Trade, but we shall attend to the matter without undue delay.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,600, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 56; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 21.]

    AYES.

    [7.13 p.m.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Grant, J. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Stanier, Beville

    Butcher, John George

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir H. Craik and Sir F. Banbury.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bentham, George Jackson

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

    Adamson, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Boland, John Pius

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Chancellor, Henry G.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brady, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Clough, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barton, W.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cotton, William Francis

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Crooks, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, J Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Radford, G. H.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, Michael

    Doris, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Falconer, James

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowlands, James

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Furness, Stephen W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Ginnell, Laurence

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutherland. J. E.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hackett, J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Toulmin, Sir G.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Munro, R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hinds, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

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

    Hodge, John

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Wing, Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

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

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hughes, S. L.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    ROYAL PALACES.—(Class I)—VOTE 1.
    Motion made [1st April], and Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant:in-Aid."—[Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
    Lord A. THYNNE: I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Whitley, as to whether I should be entitled on this Vote to discuss the question of the new front which it is proposed to put on Buckingham Palace. I call your attention to the fact, if we do not discuss it on this Vote, it, would not come within the cognisance of the House this Session unless the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works gives us some indication that an opportunity for its discussion will be afforded. It is a matter that ought to

    643
    come un for discussion, because there is a good deal of feeling that the solution proposed by the Office of Works, and those who are directly responsible, is not one which satisfies a large section of artistic and architectural opinion in London.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand there is no money in this Vote for that purpose, but I think it would be in order to raise the question on the Vote for the salary of the First Commissioner—Vote 26, Class II. The matter, as I understand, is in his control.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: May I ask the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether the King Edward Scottish Memorial comes within the purview of his Department, and whether, before that Memorial is erected on the grounds of Holyrood Palace, this House will have some opportunity of seeing the design and approving of it?
    Mr. BENN: We provide the site; that is to say we permit the Memorial to be erected on the grounds of the Palace; the question of the design and so on are matters for the Scottish Committee.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I understand, though I do not know whether the information is entirely accurate, that as regards permission for Holyrood Palace, there is some difficulty in respect to the application, and that it has to be made to London instead of Edinburgh. That seems to me not very convenient.
    Mr. BENN: I did not hear that until the right hon. Gentleman put that view a few minutes ago, but if he will supply me with details, I will have it looked into.

    OSBORNE.—(Class I.)—Von. 2.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne." [Note.—£6,000 has been voted on account.]

    ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.—(Class I.).—VOTE 3.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
    644
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens." [Note.—£53,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. CASSEL: I desire to raise a point in regard to the employés in the London parks, which I hope will receive sympathetic consideration from the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote. The facts I want to lay before him—and they come within my own knowledge—are chiefly in regard to Regent's Park, but I think the same circumstances apply in a very large measure to all the employés in the parks in London. The first class to which I desire to call attention are the park-keepers. The wages of a park-keeper at the present time are 26s. a week. Recently they have been granted an increase of 1s. a week, if they have served five years in the parks. I must say at once, on their behalf, that they are grateful for such increase as has been made, but it is a very small increase indeed when you consider the circumstances. In the first place, it does not apply at all to men who have not been five years in the service. These men have got no increase at all. The increase is based upon the increase in the cost of living. These men have to live in London; their rents are high, and there has been no increase in their wages since 1887. Upon budgets actually obtained from these men the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent., and the cost of living has gone up in regard to the men who have not been five years in service as well, yet they have got no increase whatever. What justification can there be for that? If the reason for granting an increase is that the cost of living has gone up, surely you ought equally to give the rise to those men who have not been five years in the service. Take the case of those who get 1s. a week rise. A shilling upon 26s. is less than 4 per cent., whereas the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent. There are two points of view which I want the hon. Gentleman to consider: First, that half the men get no increase at all; and with regard to the other half, although the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent., the increase in wages is less than 4 per cent.
    I should also like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what class of men these are. They are mainly men who have been in the Army, and who filled a rank not

    645
    lower than that of sergeant. They all join under forty-five years of age; their characters must be exemplary or very good, and they have to obtain a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, and they have to pass a severe medical examination. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that 26s. a week, having regard to the fact that they have to live in London, is not a decent or a sufficient wage to pay these men. Most of them are married men; they have to do six-and-a-half days' work a week; they do not get one day's rest in seven; they get one Sunday in a month, and they get one week-day in a month.
    Mr. BENN: They do not work more than fifty-four hours a week.
    Mr. CASSEL: It seems to me that to pay men of this description only 26s. a week for that class of work is not over-generous. In these matters I am personally an economist, but I do not carry my economy so far as to think that the Government should not appear as a model employer paying decent wages to their men. It may be said that lower wages were given to these men because some of them received pensions in respect of their Army service. That is an entirely erroneous system, and the present Colonial Secretary, when he was First Commissioner of Works, admitted that it was erroneous. On this point Sir Edward Ward said:—
    "A pension is for work done, and it ought not to be regarded as for work to be done in the future. The ex-soldier who gets a post as messenger or other civil employment should be paid the market rate and no less than the civilian."
    The same attitude was adopted by the predecessor of the present Colonial Secretary when, in answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool in 1907, he said:—
    "Pensions ought not to be taken into consideration in fixing wages."
    It may be said that they do get full pay during sickness and free medical attendance, but that really is only a very small advantage, and it does not amount to more than twopence on the actual calculation of the benefits they receive. These men get less wages than the so-called labourers. I agree that the employés who are called labourers are really gardeners, and they are called labourers in order to pay them a lower wage. The park-keepers get less than the gardeners, and I think there is a very clear case for considering whether the increase ought not to be given to these men irrespective of their five years' service, and those who have

    646
    served five years ought to be treated a little more liberally. There are other classes who have received no rise at all, in spite of the fact that the cost of living has increased. With regard to the labourers, they have had an increase similar to the park-keepers of one shilling a week after five years' service. They have had a rise from 27s. to 28s., and their wages are higher than the park-keepers. The same considerations apply to the men who have not been five years in the service, and they are not receiving any increase at all, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of living. I think the hon. Member representing the First Commissioner will agree that the description "labourer" is not an accurate one, because a great many of these men really do the work of gardeners.
    There is one other matter I wish to raise, and that is the question of the night patrol in Regent's Park. Previously there were two night watchmen permanently employed, and now the First Commissioner has done away with those two men, and instead he has divided the work amongst sixteen of these so-called labourers, who are really gardeners, and each of them has to take a month's night work every eight months. These men entered the service to do day work, and they are now being compelled to take this night work, which means very long hours and as much as 11 hours 44 minutes on the average, and many of them find it affects their health, because they had not intended to enter a service in which it was necessary to do night work. I think it is very hard on men employed for day work to lay down that for a month they must be up all night for eleven hours. Some of them find their health is affected by having to be up through the night in all kinds of weather. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should revert to the previous system of having persons regularly employed as night watchmen. It may be necessary to have two shifts, but it cannot be right to take the people who engage for day work and compel them to take a month's night work. Perhaps the hon. Member may not consider these matters of as great importance as some of the others in this Vote, but they are of great importance to the men concerned, and I hope this matter will receive his sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I wish to join with the hon. Member opposite in the appeal he has made to the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the

    647
    wages paid to the men employed in the Royal parks. The men whose wages are least suffer most from the increase in the cost of living. I think the increase of one shilling per week is too little, and it ought certainly to have been half-a-crown. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get a larger Grant to enable him to do this. I wish to appeal to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the class of men who are called propagators. They receive 31s. per week; they are expert gardeners, and I think they are entitled to a higher wage. I also wish to draw attention to the case of the mechanics employed in the Royal parks and gardens. May I point out that those engaged in the building trades in London have recently had an increase in wages. The men employed in the Works Department have also received increased wages, but those employed by the Parks Department are working for three shillings a week less than those employed in the Works Department. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put the men who are doing work of the same description on the same level so far as wages are concerned. I also appeal to the hon. Gentleman to do his best to secure an increase of wages for the labourers employed in the Royal parks.
    Mr. BOYTON: I desire to support the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) in the plea he has made in favour of better wages for the men working in Regent's Park, seeing, as I do, these men early in the morning and late at night. Some nine months ago a question was raised in this House about the encroachment upon the park by the Office of Woods allowing a very great deal of building to be carried on, and in particular I desire—
    The CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member discovered any item in this Vote dealing with that matter? I am not aware of it, and if that is so it would come on a later Vote.
    Mr. BOYTON: It arises out of the general administration of the Royal parks.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: The Office of Woods and Forests replied for that particular matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: The questions put in the House have been addressed to the Treasury as representing the Office of Woods and Forests.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: The questions have been addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture as representing the Office of Woods and Forests.
    Mr. BOYTON: The Minister for Agriculture answered last time, and we understood that he dealt with the matter for the Office of Works.
    Mr. BENN: The Office of Works has control of the amenities of the parks, but no control over the leases of these villas, and I submit that the matter of granting these leases and dealing with the land should come on the Vote for the Office of Woods under the Board of Agriculture.
    The CHAIRMAN: That clearly is so, and therefore it cannot be raised on this Vote.
    Captain MURRAY: I wish to ask a question with regard to the Queen Victoria Memorial. I noticed the other day that some ugly wooden balustrades have been erected on one side, and there is an opening of some six feet to allow people to pass up the steps. I want to know what is the particular object of these wooden balustrades? The steps were evidently made for the people to walk up in order to examine the face of the Memorial, and I think it disfigures this Memorial, and perhaps the hon. Member can inform the Committee the particular object for which these balustrades have been placed there.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I wish to thank the hon. Member for the steps he has taken to allow the children attending the council school to make better use of the Royal parks. I think everybody is grateful to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. W. Benn) and his predecessor in office for what they have done in this matter, and I hope the hon. Member will continue the good courses he has taken and afford still greater opportunities for the playing of organised games by the council schools children in the Royal parks. Although a considerable use is being made of the Royal parks for this purpose a far greater use might be made of them without any inconvenience to the ordinary public. It is of exceptional importance that special facilities should be given for this purpose in those parks, because the existence of a large Royal park like Regent's Park absolves the county council from the necessity of providing open spaces in that neighbourhood. At

