Sitting of 13 June 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dundee Corporation (Improvements and Tramways) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be, considered upon Monday next.
Colne Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Silloth Gas Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Southampton Harbour Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Halkyn District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Burgh and Parochial Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund (Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Caledonian Railway." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next.

FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
Copy presented of Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1912 to the 31st March, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Flavin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 151.]
LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Flavin] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 153.]
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 TO 1908.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 12th June; Mr. Ellis Griffith]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 154.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Dogs (Protection) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Scott Dickson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Edmund Harvey, and. Sir Henry Craik.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Murphy and Mr. Charles Duncan; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Dogs (Protection) Bill): Mr. Lynch and Mr. Wardle.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY [5th June].—REPORT.
    ARMY ESTIMATES. 1913–14.

      PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY (VOTE 1).
      Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,623,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I hope that the House will permit me to intervene in only a few sentences to say with what poignant regret we all feel that there is a gap in our ranks. For many years past there never has been an Army Debate at which Mr. George Wyndham has not been present. It is, indeed, a tragic thing that today should be the day when the last sad service to his memory is being held in this country. Mr. Wyndham brought to our Debates on military matters great knowledge—for he had served in the Army, both in peace and war, with great distinction—an unfailing tact, great industry, and, while he had also a determination to point out weak places, a complete absence of partisanship and of bitterness. It is, indeed, perhaps one of the strongest tributes to his memory in this regard, that although he was such an eloquent man, and although he could illumine all he touched in Debate, yet in dealing with Army affairs he constantly would concentrate the attention of the House on matters which might seem to those who were not acquainted with the subject to be matters of comparative detail, but it was because he knew what was really necessary for the British Army, working within the limits within which we do work; and I think we can truly say this, that those who know most about the Army are agreed that the fact of Mr. Wyndham's presence in this House, and not only his administration at the War Office, but the speeches which he has made here, have all tended to improve the Army. I do not wish to detain the House, but, speaking as Secretary of State for War, I hope that the House will not be sorry that I should be permitted to pay
      1942
      this tribute to his memory. He "nothing common did nor mean" in this or in any other respect, and in him this House loses one who added greatly to its knowledge. Certainly the administration of the War Office loses one whom the War Office learned to love, for he was their valiant champion and defender, and, above all, the Army loses one who will always be remembered as a very brave and faithful soldier.
      Major WILLOUGHBY: Before we vote the pay of the officers and men, I feel sure it will be agreed that we require to get the fullest numbers and the greatest efficiency possible in return for the expenditure incurred. I have frequently addressed the House on this subject, and on this occasion I would point out that it is to be feared that this year the proportion of trained soldiers and Reservists that we ought to have will be less, unless we do something to obtain a greater number of men. Neither those who have any experience of the Army, nor the military advisers of the right hon. Gentleman, would say that it would be to the advantage of our Army not to have a greater number of trained soldiers in our first line when mobilisation should be found necessary. I ask Members of the House to impress upon the Secretary for War the necessity for adopting methods of recruiting in order to fill up the numbers we have voted, the establishment having fallen below its strength. The right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it would not be advisable to do something by which to retain with the Colours men who have not quite finished their service, instead of letting them go earlier, as is sometimes done. The Secretary for War should also consider the advisability of letting continue those men who are willing to extend their services, seeing that at the present time recruiting is slack. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War quoted the words of Lord Nelson, "One volunteer is better than ten pressed men." In making that statement Lord Nelson was somewhat unkind to those who served under him, because under his command they performed one of the greatest feats in the annals of our country. Any Britisher, when the necessity arises, is ready to defend the honour of his country and his flag. I personally do not favour compulsion. I think it is far better to have the service of men who render it voluntarily, though I know that a period of good trade, when employment is more easily obtained and wages