    649
    the present moment the Royal parks are not thrown open to the same extent to the children of London as the council parks are, and I suggest it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to do a great deal more in this direction in the future than has been done in the past. I am sure nobody realises better than the hon. Gentleman the great importance of affording increased opportunities for recreation and for the playing of organised games. I should like to thank the hon. Member for what he has done in persuading his colleague who represents the Office of Woods to rearrange some of the leases in Regent's Park so as to throw three acres more open to the public. I think everybody sees the great inconvenience of having this dual control of Regent's Park. It is surely rather an absurdity in administration that part of the park should be under one department and part under another. We should be far more satisfied if the whole of the park were under the administration of the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, and we should feel far more confidence as to the future of the park. I hope the hon. Member's success in the past will be an incentive to him in the future to try and persuade his colleague to withdraw still more land from the letting on private leases in order to throw it open to the general public.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is in order on this Vote.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I quite agree with my Noble Friend that it is absurd that the Royal Parks, and still more the Quadrant in Regent Street, should be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the First Commissioner has considered the advisability of removing the speed limit on motor traffic in the Royal Parks? Why does he consider it necessary that there should be a speed limit in the Royal Parks when no speed limit is considered necessary in any other part of London? The hon. Gentleman can perhaps also tell us whether he is responsible for the numerous traps which have been set in the last few weeks for the unfortunate motorists who have to use the Royal Parks.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that question will arise on the Vote for the First Commissioner's Salary and not on the Vote for Works.
    Mr. GRANT: I endorse what my Noble Friend has said with regard to the increased use to which the parks have been put for the children in London. I desire to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the growing tendency to plant thorn trees and bushes in the open spaces in the centre of the parks. I think the more we keep these spaces open the better it will be, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see that this planting of trees and bushes is not overdone. There is another small point to which I wish to call attention, and it has reference to Achille's statue at Hyde Park Corner. It is quite impossible to see it owing to the trees around until you come close up to it, and I should like to know whether it would not be possible to remove at least one large tree in front of it so that it might be seen in the future as it used to be in the past.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to raise the question of the existing Admiralty Arch at the end of the Mall. The Arch at the present time is the appropriate end of the Memorial that was designed and carried into effect.
    The CHAIRMAN: Could the hon. Member direct me to the item in this Vote to which the question is relevant?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am submitting this as a point of Order for your instruction. I am speaking of the Arch in the Royal Park, and I desire to deal with the policy of regarding that as the end of the Mall instead of a new Arch forming a tunnel.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the matter, if in order at all to-day, would come under Class II., Vote 26.
    Captain MURRAY: Does it not arise on the general item "Royal Parks"?
    Lord A. THYNNE: If we are to discuss the Arch I hope we shall be able to discuss it all in one piece, because a part of the Arch is undoubtedly in the Royal Park and part of it is not in the Royal Park. There are two sides of the Arch to discuss: there is the side facing the park, and there is the side which faces the Strand which is not in the park. I presume, if one side is in order on this Vote, that the other side would not be in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that it is proposed to do anything even to one side of the arch, and, if that is so, it does not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. LYELL: I understand a small addition has already been granted to the pay of the park-keepers at Holyrood, Edinburgh; but I would like to point out that this addition, which, I believe, is common to the park-keepers both at Holyrood and in London, is nothing more than an instalment to meet the serious rise in the cost of living which has taken place in recent years I do not want, however, to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has already shown to these men. I believe an allowance of 5s. per week is made to the park-keepers who are not supplied with a house, and I wish to ask whether that is not really inadequate. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it must be very difficult for these men to find a suitable house for anything like 5s. a week, and it would, I am sure, be very acceptable if the allowance could be increased in view of the great difficulty in getting sufficient accommodation.
    Mr. BENN: The figures which the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) gave with regard to the wages of the park-keepers were perfectly accurate, and, of course, it is only natural that a request for a further increase should be made; but I would point out that the cost of the increase which has already been granted has been considerable. It will operate in the case of all park-keepers and labourers of five years' service, and will apply, as from 1st April, to sixty men out of one hundred and thirty-eight. The other men, as they acquire five years' service, will also become recipients of the additional 1s. I very much dislike standing here to oppose any increase to people who do their work well, but I would ask the hon. Member to remember that we have done something very considerable, and to rest content with the shilling for the moment. It would not be inappropriate to mention in connection with this, as showing that the Office has no desire to oppose the proper treatment of its work-people, that in the month of March we have in no less than ten cases come down on our contractors for not observing the Fair-Wages Clause. I mention that in order to show that we are doing our best to be vigilant guardians of the rights of the people who work for the Office. The night patrols and the day men all receive the same wage, but the day men work six days a week and the night men seven days a week, so that the night men get an additional day's pay; and, so far from being
    652
    unwilling, they are very glad when the month arrives and they are able to do the seven days instead of the six. I understood the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) to raise a question about the halfpenny rise which was granted as the result of the agreement between the master builders and their employés.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I spoke about the mechanics employed in the Works Department.
    Mr. BENN: There have been cases of dispute—there is one going on now—in which certain people have endeavoured to participate in the rise of a halfpenny which was granted by agreement between the masters and the men. The position of the Office of Works is very clear. It is merely a question of fact. If the men can show that there are men receiving the halfpenny who are doing the same work, then it is our duty to see that the employés working on our contracts get the halfpenny, but, if they merely think they ought to participate, then under the terms of the Resolution of this House, which we have no right to exceed, we have to wait until it is the general practice.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: You have men directly employed by the Department.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BENN: That is a point on which I am not quite sure. I have gone into this question at some length, and I think the hon. Member will find the position is as I have stated. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) raised a question about the fence round the Queen Victoria Memorial. At present people are allowed to go up the Memorial steps up to six p.m. in the summer and up to dusk in the winter. I think it is undesirable to allow the public to go right up the Memorial steps during all the hours. If my hon. Friend allows that, he must also agree that it is necessary to keep the people out during prohibited hours, and a wooden fence has accordingly been erected. Sir Thomas Brock has designed movable bronze posts, and as soon as they are complete they will be placed in position to take the place of the present rather unsightly wooden fence. I thank the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne) for the remarks he made, and I can assure him that he has the deep sympathy of the First Commissioner in his desire to extend the area of the parks in which the London children are

    653
    allowed to play. I noticed also what the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Grant) said about the trees round Achilles statue, but I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope of cutting down the trees, because hon. Members are very jealous about the removal of any growing thing. I should not be in order, I understand, in referring to the question of the speed limit imposed on motor cars in the Royal Parks, but, if I were in order, I am afraid I should not be very sympathetic towards the hon. Member's request. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Lyell) referred to the house allowance for the park-keepers in Scotland. They receive 22s. per week, and have either a residence or 5s. per week allowance in lieu thereof. I do not know that my hon. Friend is quite right in making a comparison between the allowance of 5s. and the actual rent of a house. I think one ought to regard it rather as a graded payment. No doubt, as houses become vacant, the men, who now receive an allowance, will be promoted to a house; admittedly the allowance does not adequately represent the rent. With regard to the Admiralty Arch, and one or two other interesting matters which hon. Members desire to discuss, it would be very convenient if we could get rid of the Vote for materials, and go on to that for salaries, as upon that all these matters may be raised.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to one of the points I raised. He seemed to be under the impression that the labourers who do day work like to be put on to night patrols. I can assure him that that is not my information.
    Mr. BENN: I very much dislike differing from the hon. Gentleman on matters of fact, but I would remind him that only two days ago he put a question in which he appeared to complain because two men were removed front doing night work and put on to day work.
    Mr. CASSEL: But that is quite a different case. Those men were originally employed as night watchmen and not as labourers at all.
    Mr. BOYTON: Do the park-keepers, who are mostly pensioned men from the Army, get superannuation in respect of their employment under the Office of Works?
    Mr. BENN: I speak subject to correction, but I think not.
    Mr. BOYTON: But other workmen engaged in the park under the Crown get superannuation, do they not?
    Mr. BENN: I cannot say without reference.

    MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—(Class I.).—VOTE 5.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings." [Note.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I should like to refer to a matter which concerns, not only this Vote, but other Votes dealing with the erection of new buildings.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was good enough to consult me on that point. I have looked into it, and I find that he can only raise it on this Vote to a very limited extent, whereas he would have a free hand on Vote 26.
    Sir J. D. REES: There is an item under the heading of "New Works"—"Nottingham County Court: Improved Accommodation."
    Mr. BENN: That was completed last year.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then why is it now in the Vote?
    Mr. BENN: it is the practice of the House. At the desire of the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates include, in italics, the items of last year's Estimate, although no money may be asked for this year.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then this work is completed?
    Mr. BENN: Yes.
    Mr. WATT: I should like to refer to another item under the heading of "New Works," and that is the Glasgow Justiciary Court. The original estimate was

    655
    £38,000. The revised estimate is £41,240. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why the estimate was revised and the reason for the additional sum? I understand that new and more expensive plans have been adopted.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I also should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the difference between original total estimates and the revised total estimates, not only in this case, but in various cases in subsequent Votes. Shall I be in order in doing it now, or must I wait for each particular case?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can only raise a point of that kind on each Vote as it comes along. Does he wish to raise it on this item?
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Not if I can raise the whole question on Vote 26.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the point the hon. Member desires to raise has reference to the employment of architects, and the policy adopted in regard to architectural work.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: That is one point. The other point is the great difference between the original total estimates and the revised total estimates in all these Votes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure I quite understand the point. I take it the hon. Member's argument is directed towards securing a better system in regard to preparing plans, and the employment of architects.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Not exactly. That is a different point. The one I want to raise really concerns all these Votes.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no means of discussing a number of Votes together, unless it be on the Report of the Estimates Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London presides, or on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. BENN: I wish to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). I am afraid this is not a case of the variation of plans. We made rather too low an estimate of the cost of the work, and when we got the actual tenders in, we found it necessary to revise the estimate.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I only want to call attention to a serious extravagance and inconvenience in the practice of the Board of Works in the matter of legal buildings. Every year we are getting a larger number of Government buildings in our provincial towns, and in my opinion they are not sufficiently concentrated. This lack of concentration undoubtedly makes it necessary for larger provision to be made for maintenance and repairs, and in regard to caretakers and other expenses, and much might be saved if all the Government buildings in a provincial town were concentrated under one roof. This Vote particularly concerns County Courts and other legal buildings, and I submit that under it considerable economies could be effected if the County Courts and the offices of various Government Departments which find it necessary to have branches in provincial towns were concentrated in one big building. I pointed out last year that it would not only lead to a reduction in this Vote, but that it would also bring about greater convenience for the public, and make it possible, in some cases, for an imposing public building, possessing commanding architectural features, to be put up in some of our towns. I do not like to instance my own Constituency, although it is the town I know best, and, as one of my hon. Friend's remarked, it is one of the most beautiful, and possesses most distinctive architectural features. But I submit that if all the legal buildings were concentrated in one central spot with such offices as the Labour Exchange, the Insurance Offices, and other Government Departments, it would be a great advantage—
    The CHAIRMAN: A general question of policy like that must be taken on the Vote for the First Commissioner's salary. It does not appear to attach to any particular item in this Vote.
    Lord A. THYNNE: The whole trend of my argument was that, owing to this want of concentration of Government offices in provincial towns, and this lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments, we are asked to make unduly large provision under tins Vote, especially under item "B" for maintenance and repairs, and item "C" for rent. We are paying unnnecessary rent, which might be avoided if such concentration as I have indicated were effected. I think it will be clear to the Committee that great economy would be effected under this Vote if all these various Government Depart-

    657
    ments were to come together and concentrate their branches in one imposing building. I submit that for the consideration of the Government. I quite see the great inconvenience of not having a responsible Cabinet Minister to speak on behalf of the whole Government. I make no reflection on the Member for St. George's-in-the-East. Of course, he cannot commit the Government on an important matter of policy of this kind. I sympathise with his position, but I do wish to emphasise the inconvenience under which we are labouring in conducting this Debate in the absence of a responsible Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no other Department responsible for this Vote. The hon. Member's remarks rather seem to indicate that the point he desires to raise is out of order.
    Mr. MORTON: I would like to press the hon. Gentleman for a little further information with regard to the necessity for the revised Estimate in the case of the Glasgow Justiciary Court. It is becoming too much the practice to start at a low amount and then find it necessary to make provision for an increased amount. This is not fair to the House or to the Committee; we ought to be told in the first place the whole cost of a building. Of course, there may be occasions when an increase is necessary but it should only be sanctioned on good reason being shown. This is evidence of a bad system in the conduct of public affairs. I press for further information, and I would urge that it is no excuse for the failure to give it to say that Scotland is a long way off. Why has the original Estimate in this case been increased in this way?
    Mr. BENN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I stated in reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), but when Vote 26 arises I shall be very glad to discuss the matter of the difference between the provisional Estimates and the actual cost. It will be better discussed on Vote 26.
    Mr. MORTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when that will come on?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, to-night.

    ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—(Class I.)—VOTE 6.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £65,630, be
    658
    granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain." [Note—£40,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: A few items in this Vote seem to need some explanation. To me, as one who earnestly studies the question, they offer ground for certain doubt. For instance, there is £25,000 wanted for a new spirit building. What is a "spirit building?" I know what spirits are, but I did not know that the science of psychical research had proceeded so far that a building to cost £25,000 was wanted to accommodate the spirits. No doubt that will be explained. I notice that a corrugated iron shed is to be put up for taxidermists. I object altogether to corrugated iron buildings in the vicinity of South Kensington. I must protest against any more of these temporary, hideous, extravagant, and I might almost say useless buildings being put un in that vicinity. If this Vote is carried, I hope it will be the last of this kind of building. I suppose the taxidermists stuff the birds. I approve of the beautiful exhibitions, but I do not see why it is necessary to stuff them at South Kensington or in a hideous corrugated iron building. Why do we want pilot lights? What are they, and why need they be installed at a great expense of £600 in the Natural History Museum? I do not wish to move a reduction until I have heard some explanation of these items.
    Mr. BENN: I hope my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to move a reduction. I can explain the items, which are quite simple. The spirit building is a building for preserving specimens in spirits, and is naturally a very important part of the Natural History Museum work. We have had to put up a special building owing to the danger of fire. The accommodation for the taxidermists has also been decided upon because of the danger of fire. It has been thought desirable to spend £120 for building a shed to avoid the risk of fire to the rest of the museum.
    Mr. WATT: Is that for the shed itself?
    Mr. BENN: I am not sure; I think it covers the entire expense. As regards pilot lights, my hon. Friend may remember that there was a great strike caused in

    659
    Paris by the shutting off of the electric light. In order to preserve the lighting of the museums where specimens are housed, we have two systems, one of ordinary lighting and another of a different service, so that, if one is cut off, another is available, and the building is not likely to be endangered.
    Mr. GRANT: I notice that on new science buildings there is a large expenditure. Who is the architect who is to undertake the work? Is it done entirely by the Board of Works, or by some outside architect? Have the plans been put up to public competition? I think that encouragement should be given to talent in this country by means of public competition.
    Mr. BENN: I am not certain, but I think we are doing the work ourselves. I am sorry I have not the precise accurate information, but I shall be happy to supply it to the hon. Member.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.—(Class I.)—VOTE 7.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad." [Note.—£40,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir J. D. REES: It is satisfactory that these Estimates show a total decrease of over £11,000. The Committee will no doubt be glad of that, although there is a feeling in every quarter that it is most desirable that our representatives abroad should not only be well housed but, if possible, better housed than anybody else. Although there is an impression abroad that members of our Diplomatic Service live lives of great comfort and luxury, and although it may be true to some extent that they live lives of comfort in the great European capitals, the majority of them live by no means in those circumstances, but really under conditions which call for good housing as an absolute necessity for their existence if they are to do the work they have to do and discharge their highly important duties. I see that there is an item
    660
    of new works at Cettinje; £3,700 for the current year, following upon a somewhat similar Vote last year. That would appear to be a very high expenditure at a place like this. Although it is called a capital of a kingdom, it is no more than mountain village, the whole kingdom containing fewer inhabitants than Nottingham. That is a charge which should be rather nicely scrutinised, although it is a fashion to make much of Montenegro. I think a very modest house would very well suffice for our representative there, although, as he is a friend of mine, I should like him to have the best house possible. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that where there is a sum provided for 1912–13 and nothing is shown in the columns to the left of it, we may take it that everything has been finished. For instance, is nothing in contemplation for Therapia?
    Mr. BENN: It is either completed or abandoned.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then I understand that the expense we are incurring in Constantinople and Therapia will show a considerable decrease?
    Mr. BENN: It will do.
    Sir J. D. REES: That is a clear case where the taxpayer should benefit by the altered conditions, upon which it is undesirable to dwell. There is a sum of £7,000 provided for the new Legation House at Sofia. No proper objection can be taken to that. The capital of the greatly enlarged Bulgaria will be of such a character that we should maintain, as far as possible, a suitable dwelling-house for our representative, although for the present he will continue to be a Minister. In regard to Stockholm, I do not understand why there should be a provision for £5,000 for this year, and why a further provision of £8,600 will be necessary. I should like to know. It always occurred to me that there was not very much need for much to be done at Stockholm, but it is a long time since I have been there, and I dare say circumstances have altered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why there is this large provision for this capital. When we get to Pekin there is a provision of £5,500 for various items, including ice-making plant. I do not suppose the ice-making plant represents a very large proportion of the £5,500. It is probably like the 100 pounds for winding a clock which would lead one to suppose that 10,000 pounds had been required for the Clock Tower. I

    661
    presume it is a very small item, but I do not understand why this ice-making plant was required seeing that ice is a drug in the market at Pekin. There is no place in the world where ice is less wanted.
    Mr. BENN: That is only one out of five services which are covered by the Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: So I understand. But it is a pity to put it down, because it gives an impression of somewhat unnecessary expenditure which no doubt does not really apply. But I do not quite know why there is so much expenditure required at Pekin. There is a total of nearly £20,000, the Estimate for £13,000 having been revised into one for £19,000, £12,000 being spent in the current year up to March, and a further provision being made of £5,500. It seems a great deal seeing that for many years past the Minister and the staff at Pekin have been housed in a very fine building, surrounded with a high wall, and have been apparently in possession of most of those comforts which I am sure the House would wish them to have. At any rate, I do not quite understand from this Estimate what this is, although I am familiar with the ground. Similarly there is £5,000 more provided for a house for a Chinese secretary and commercial attaché, also at Pekin. That is a part of a total Estimate of £8,000. This brings up the total expenditure at Pekin, including £1,500 for sanitary alterations in the present year, to £12,000, which seems to be rather much, and I should like to know something about it if the hon. Gentleman can give us the information. Then, Shanghai, £140. I do not quite know why baths are wanted at the Consular Gaol.
    Mr. BENN: They are not exactly baths, they are ablution houses for the prisoners. It is desirable that they should be washed.
    Sir J. D. REES: That puts the thing on a different footing. If it was hot and cold water baths for every prisoner, I should have rather shied at facing the expenditure. I did not quite understand about the Clock Tower. Then we came to the ice-making plant, and now we come to the baths for coolies in the Consular Gaol. If the least important item was not mentioned it would not give rise to any misunderstanding, and there would be no occasion for the enemy to blaspheme, not that I call myself an enemy or that the other is a description of my remarks. Then as regards maintenance and repairs, this looks at first sight a very large
    662
    sum—£33,600, following upon £36,700 last year. That is a recurring figure. There again I think the casual examiner of these Estimates would be rather apt to fall into the error of thinking that these large amounts were not needed because of the somewhat unfortunate selection of examples given in the note, setting forth the reason for which it is required. For instance, you have State room and furniture and maintenance of plate, £150; supply of furniture, £4,700, and so on, whereas really what this expenditure goes for is the upkeep of all our Legations and Embassies abroad, and is by no means an excessive figure. On the point of the maintenance of plate, £150, I should like to have some information. There was a time when our Ambassadors abroad used to be provided with magnificent plate out of public funds. I have seen some of these services. They were afterwards the perquisite of the Ambassadors, and they can be seen in various country houses in England. All that has been given up. I do not think anyone gets an allowance of plate. Where the plate belongs to the Ambassador, and where servants whom he himself pays keep the plate, what is the necessity for this item? If you take the Embassies and Legations upon which this sum of £33,652 will be spent in the current year, they include houses at Berlin, Constantinople, Paris, Rome, and so on, until I come to St. Petersburg. The house in St. Petersburg is not a whole house but half of another house. It is a half of the Soltikoff's Palace. It is a very fine house, but I do not understand why a proportion of the money is spent upon this Embassy. It is rather surprising that we have never had a house of our own in St. Petersburg on which these repairs could be spent, and it may possibly be that the British taxpayer is contributing to keep up the town house of Prince Soltikoff, in the other half in which either he or his tenant actually lives. Has it ever been under consideration to provide an Embassy at St. Petersburg, and is not this really rather an expensive way of housing our Ambassador?
    There is an item here which struck me as requiring notice. What is the new Consular house at Lorenzo Marques? Lorenzo Marques may in time to come be a very important port but at present it is an extremely small place and, owing to various reasons, there is not very much trade. What is the house to be provided there? Are we building a house there

    663
    for a Consul? I should like to know, as it is quite likely that the chief business there will be done in a neighbouring village and in a different direction. Are we committing ourselves to build a house at Lorenzo Marques when it is quite likely that our own Consular officer will probably dwell hereafter at some point further to the west of Lorenzo Marques, where there is deeper water and better harbourage, and where probably the greater part of the business in future will be carried on. May I refer to the cemeteries? I do not see here amongst these cemeteries the cemetery in the Crimea. Of course it is on Russian soil, but does not the country provide something for the upkeep of the cemetery there? I think it does. I went there from Sebastopol, and I was certainly under the impression that we had a caretaker who looked after the graves of our soldiers who fell in the Crimea. Will the hon. Gentleman let me know when he is good enough to reply? As to Korea, I am at a loss to know what cemeteries we have to provide for keeping up. It is only twenty years ago that any Englishmen were in Korea at all, and there have been very few there since. There was only one these when I visited the country, and he was the Consul. The points I have raised are not unimportant from the point of view of expenditure, for all these amounts make up a great amount.
    Mr. BENN: With regard to expenditure, whether you rent a place here or buy a place there, the matter must be left to the decision of the officers who know the circumstances. At St. Petersburg we continue to rent premises, but whether we rent or buy is a matter which involves local knowledge, and these things have to be surveyed in a general way. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will expect me to justify individual proceedings in the various capitals to which he has drawn attention. There is a decrease of £11,000 on this Vote. I do not know whether it is altogether wise to decrease the Vote. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will charge us with being extravagant in this matter. As regards cemeteries, of course he would be the last to wish that any place in which our fellow countrymen are buried abroad should fall into a state of decay. We maintain these cemeteries at a cost of £948. In the Crimea we spend £333 a year. There is a small cemetery in Korea where we spend altogether only
    664
    £10 a year. As to the other cemeteries, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish that, in order to snake such a trifling economy, we should not provide for them properly.

    REVENUE BUILDING.—(Class I.)—VOTE 8.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £448,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad." [Note.—£200,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I would like to draw attention to the considerable difference between the original total Estimate and the total Estimate now in the case of some of these building schemes. I find that in the case of the Birkenhead Post Office the revised total Estimate exceeds the original total Estimate by 170 per cent. When this matter was discussed last year by the Select Committee on Estimates, it was stated in evidence that an original total Estimate was really in most cases simply guesswork. The Estimate was not based on any reliable figures at all. What happens is that some Department wants to erect a building without delay, and they think it necessary to put down £2,000, £5,000, or £10,000, simply in order to get Parliamentary sanction for starting the work. Parliament, of course, looks upon that particular Estimate as a real Estimate for the whole of the scheme, though, as a matter of fact, it is not based on any reliable figures. In some cases the final Estimate is lower than the original Estimate, but in most cases the final Estimate exceeds the original Estimate. In the case of the final Estimate the House really has no alternative but to consent to the extra expenditure.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the general question of Estimates, or whether he is directing his remarks to the specific item with which we are now dealing. If he wishes to raise the general question, it will come more properly on Vote 26. I think the hon. Member must make his choice. If he were to speak on the general

    665
    question now, I would have to restrict him more closely on Vote 26. I give that warning of a friendly character to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I will reserve the general remarks I have to make until we reach Vote 26. On this particular Vote perhaps the hon Gentleman will give some explanation why there is this enormous difference between the two Estimates. I wish to know whether the first Estimate was based on any reliable figures, or whether it was simply put in in order to be able to get something to start the work.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: This Vote is a pretty large one, and the carrying out of the work means employment for a large number of workpeople. During the past year I have had occasion to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman quite a number of cases where contractors were not complying with the Fair-Wages Clause. I have to thank him for what he is doing to compel contractors to observe it. I would suggest that in relation to the contracts under this Vote, and also with respect to future contracts, he should make inquiries whether employers are paying according to the Fair-Wages Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question would come more properly on Vote 26. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a specific point on this Vote, I think he would be in order; but if he wishes to enter upon the general question, his remarks would come more properly on Vote 26.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am very much afraid that if I raise matters specifically, item by item, I would take more time than I wish to occupy. I will take the case of Peterborough Post Office. I brought that matter before the hon. Gentleman recently, and he stated that he was satisfied that the contractors were paying the standard rate of wages. My information is that they are not paying the standard rate of wages. If a firm does not pay the standard rate when doing work of this description, good employers are in consequence treated unfairly. I would like to point out the difficulty which the Department have in finding out whether or not a firm is observing the Fair-Wages Clause. Take the case of the firm who are carrying out the work at Peterborough. Their workmen are engaged three or four days a week on other work, and receive a lower
    666
    rate, and when they pass on to the post-office work they continue to receive the lower rate. I do appeal to him to make a strict inquiry in connection with these firms. I would also suggest, in connection with post office work, that the fittings in the post offices should be let to firms who pay the proper rate of wages in all cases. If you allow firms to differentiate in wages paid to men engaged in post office work and men engaged in private contracts, these difficulties will always arise and friction will continue.
    Mr. GILL: There is provision made in the Estimates for the erection of a new post office in Bolton. It is four years since this was promised. I have had repeated questions on the Paper and promises have been made, but, beyond having the site boarded round, nothing has been done. There is a great deal of public dissatisfaction in the district over the delay. The post office has been promised for many years. The population of Bolton is 180,000, and the post office is suitable for a town of about 50,000 people. It is very unhealthy, and some of the post office servants have been killed with consumption. It is high time that something should be done. People are beginning to ask whether the Office of Works has abandoned the idea of building a post office and is going to sell the land. The work should be commenced at once, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give us some satisfactory answer in regard to the matter.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to call attention to the alterations that have been taking place in the post office of Glasgow. The contract was placed some years ago to extend the post office, and the amount is £58,000. The work has spread over three years already, and, according to the items mentioned in this Estimate on page 40, it looks as if the work will extend over another three years. The building trade in Glasgow has been in a rather dull condition for some years, and therefore there cannot be the excuse that amen could not be obtained. The beginning of the work and the speeding up of the work would be of great advantage to the community. The extension of the post office was urgently needed. Complaints have been made of the great delay in carrying out the contract. For the Department of the hon. Member a £58,000 contract is by no means a large one, and there is no need to spend so long a time over it. I shall be glad to

    667
    have an explanation of the delay and I shall more gladly receive an intimation that the work is now to be speeded up and the contract finished in a reasonable time.
    Mr. BENN: The delay in the case of the Glasgow Post Office is due partly to a Labour dispute and partly to the necessity for going carefully with the reinforced concrete, of which the post office is being constructed. But the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) will see our intention in the Vote for £20,000, a very substantial amount, which we are taking this year, all of which, naturally, we hope to spend in addition to over £17,000 which is charged to telephone capital account, so that I hope that during the year substantial progress will be made. In the case of Bolton, I am very sorry that the hon. Member (Mr. Gill) had to complain of delay in completing the post office. As we go on the postal requirements of places alter, and it would be very foolish of us, in order to get finished quickly, to put up a building which was not absolutely suitable. It is far better to suffer a little delay than to erect a building which is hardly suitable to the requirements of the district. It is owing to the alteration of plans and to revised Estimates being made that the delay has taken place. As my hon. Friend will see from the Estimate, a substantial sum is taken this year. That is not all, because a large item which does not come into this Estimate, but is chargeable to the telephone account, is also taken.
    Mr. GILL: Can you give any idea when the work is likely to be commenced?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member will allow me to have this Vote at once without a Division, we shall be in a position to have Parliamentary sanction to start at once. As regards the wages question, I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) for calling my attention to the money. We have inspectors going about and looking into all these cases. We are really doing our best to see that a Fair-Wages Clause is enforced, but we are bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons, which only applies to workmen who are working under contracts placed by our Department, and does not apply to workmen who
    are working for the same firm under other contracts.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: You can see the difficulty.
    Mr. BENN: I see the difficulty very much indeed. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that his proper course would be to have the Resolution altered in a practicable form, if possible, by the House of Commons. As the Resolution stands we are bound by it and we shall observe it. The hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith) asked a question about Birkenhead. The coal strike caused some delay there and the revision of Estimates made, not this year for the first time but for two years, was also a cause of delay. It was due to the same reason as in Bolton, not because the Estimate was not in the beginning for a certain building, but because when they got the plans roughly sketched out for building a post office they found that the requirements of the district involved a bigger and a better building, and that therefore revised plans were necessary.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, "that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £100."
    I would like to know whether there was a definite Estimate to start with before this Vote was sanctioned in the first instance. Of course, if the post office afterwards brought forward another much larger scheme than was contemplated by Parliament when they sanctioned the first Estimate, and then another Estimate was submitted for nearly three times as large an amount as the original Estimate, it is absurd to talk about Parliamentary control in a case like that. The first Estimate was for £2,000. Then another and a much larger scheme was brought forward, and the only thing Parliament can do is to sanction the addition because the work has already been started. The whole financial control is in the hands of the Department and not of Parliament, and it is against this state of affairs that I wish to protest.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £447,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 168.

    Division No. 22.]

    AYES.

    [8.58 p.m.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cassel, Felix

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Boyton, James

    Cautley, H. S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Fell, Arthur

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Goldsmith and Sir J. D. Rees.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sanders, Robert A.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Adamson, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

    O'Malley, William

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barton, W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bentham, G. J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boland, John Pius

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hodge, John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, P. J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Brunner, John F. L

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Radford, G. H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hudson, Walter

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hughes, S. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford).

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Clough, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kelly, Edward

    Rowlands, James

    Crooks, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    King, J.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lardner James C. R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Doris, W.

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wadsworth, J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Molloy, M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gill, A. H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gladstone, W. G. C

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morison, Hector

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Grelg, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Wing, Thomas

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hackett, J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Original question put, and agreed to.

    INSURANCE AND LABOUR EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—(Class I.)—VOTE 9.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £133,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
    670
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, in respect of Insurance and Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain." [Note.—£90,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I am quite unwilling to allow this Vote to pass without a word of protest. The Committee are asked to

    671
    pass £133,000, of which £56,000 is on account of insurance buildings, and no less than £167,000 on account of Labour Exchanges. I should be out of order if I referred to the merits of the legislation which has led to this expenditure. Of course, this does occur to one even more strongly when he regards that legislation as of a provisional and experimental character, and when he finds such an exceedingly large amount. I think even hon. Gentlemen who are persuaded that the Labour Exchange policy has been a success—I am not one of them—will think that the expenditure in two years of over half a million is a perfectly astonishing total. I am unwilling to let this Vote go through without calling attention to the extremely large figure which the taxpayer is called upon to find for legislation of a purely experimental and provisional character. The Labour Exchange part of it, so far, has not been productive of any corresponding advantage.
    Mr. FELL: I would like to know what principle is being acted on in regard to the Labour Exchange buildings. When the Bill was passed it was said that we should have the greater number of those buildings rented, and that it would only be in exceptionally large towns and cities that we should have the buildings erected by the Government. I see now you are proposing to build on purchased sites something like ten freehold Labour Exchanges. I heard of one instance in which a Labour Exchange was put up in a wrong place, and had to be got rid of. It would be a great pity if costly sites were taken to put up great buildings before the Government really found the basis on which they are going to work, and I think they should rent the buildings in the greater number of cases.
    Lord A. THYNNE: This is one of the instances in which I think economy could be promoted with efficiency, if the hon. Member would represent to the Board of Works the possibility of concentrating the insurance buildings and the Labour Exchange buildings in the same building with other public offices in provincial towns. I have already pointed out what a great convenience it would be if the County Courts, and, even in some cases, the post offices, were put into the one building with the insurances and the offices of the Labour Exchange. First of all, that would result in a great economy
    672
    to the public purse. It would be very much cheaper to concentrate all those Government offices in a provincial town into one building, and, secondly, it would be a great convenience to the people who use those offices, because everybody would know where the Government offices in the town were; and, in the third place, it would make it possible for the Government, and I am sure this will appeal to the hon. Member, to erect a large Government building, which would be a great architectural and imposing feature in the provincial town. This is a thing which every municipality does. The municipality does not have offices all over a town, but always endeavours to concentrate the offices into one place and one building. I submit that the plan that has been found convenient for the municipality, would be found equally convenient and economical by the Government, and I suggest that the Office of Works should consider it.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £100.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have a good deal to say upon this Vote. It will probably be in the recollection of the Committee that when the Vote on Account on this Vote was taken, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that there had been a great departure in the amount of money asked for from that mentioned in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was President of the Board of Trade. I said then I would defer my views until Committee of Supply, and that opportunity has now fortunately arisen, and I shall be able to lay before the Committee my opinions upon what I can only characterise as a breach of the undertaking, which was given by that right hon. Gentleman, and on which he obtained the passage of his Resolution. I have not, at the moment, a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I feel sure hon. Members will take my word for what occurred on that particular occasion. The right hon. Gentleman informed us then that under no circumstances would the amount of £220,000 be exceeded, and that it would gradually decline to about £160,000 or £180,000 per year. The hon. Gentleman opposite is fully aware of all the facts, and if I in any way make a mistake, perhaps he will kindly correct me. Despite that undertaking, last year it amounted to no less a sum than £350,300, and

    673
    this year to no less than £233,200. When the Resolution was before the House, taking the statement of the Minister as to the amount supposed to be required during the ten succeeding years, and allowing a considerable margin, I proposed a limiting Amendment. I think the limit I suggested was £250,000. Being of an innocent and confiding disposition, I did not proceed to a Division, because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the proceedings told me that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as he had stated what amount would be spent on these buildings. On the faith of his statement I withdrew the Amendment. I do not want to say anything that would be offensive to anybody, either on the Treasury Bench or the benches behind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I am not in the habit of doing so. What I wish to say is that it is not wise to trust to the assurance of any Minister when the spending of money is the point of issue. I do not say that in this case it is the right hon. Gentleman's fault. His successor may have forgotten what he said and expended money either unnecessarily or more lavishly. The fact remains that if this House desires to keep its control over expenditure it must not give a blank cheque to any Minister, to whichever party he belongs. I should be perfectly willing, if occupying a back bench on the other side, to make exactly the same statement.
    There could not be a greater proof of the necessity for this House to keep a check over expenditure than is afforded by this incident. It is to the interest of everybody, especially of hon. Members below the Gangway, to keep down expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do that to-morrow."] I do not understand the relevancy of that interruption. To-morrow is Friday, and there are on the Paper two private Bills, both of which are probably out of order on account of involving the expenditure of public money. I have no desire to encourage unnecessary expenditure. I have always endeavoured to be consistent, and, when necessary, I have voted against my own party on questions relating to finance. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us a very clear explanation of why it is necessary to exceed to such a very large extent the Estimate given by his predecessor in office. The hon. Gentleman is a great exponent of the art of saying nothing in a very pleasant way. I do not want him to do that to-night. I would rather he departed from his usual courtesy, provided
    674
    he gave a full explanation. On the Vote on Account the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade admitted that everything I had said was correct, and his explanation was that unforeseen circumstances had arisen requiring increased expenditure. I am not appealing now to Ministers; I am appealing to Members on the back benches. We do not want these unforeseen circumstances, over which we have no control, to occur. It is to our mutual interest to see that Ministers do not obtain money on the understanding that a certain expenditure is to be made, and then, when that expenditure is exceeded, simply say that unforeseen circumstances have arisen. Once you begin to give power to Ministers to spend money in that way, and accept the explanation of unforeseen circumstances, there is no limit to the expenditure that may be incurred. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me a satisfactory explanation, although I do not see how he is going to do it. I shall, however, be very interested to hear what he has to say on this particular matter.
    Mr. BENN: I will reply very briefly to the hon. Baronet. I will explain the increases of which he complains by pointing to the Estimates which show on New Works, Insurance Buildings, a decrease of £25,000, and on New Works, Labour Exchanges, a decrease of £123,000, and there is a total decrease of £127,000 on an Estimate of £223,000. That is the only explanation I can give of the unforeseen increases to which he has referred.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then it is a worse explanation than I had thought possible. I really regret that there are not more than four gentlemen in the Gallery about which we had a discussion earlier in the evening, because they could have given the hon. Gentleman a far better explanation than he has offered to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has said that there is a decrease of £25,000 on Item A and a decrease of £123,000 on Item F. He certainly has not understood the point of my remarks. The point I made was not that in this particular year there was an increase on last year, but that in this particular year there was an increase upon the highest amount which we were told would occur during ten years, and that there was an increase last year of £150,000, or something like 75 per cent. beyond the amount that we were told would be expended. The hon. Gentleman,

    675
    having spent 75 per cent. more than he is entitled to, takes credit to himself for having reduced that amount by something like 50 per cent. He still leaves himself with having spent a good percentage above the original Estimate given by his predecessor, and that he is entitled to spend. I am very much afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not got any explanation to give.
    Mr. BENN: Oh, yes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What, another one?
    Mr. BENN: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I did not properly seize the point the hon. Baronet is making. The fact that there are increases above some Estimates prepared three or four years ago is due to the fact that the Labour Exchanges were originally intended to house the officials under the Labour Exchange Act of 1909. Now they are used not only for that purpose but for the purposes of unemployment insurance under the Insurance Act.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I call attention to another matter which occurs in the Debate of 16th June, 1909?
    Mr. BENN: Before unemployment insurance existed or was heard of?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Mr. BENN: It costs more to house the officials in connection with the unemployment insurance than if it were for Labour Exchanges only.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is there any more taken in any other way?
    Mr. BENN: Oh, no.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member quite sure?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Baronet will look he will see the item is Labour Exchanges and Insurance (Unemployment) Buildings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite aware of that, but still there are in other Votes little items, and these little items may be in respect of something else, for Labour Exchanges or unemployment insurance. That occurs over and over again. But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman this fact, that you do not hire a building or erect a building for twenty clerks which will accommodate only twenty, but pro-
    676
    bably so arrange it that with a little alteration it will accommodate more clerks. I have previously raised this question. I first of all objected to the Vote being lumped together in this way so that you could not find out what the cost of the Labour Exchanges is and what the cost of the unemployment insurance is. I was replied to by the hon. Member in charge of the Vote saying, "Oh, well, all we did was in the interests of economy; we had certain buildings, and we put in a few more clerks under the unemployment insurance, and so there was no need to provide new buildings." I accepted that explanation on that occasion as being more or less reasonable, but in the case of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he says that the great increase in the expenditure is due to the cost of extra buildings for unemployment insurance.
    Mr. BENN: Larger buildings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Larger buildings, or more of them? Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that the buildings were increased in size? We hear as to the spending of more money on them.
    Mr. BENN: Oh, yes. Unemployment insurance is provided for in connection with the Labour Exchanges, and in consequence it has been necessary where rentings have taken place to rent additional adjoining places, or where building has taken place to build bigger buildings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is quite a new statement, that it has been found necessary to have additional buildings. That was why I think they should have been put separately in the Estimates so that we could know what is exactly the cost of the Labour Exchanges and what exactly the cost of the unemployment insurance. That is a matter which not only the Public Accounts Committee, but also the Estimates Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, has been very insistent upon: that we should not allow matters to be lumped together in the Estimates. I do not say for a moment that that is done with the idea of concealing them, but it has that effect. It is impossible for the ordinary Member to find out the actual cost of two different items, because they are lumped together.
    Mr. BENN: I have the report of the hon. Member's Committee here. He has not

    677
    raised the question of the separation of the items.
    Sir F. BANBURY: These discussions raise very interesting questions. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman concerning the footnote on page 43, which we are on now. Let me read it:—
    "In addition, accommodation for Insurance and Labour Exchange buildings will be found in various public buildings."
    That is rather a large order—various public buildings. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many public buildings and what the cost is? The hon. Gentleman tells me that £223,000 is the cost at the present time, but he has got to add to that a little footnote that, in addition, accommodation for the Insurance and Labour Exchange buildings will be found in various public buildings! It is a most convenient Vote for any Minister who desires to obtain money without giving full information to the House of Commons, but it is not so convenient for Members of the House of Commons who are desirous of keeping control over the public expenditure, because it is quite impossible for even the most learned financier on either side of the House to ascertain what the sum involved in this little footnote means. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman what really did occur when we were foolish enough to vote this money in the first instance without putting any limitation upon it. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said:—
    "There is no doubt that this system will be expensive."
    There he was quite right. It would not be in order for me to go into that point, but the First Lord went on:—
    "This great national system will cost us in round figures something like £100,000 a year to administer, and buildings and other expenses will raise that sum to about £200,000 for the first ten years."
    Last year it was £350,000 and this year it is £223,000.
    Mr. BENN: What was the scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring when he made that speech?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. BENN: Yes, but not unemployment insurance.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so; but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he takes in a little additional staff in the offices in Whitehall he merely puts them into a room which is not engaged or not quite full; it does not mean that he has to provide an enormous number of fresh buildings for them.
    Mr. BENN: I apologise for going for the source of my information to the gentlemen under the Gallery, but I may add that in some of these cases the rooms at liberty in post offices have been made available.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I must apologise to the House for my remarks being rather discursive; but if the hon. Gentleman will go again under the Gallery and get all this information for us and put it upon the Estimates I would not object, and it would save a great deal of time. Owing to the persuasiveness, shall I say, of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the occasion to which I refer I withdrew my Resolution. But this is a warning to me not to do it again. Being desirous of economy at the present time, when we are spending nearly £200,000,000, and taking the example of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to combine clear thinking with efficiency, I am not desirous of allowing money to be spent in this way.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £133,100 be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 165.

    Division No. 23.]

    AYES.

    [9.38 p.m.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Barton, William

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Grant, J. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Touche, George Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Cautley, H. S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Arnold Ward.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

    Fell, Arthur

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    O'Malley, William

    Adamson, William

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

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parry, Thomas H.

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hinds, John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hodge, John

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Radford, G. H.

    Brady, P. J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hudson, Walter

    Reddy, M.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hughes, S. L.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

    Jones, J. Tewyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roch, Walter F.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Clough, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rowlands, James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kilbride, Dennis

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Crooks, William

    King, J.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Delany, William

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sutton, John E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Doris, W.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wadsworth, J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Mooney, J. J.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gill, A. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morison, Hector

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Muldoon, John

    Wing, Thomas

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hackett, J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Captain Guest.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Duherty, Philip

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is a very interesting item in this Vote that I should like some explanation of. It is on page 45: "Bristol (Class A, Exchange and Divisional Clearing House), Acquisition of Site and erection of a Building (see also Sub-head A, Public Buildings Estimate). (Revote £2,860)." The original total Estimate was £10,000, and the revised total Estimate £17,500. That is to say, the revised total Estimate shows an increase of 75 or 80 per cent., which is an enormous increase. This is a question which we debated at very considerable length for several days with the Office of Works before the Estimates Committee, and we have made a
    680
    report upon it. Last year, owing to the pressure put upon us it was found impossible to have a day to discuss the Report of the Estimates Committee, but one of the recommendations of that Committee can now be considered. The Estimates Committee was set up to do what I am endeavouring to do now—that is, point out to the House certain errors in the Estimates which we had ascertained, and which we point out with a view to rendering the Estimates more efficient and economical in the future. This question of putting in an original Estimate of £10,000 was considered. I might explain that when the original Estimate is put in, sanction is given by this House to the work which is contemplated, and when the item to

    681
    which I have referred appeared in the Estimate, we were told it would cost £10,000, and the Committee gave sanction to proceed with the work. On the Estimates Committee we examined the customs and the habits of the Office of Works and other Departments, and we found it was their custom, if I may use the term, to take a shot at the cost of a building. I have the report here and actually one of the witnesses admitted that when they put down this total cost of £10,000 they had no more idea than hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself what the total cost was to be. They put down something in order to get the Vote, and we have been foolish enough to believe that that was a considered Estimate and upon that we granted the money. We now find that in a large number of cases the Estimate was exceeded.
    I do not believe there has ever been a more glaring case than this. I have not had time to look up the Report of the Estimates Committee, but my recollection is that there has never been a greater increase than 75 per cent. We recommended something which in our opinion would put an end to this very reprehensible practice. I am not saying that this is a practice indulged in only by the present Government, for, apparently, it has been indulged in by all Governments for a considerable number of years. It is reprehensible because, if the Estimates are to be of any use and not merely delusive, we must know what it is that is going to be spent. We suggested that it would be possible to obtain an actual estimate from a builder as to what the expenditure was going to be. We were met by considerable opposition from the Department, who told us that no builder would tender if he did not know his tender was going to be confirmed by the House of Commons. That is not a good reason, nor is it, in my opinion, a reason which is likely to occur. All builders are very anxious to obtain contracts, and if a contract is brought before them, shortly before the House of Commons is going to sit, they would consider it was a reasonable contract, and that the majority of the House of Commons would have to approve of the work being carried out. The only difference would be that we on this Committee should actually know before we sanction the expenditure on a particular work what, it is going to be.
    There is not a man of business in this House who, if he were the head of a
    682
    Department, and some of his subordinates said they desired to erect a building connected with his business, who would not say at once to them, "What is the cost going to be?" He would not be satisfied with a mere rough guess, and he would say, "I must have a proper estimate either from an architect with the quantities taken out, or an actual tender from a certain number of builders." There are no builders in the country who would not be too glad to tender on those conditions, the only difference being that they might have to wait a month or two until the House of Commons had given its sanction. I am sorry I did not see earlier that this item was in the Vote, or I would have taken this opportunity of bringing down the actual evidence given before the Estimates Committee, and pointing out the reasons which were advanced and the answers which were given; but, speaking from memory, I think I have been able to put before the Committee the reasons why the Committee came to the conclusions they did. We had a report from the Treasury on that subject, and we only received it the day before yesterday. I am sorry to say that the Treasury apparently do not agree with the report we made. They say:—
    "Before the issue of the Report, your Lordships had given directions that the total commitments on works in progress should be shown in the Estimates."
    I am not certain it is in order, but I would just like to say, as Chairman of the Estimates Committee, that in this respect the Treasury mention that an economy, not a very large one, has occurred in the Osborne House Vote owing to the Statements we made. The Treasury go on to say:—
    "There remains the recommendation that an experimental effort should be made in the direction of preparing full plans, specifications and bills of quantities, and obtaining a tender on these before the estimate is presented, a clause being inserted in the contract that acceptance was subject to the estimate being approved by Parliament."
    That was our recommendation, and I think it was a very reasonable one. We do not suggest that every work was to be subject to this procedure, but simply that an experiment should be made in the direction we indicated. The Treasury Minute says:—
    "On the 8th of July, and since the issue of the Report, they have had the advantage of learning the view of the Post Office and the Office of Works on the subject. As will be seen from the Report of 16th October, 1912, the Postmaster-General fears that the scheme is open to objections so grave as to make it impractical, so far at least as the Post Office is concerned. The Office of Works, after arguing the matter in detail, state in their Report of 6th November, 1912, that they are at present unable to give effect to the recommendation,

    683
    Further, the recommendation, which is far-reaching in its effect, necessarily concerns the Board of Works, the Works Department, the Admiralty, and the War Office—"
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask whether we shall be in order in discussing the policy referred to in this Report of the Assessment Committee, as far as that policy relates to other Departments, and not to the Vote before us.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet is going too widely into the general question. I understood he intended asking why the recommendation had not been applied in the particular case to which he referred. I cannot, of course, allow a general discussion on the Report of the Estimates Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is a case where the revised Estimate is something like 75 per cent. more than the original Estimate, and I suggest that the proper course would have been to have followed our recommendation. The Estimates Committee was set up in order to go through the Estimates before they come to this House, and I was pointing out that here was an opportunity of discussing a recommendation which was made by the Committee on a particular subject. It is quite true that in reading the reply of the Treasury I did begin to read one of the reasons which they gave for not agreeing, and that it included a statement that it applied also to the Admiralty and the War Office, but that does not touch my point in the least, and, if the hon. Gentleman does not like that point raised, I will abandon it. If the Estimates Committee is to be of any use at all, its recommendations must be seriously considered by this House. This is the first opportunity that we have had of considering a serious recommendation made by that Committee, a recommendation which, I venture to think, quite irrespective of party—this is not a party question in the least—will recommend itself to every man of business in the House. I hope hon. Members opposite, if they agree with me, will get up and say so, or, if they disagree, that they will give their reasons why they think the recommendation of the Estimates Committee should not be carried out.
    Mr. BENN: I can assure the hon. Baronet that this Bristol item has no relation whatever to the matter he was discussing. The reason it is enlarged is that between the time of the first Estimate and the second Estimate the unemployment
    684
    part of the National Insurance Act came into force, and it was necessary to provide a staff to regulate the unemployment insurance of a large number of the scheduled trades in Bristol. We could not obey the instructions of the Estimates Committee in this Estimate because it was made a year before the Committee gave us the advantage of their advice. I am very anxious to deal with the point raised by the hon. Baronet, but it would be much more convenient to do so on Vote 26.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But supposing the Chairman rules that it has been already discussed?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet will have greater freedom on Vote 26.
    Captain GILMOUR: I notice there is a considerable sum for works in Dundee and Edinburgh, and I should like to know why work, for which money was taken, was not done. Perhaps the hon. Member could also give me some information as to the acquisition of a site and the erection of a building at Glasgow south side.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. BENN: The reasons are similar to those I have already given. In Dundee we found we had to take in unemployment insurance, and we had to revise the plans. The revision took so long that we could not spend the money we anticipated spending. With regard to Edinburgh, the Feudal Superior wanted to prevent us putting up a building on land which he said was let on the condition that only a private building could be put on it, but we overcame that difficulty by a money payment.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—(Class I.)—VOTE 10.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £436,570, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes." [Note.—£330,000 has been voted on account.]
    Lord A. THYNNE: This Vote includes certain money, part of which is to be spent on the approach to the Admiralty Arch, and I should like an assurance from the hon. Member that, before any decision is

    685
    taken with regard to the treatment of the approach, he will see that the precedent established in the case of the Quadrant, in Regent Street, is followed, and that an expert Committee—I do not like to call it a Committee of Taste—is called in to advise with regard to the alternative plans for dealing with the approach. Various expert architects have put forward four alternative methods of dealing with this approach. It is a technical question which it would be very difficult for any municipal or lay authority to decide, and I submit that it would be very wise for the Office of Works, before they make any contribution, to seek the advice of a Committee constituted somewhat similarly to the Committee which they invoked in the case of the Quadrant in Regent Street.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been searching the Vote, and I cannot see where that question comes in. It appears to me that it should be taken on the next Vote, so far as it is under the control of the First Commissioner.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I submit that it is possible part of Item 14, £12,225 for urgent and unforeseen works and works and alterations of a minor character will be devoted to this purpose, but in any case it will perhaps be convenient if the hon. Member will give me the assurance now, and I will not raise the matter at a later stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any money in the Vote for that purpose?
    Mr. BENN: I think not. I am afraid, if a contribution were made by the Government for this purpose, that it would be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate. I do not think there is any provision in this Estimate, though the matter might possibly be in order if raised on the salary of the First Commissioner.
    The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that it had better not be taken on this Vote; but on the next Vote, in so far as the First Commissioner has any authority, it would be in order.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I submitted it as a matter of convenience. There is very little probability of our reaching Vote 26 to-night.
    Mr. BENN: It is the next Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: I want to ask about the Vote for the work of adaptation in
    686
    connection with the School of Oriental Languages. There is a sum of £1,000 asked for out of a total expenditure of £20,000. This matter has been going on since 1906. I want the hon. Gentleman to tell me what we are waiting for, and whether, meanwhile, arrangements have been made to carry on the school in the existing building of the London Institution?
    Mr. BENN: There was an Act passed last Session requiring that the London Institution Building should be adapted for the School of Oriental Languages. Unfortunately the constitution of the governing body of that school has not yet been completed, and we do not even know who is to judge what alterations will have to be made. We have, therefore, put down £1,000 in the hope of being able to spend that sum during the year, with a view to going forward with the work.
    Mr. BOYTON: Where shall I find the item of £20,000 for rent for the Land Valuation Offices? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me it was in one of these Votes. I have been looking for it without success. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me.
    Mr. BENN: I have met with no better success. I should advise the hon. Gentleman to take some other opportunity of raising the point and let us get this Vote.
    Mr. FELL: I imagine it will be found under the item of Land, Insurance, and Tithe-Rent Charges. That I think must include the rents paid by the Government for the various offices.
    Mr. BENN: I think it would.
    Mr. MORTON: I want some more information with regard to this London Institution. If we vote this £1,000 I take it we are practically bound to spend £20,000, but we have no information what it is proposed to do, and I think we ought to have it before we commit ourselves to this expenditure. Will my hon. Friend tell me what he is going to do with this £1,000? If there is no settled policy the item should not be on the Votes at all.
    Mr. BENN: It is intended by putting down this item to commit the House to an expenditure on the School for Oriental Languages. I am sorry I cannot put down more than £1,000.
    Mr. MORTON: But shall we be committed to spending £20,000?
    Mr. BENN: We shall be committed to making alterations to the London Institution building.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    I think this £1,000 ought not to be voted for the reason advanced by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Morton). I see the total Estimate is £20,000, and there is a star against it explaining that it is a provisional Estimate. We are asked to vote for this year £1,000 only. But the hon. Member in charge of the Vote has told us that the constitution of this institution is not settled and, therefore, he does not know what is going to happen. Why then should he put down the provisional Estimate of £20,000, and why should he hope to spend £1,000 this year? He seems quite pleased with the idea that he may be able to do that. I do not want him to spend that sum, especially as I do not know to what we shall commit ourselves by voting it. When my hon. Friend, the Member for Sutherland, asked him should we commit ourselves to the expenditure of £20,000 the hon. Gentleman said, "No, we are committed to an expenditure of some sum," and he has just put forward this £1,000 in order to get sanction for the whole work. We do not know whether those alterations will cost more or less than £20,000, and it may be that next year we shall be told that the expenditure will amount to £150,000. If ever there was a justification for moving a reduction of a Vote there is one on this occasion.
    Mr. MORTON: I should like to press my hon. Friend to give us some information as to what he is going to do with this £1,000. I know something about the City of London, and I know there is a mystery in connection with the taking over of this London Institution. A good many of us cannot understand it. We are now asked to vote £1,000 to be spent on we do not know what. It may be cocked hats. I trust my hon. Friend will vouchsafe the information I ask for. I want to know what this £1,000 is for.
    Mr. BENN: It would be of great advantage from the point of view of the Department I represent if we could get to Vote 26 as soon as possible, because I should very much like to deal with the Estimates submitted and the recommendations, many of which have been carried out. The answer to my hon. Friend is that the London Institution, having more or less failed
    688
    to carry out the purpose for which it had been carried on for about 100 years, was wound up by Act of Parliament last year, and the buildings were handed over for the purposes of a school of Oriental languages. This school would be in the City, because that is the most convenient place to teach people Oriental languages. It is a commercial school for teaching all sorts of clerks, commercial travellers, and other people who are going out to the East, as well as missionaries and doctors, and other people of that kind. We do not want to have to wait until next year's Estimates are passed before we get on with this very necessary public work, therefore we ask for £1,000, so that when the body is constituted we may go ahead with the work.
    Mr. MORTON: What work?
    Mr. BENN: Adapting the building. The school is at present a sort of library and lecture hall. We have to adapt it to the purposes of a school. We ask for £1,000, and if next year Parliament does not wish to go on with the work, hon. Members can say, notwithstanding the Provisional Estimate for 1913–14, that they do not desire to go on with the work.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has really given the whole of his case away. My hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees) is very keen on Oriental languages being taught in the best possible centre, the City of London, but supposing this Vote is rejected it will not prevent Oriental languages being taught in the best possible place. The hon. Gentleman says he is not going to do anything with the £1,000, but is going to wait for another year before he does anything. During the year that is to intervene he is going to settle the constitution of this body. Nobody pretends that this £1,000 is going to do anything. You are not going to teach Oriental languages, even in the City of London, for £1,000. If my Amendment is carried the result will be that during the year that is to elapse the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of settling the constitution of this body, and men coming down with a well-developed and considered plan and saying. "I want £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000," and no doubt the House will give it. The idea of taking the £1,000 now—it can be of no use whatever—is to enable the hon. Gentleman to come down next year and say, "You have already authorised this expense which you knew nothing about"—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order, is it the function of the Office of Works to settle the curriculum of a school?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think anyone imagines that the hon. Gentleman, in his many capacities, would go so far as that. We are dealing with a proposal to vote £1,000 for beginning the adaptation of a building for a new purpose.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was only answering the argument of the hon. Gentleman. He did not himself know what the constitution of this body was going to be. He gives that as a reason for only asking for £1,000, and I was answering that point. I was in no way exceeding the proper course of procedure in debate, and I never suggested what the curriculum was going to be. I do not know anything about the curriculum of Oriental languages, and I do not want to. The House must not fall into the error which some hon. Members were evidently going to do, that by refusing this Grant of £1,000 we should be in any way impeding the future of this body. All we should be doing would be to postpone for a year the expenditure of £1,000, which is only a twentieth part of the sum required, and which would have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of bringing his Estimate in in a businesslike manner.
    Colonel YATE: I would appeal to any hon. Friend not to postpone this work for a year. I have been associated with it a good deal all through. For several years we have been trying to get this school. The Prime Minister has now sanctioned it and made all these arrangements, and the school has been handed over, and if it is delayed for another year over a technical point it will be a great pity. I trust it may not be delayed any more.
    Sir J. D. REES: I submit that my hon. Friend has gone on this occasion as near to
    being wrong as it is possible for him to do. Really in his zeal for financial purity, which I most thoroughly share, he has rather overlooked the fact that this provision is for something purely structural. I know the building, and it is perfectly unfitted now for the purpose of a school for Oriental languages. If this Vote is now postponed it will really affect the question, because there will be no money available for making the structural alterations, which are a necessary preliminary to setting these classes going. It is a reproach to this great capital of the Empire that they should not exist, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to let this £1,000 go, and, with his ingenuity, he will have no difficulty whatever in moving a reduction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I really think I must be unable to explain myself. What can my hon. Friend do with a building in Finsbury Circus with £1,000? He cannot even paint and whitewash it.
    Mr. KINGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It may be that the proper course is to sell the building in Finsbury Circus, and with the large sum that it will produce acquire a site in another part of London equally convenient and less expensive.
    Mr. MORTON: Do I understand that we can discuss this on Vote 26?
    The CHAIRMAN: What I said was that the method of settling tenders could be discussed better on the next Vote.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £435,570 be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 181.

    Division No. 24.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Grant, J. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Arnold Ward.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Perkins, Walter

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Adamson, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Barton, W.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Brady, P. J.

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hodge, John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Clough, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Joyce, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crooks, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Roch, Walter F.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Dawes, James Arthur

    King, J.

    Rowlands, James

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, West)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Sheehy, David

    Doris, W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Sutton, John E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Thomas. J. H.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arhur Harold

    Wadsworth, J.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Gill, A. H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Watt, Henry A.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Molloy, M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

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

    Muldoon, John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hackett, J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wing, Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, W. (Perth, E.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Malley, William

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. FELL: On Item No. 9 (Stationery Office—Erection of new buildings in Lambeth), I want to ask should I be in order on this Vote in referring to the Stationery Office? The point I wish to raise is the use of the foreign Dutch material in sending out reports. There are various questions—
    The CHAIRMAN: That will come under the Stationery Vote—not under buildings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are certain items of which I desire to get some explanation. On page 49, there is "Acquisition of interests in certain properties under Public Offices." The total estimate is
    692
    £60,000. There is a star against it, "Provisional Estimate." Why is it not possible to give a more accurate Estimate? Then we have Public Trustee and Lunacy Department, £85,000. The revised Estimate is £113,000. A footnote says, "This was a provisional Estimate and did not include removals and furniture." What removals would cost such a large additional sum, and how could the furniture for a building which is only to cost £85,000 cost £28,000? This new building on a leased site is to cost £149,000. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, and I appeal to him with regard to the expenditure of £149,000 for erecting a building on a leased site, that we ought to have some thorough explanation. Then in con-

    693
    nection with the National Gallery there are some extremely funny items. There are two revised Estimates, amounting to £59,400 and £27,800; in fact the whole of this list consists of original Estimates, which in no way compare with the revised total Estimates. I should like to have some reason for the enormous differences. On page 50 there is something which is the other way. It refers to the Bristol Probate Registry, for which the original total Estimate was £4,000, and the revised Estimate is £2,500. It is a step in the right direction, but a very small one. I should like some explanation of the discrepancies to which I have referred, including the expenditure of £149,000 for a building on a leased site.
    Mr. BENN: In regard to the question of the hon. Baronet as to public offices, the answer is that an arbitration is going on about the price of the land, and obviously we must put in a figure which will cover everything; otherwise we would be giving a hint to the other side. In regard to the Public Trustee and Lunacy Departments, the increased Estimate is because the Public Trustee Department is growing very rapidly, and possibly housing accommodation will be required in connection with the rearrangements. At any rate, in view of the rapid growth of this Department, proper foresight suggests the making of provision to meet that growth. The Lunacy Commissioners are at present accommodated partly at the Law Courts and partly in hired offices. As to the £149,000 for the Stationery Offices, they are being removed from an expensive site to a cheaper site on the Duchy of Cornwall estate in Lambeth. The length of the lease is 200 years.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad of the long lease, but why combine the Public Trustee and the Lunacy Commissioners? I cannot see what connection there is between the two.
    Mr. BENN: It is cheaper.
    Sir F. BANBURY: To mix up the Public Trustee with lunacy is the most absurd answer I ever heard of.

    OFFICE Or WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.—(Class II.).—VOTE 26.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £94,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
    694
    will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the. Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings." [Note.—£55,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: It might seem very ungrateful at this time of night to move the reduction of the First Commissioner's salary by £100, but the hon. Gentleman has proved to-night on that bench that he would not suffer by a reduction, and if he defends this Vote as ably as he has defended his position this afternoon, he will have very little difficulty in disposing of those of us who will occupy the remaining twenty minutes, because I do wish to congratulate him on the very able and efficient way in which he has conducted the business of the Office of Works; and in view of the physical discomforts he has experienced from four o'clock to this time, I think the least the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) ought to do is to arrange for sufficient refreshment after eleven o'clock for the representative of the First Commissioner of Works. The point I wish to raise is one which concerns the capital of Scotland, and, as a matter of fact, the whole of Scotland. It is proposed to build new Government offices in Edinburgh, and to do so on the site of the existing Calton Gaol. That site belongs to the Prison Commissioners, with this reservation, that the city of Edinburgh claim a title in the same site. The First Commissioner was to erect the offices on a design which was placed on exhibition in his office a month or six weeks ago. We protested against that method of erecting the offices, and since then, and I am very much obliged to the First Commissioner for taking up the position, the designs of the building have been thrown open to open competition to all architects in the United Kingdom. Incidentally I may say, speaking for the Scottish architects, we never desired that the building should be confined to their competition. We are perfectly content that the competition should be open to the United Kingdom, and we are quite confident about the result. A point which I think does require and is worthy of consideration, in view of the fact that before the present building will require to be begun the site will have to be cleared, is whether or not an alternative site is not available which would be of greater utility for the purpose.

    695
    The site of the Calton Gaol is limited, and very much restricted by the natural conditions on the east side, and by the existence of a historic cemetery on the west. There are other sites in Edinburgh where those buildings could be erected. I should like to suggest to the First Commissioner through his representative here that it would be a good thing and a wise thing, in view of the approaching existence of a national Parliament in Edinburgh to contrive that on the site there should also be accommodation for a Parliament House adjacent to the offices that will be erected. Therefore, I trust that the question of site will be taken into consideration, and that the question of confining it to the Calton Gaol will remain open. I should like to know what the conditions of the competition are and when those conditions will be announced, and as to whom the First Commissioner has agreed to adjudicate in that competition. In the hope of getting a reply to these questions I will say no more, although there is a great deal more that might be said.
    Lord A. THYNNE: My object in rising is to elicit an assurance, if possible, with regard to the completion of the Admiralty Arch improvement. I am particularly anxious not to say anything to prejudice the very delicate negotiations now pending. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not merely a question of acquiring one or more houses and pulling them down, but the fact that the original line of access has been deflected has created a very difficult architectural problem. I do not say that the problem is impossible, but it will be very difficult of solution, and it is not likely to be solved by lay opinion. I suggest with all respect that the hon. Gentleman should follow the precedent created by the Office of Works in the case of the Quadrant, and appoint an independent expert Committee to advise them as to the best means of solving the problem. In the case of the Quadrant the Office of Works appointed a small Committee composed of Lord Plymouth, Sir Reginald Blomefield—a name very high in the architectural world—Sir John Murray, Sir Henry Tanner, and Sir John Poynter, the President of the Royal Academy. I think that if such a Committee were appointed we should have far more chance of arriving at a satisfactory solution. The appointment of such a Committee would
    696
    not involve any obligation to accept its report and recommendations. If the Committee made recommendations which were too extravagant or too expensive it would always be open to the authorities concerned to modify the report or to carry it out in part. The precedent I have quoted is an exceptionally happy one, in as much as the Committee not only made a recommendation which has commanded the support of the whole of the architectural opinion of this country, but it also paid due regard to the business interests involved. They made a recommendation which it was possible for the Office of Works to accept from a business standpoint, and one which commended itself to the æsthetic opinion of London. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance in this direction.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I wish to support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and to associate myself with his complimentary remarks in regard to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East. It used to be the practice of the Office of Works to put out to open competition all the designs for large and important buildings, that is to say, architects in private practice were employed. The hon. Member will probably inform the Committee that this rule is still observed; yet in answer to a question I put last year, he had to admit that no new buildings designed by outside architects had been commenced since January, 1907. The whole of the work is now being done, without any competition whatever, in the Office of Works, by official architects. The expenditure for new works executed to designs prepared in the Office of Works in the five years ending 31st March, 1912, amounted to over £4,000,000, and the payments for salaries in the same period to £464,000. I quote those figures to show that this is not a small or unimportant matter. We ought to consider whether, under the present system, we get the best buildings from an architectural point of view, and whether it is more economical to have all the work done by official architects than to resort to open competition. The Royal Institute of British Architects has recently been considering the whole question, and the president, in his opening address, speaking of the work of the Office of Works, said:—
    "The architectural work done by the Office of Works is of a very varied nature, but unfortunately very uniform in its architectural character. I want to be

    697
    strictly fair in what I say, but I think the whole of the work done by the Office of Works is poor from an architectural standpoint."
    I maintain, therefore, that if the work produced by the Office of Works is not very good or very cheap, the bulk of it might with advantage be put out to independent architects. Everyone will agree that you are very likely to get first-class buildings by asking eminent architects all over the country to compete. However good and however efficient your official architect may be, he cannot possibly on all occasions produce the best and the most suitable buildings. You only get that by open competition. I see no reason whatever why the official architect should not send in his design with those of the other competitors, and if an impartial tribunal should decide that the official design was the best, then by all means let it be adopted. Quite apart front that, we ought to do our very best to improve architecture in this country. The State ought to do what it can to encourage the architectural profession. Surely that can only be done by giving private architects a chance and by having open competition for all important Government buildings. Neither the First Commissioner nor the hon. Gentleman who represents him so ably in this House are experts so far as architecture is concerned, and unfortunately they are entirely in the hands of their official advisers. A Government official, like every other official, is strongly opposed to private enterprise; he scorns the idea that any private architect's office can produce anything better than the designs produced in the sacred precincts of the Office of Works. This question has recently on two occasions come before the House. The First Commissioner promised to consider the advisability of open competition in the case of Government buildings erected under the Public Offices Sites Act of last year; but nothing was done. I suppose at the present moment these designs are being done in the usual way in the Office of Works. Then, again, in the case of the new Government building to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh referred, and which is to be erected on the Calton Hill site, in Edinburgh, the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, in answer to a question in the House, said that open competition was unnecessary, as they had accepted the design which they considered the best possible for the site. In this case pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman leave me two minutes in which to reply?
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have been endeavouring to raise various points on the Estimates, and I have been assured all these points could be raised on this Vote. In view of the ruling of the Chairman and the eloquence of the hon. Baronet for the City of London, I have not been able to get in earlier.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Might I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I shortened my remarks in order to allow the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East to reply?
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I was saying that with regard to the Calton Hill site pressure was brought to bear upon the hon. Gentleman, and that the design which the First Commissioner considered was the best possible building was abandoned owing to the pressure which was brought to bear upon him by hon. Members from Scotland. I very much regret the same pressure was not brought to bear upon the hon. Gentleman in regard to buildings recently erected in London. I am sorry to say that I am not able to discuss the question of economy to-night, for in my opinion it does not lead to economy to employ official architects. If the hon. Member wishes any information upon that, I ask him to read the Report of the Select Committee upon Estimates which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the City, and he will come to the conclusion that the Office of Works is not managed in an economical way. Therefore, from every point of view I consider that the hon. Member should give some assurance that the Office of Works is going to mend its ways, is going to give outside architects a chance, and is going to throw Government buildings open to competition.
    Mr. BENN: I think I can reply in two or three words. First, in reply to the Noble Lord, I may say that the Office of Works welcome the suggestion which he makes, and I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that the Government will welcome the appointment of such a Committee by the Office of Works to decide what should be done, irrespective of who should do the work.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will they decide that without reference to the House of Commons?
    Mr. BENN: They will not decide it, but they will make suggestions. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Edinburgh for what he has said. We are preparing terms of competition, but we do not propose to vary the site. We consider the site of Calton Hill is in every way the most suitable for the most important building to be erected in the Scottish capital, and we are in negotiation with Sir Robert Lorimer. In reply to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I may say we have appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question he raised, and I might remind him that two most important public buildings—the new Board of Trade and the new Scottish Office—have been put out to competition. I hope the hon. Baronet the Member for
    700
    the City of London will now allow us to get our Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No; the understanding was that we should have an opportunity of discussing the various questions I raised.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 7th April.
    The Orders for the remaining business were read, and postponed.
    Adjourned at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SHARE FISHERMEN.
  SHARE FISHERMEN.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT (IRELAND).
  MEDICAL BENEFIT (IRELAND).
  STATE AND EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  STATE AND EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  LOW-WAGED CONTRIBUTORS.
  LOW-WAGED CONTRIBUTORS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES AND COMMITTEES (EXPENDITURE).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES AND COMMITTEES (EXPENDITURE).
  ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.
  ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.
  SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS.
  SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS.
  Estates Passing at Death.
  Estates Passing at Death.
  Road Board (Grants in Scotland).
  Road Board (Grants in Scotland).
  Secondary and Technical Teachers (Wales).
  Secondary and Technical Teachers (Wales).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Local Authorities, Ireland (Annual Grants).
  Local Authorities, Ireland (Annual Grants).
  Education Inquiry (Ireland).
  Education Inquiry (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Hynes Estate, County Roscommon.
  Hynes Estate, County Roscommon.
  Estates Commissioners (Ireland).
  Estates Commissioners (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
BRITISH ARMY.
  NATIONAL RESERVE (RIFLE PRACTICE).
  NATIONAL RESERVE (RIFLE PRACTICE).
  Coal Output (United Kingdom).
  Coal Output (United Kingdom).
  State Loans to Fishermen.
  State Loans to Fishermen.
  High Courts of Justice (Sittings).
  High Courts of Justice (Sittings).
  Small-pox (England and Wales).
  Small-pox (England and Wales).
  Deaths from Starvation.
  Deaths from Starvation.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Telephone Construction Work.
  Telephone Construction Work.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS BILL).
  (Petition for additional Provision.)
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

  SLOUGH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

  NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.