      1943
      are better, reduces the number of recruits and makes recruiting slack. But I do say that, if we are to have a voluntary system, I, for one, wish to do all I can to encourage it. I submit that the Government ought not to be too economical where it is a question of allowing men to continue in the Service. Where men can be obtained who wish to serve in the Army as a profession they ought to have the assurance that at the end of their career they will not find themselves in want and misery, as many of our old soldiers are to-day. This year, I would point out to the Secretary for War, recruiting is likely to fall below the minimum, which is a very small one and ought to be increased, and I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that methods should be adopted whereby a greater number of men who are anxious to serve their country may be induced to remain in the Army and extend their service.
      Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I should like, before proceeding to a consideration of the Vote, to associate myself with the Secretary for War in his expression of sympathy and regret in the loss which the country has sustained by the death of Mr. Wyndham, a former Secretary of State for War, with whom I had many an argument across the floor of this House, and everything that the Secretary for War has said of him I know to be absolutely true. In regard to the Vote, on the question of additional pay, in order to encourage recruiting, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken will find how difficult it is—
      Major WILLOUGHBY: I did not say anything about additional pay.
      Sir C. WARNER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of additional encouragement, or liberality, or something of that kind, but I apologise if I misunderstood him. I have found, in an experience of many years, that there is only one way in which to encourage recruiting to any considerable extent, and that is to go back to the equivalent, of the shilling given to the recruit in former days, when the shilling had greater value than at present. If in these days 5s. or 10s. were given to a recruit, I believe that a great many more recruits would be obtained than are got at present. Many a young man would be willing to join the Army if he could obtain a sum which would enable him to pay some debt of a few
      1944
      shillings or assist his wife and children. In regard to one point to which I wish to call attention, namely, the reduction of honorary posts, something has been done, but I would point out that those honorary posts, while they do not involve much work, do involve considerable pay. I think a little more might be done, and that more generals in full pay should be doing some active work in organising the Army, while there should be fewer of those honorary posts. Some practical economy still remains to be effected in that direction, and I think some economies might be made in respect of the higher-grade officers who are now getting full pay. Another question is the proportion of guns in the Army, I think we are still behind foreign countries in regard to the proportion of Artillery—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not come under this Vote.
      Sir C. WARNER: I bow to your ruling, Sir; I thought it came under the same Vote. I desire also to draw attention to the question of the Flying Corps. The pay for them is, I notice, considerably more than the pay for the Engineers and others, but we have to consider the enormous risks these men take and the enormous danger there is. We have been very fortunate in this country and had fewer accidents than foreign countries. Though the danger may appear less, there is no doubt about it that every man who goes up in a flying machine risks his life and deserves not only a little extra pay, but very considerable extra pay and consideration. There ought to be special provision for accidents, because he is injured under the same conditions practically that he would be in active service. Special pensions and special allowances ought to be made for the widows and children of the men who lose their lives in flying, and I do not think the pay is quite sufficient even now for the men who are actually running these risks. It may be said that the colonel receives £800 per year, and that that is very good pay for what he is actually doing, but he has gone through a very critical and dangerous experience in getting that amount of knowledge which gives him safety in the air, while the lower grades, who go up for the first or second time to manage a flying machine, though they have every possible instruction, are in the same difficulty and danger in which the higher grades are. I do

      1945
      plead with the Secretary of State to consider the enormous risks. I was asking the other day after a friend of mine who has got a high position in the Flying Corps, and whom I had known as a subaltern, and I was told, "He looks rather wild; very much drawn, and as if he had an anxious time." No doubt when a man is put in control of an aviation school or anything of that sort the strain and anxiety is something tremendous, and he deserves some special treatment. I know brevet rank confers a certain amount of extra, pay, but that does not compensate for the enormous strain in controlling what is, in fact, a scientific department, and the worry and danger and trouble of thinking not only of his own life but the numbers of lives of those serving under him. Therefore, I do ask the Secretary of State to consider these particular items. There is another, matter to which I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, and that is to see if in future the Reserve cannot be increased by some small sum so as to strengthen the National Reserve, which has no money spent on it. There are men at present who have got all the qualifications, having been well trained. I heard of a case only yesterday of a man who served eighteen years in the Army and who is forty-one years of age. He could not have any military employment or any pay from the Government as retention, and was simply in the National Reserve. Such a man as that would certainly be a great addition, if some small Grant were given to encourage the National Reserve. Though I do not put it as strongly as a correspondent of mine in a letter in which he said that the Territorials might be done away with altogether if they only had the National Reserve properly looked after, I do think they are a body of men that ought to be seen in the Army Estimates, and ought to be considered and something done for them.
      Mr. AMERY: I should like to join in the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the memory of Mr. Wyndham. I think the small band of Unionist Members who in recent Sessions have worked at the cause of Army reform owe a great deal to his leadership in this matter. Again and again in Debates he has summed up brilliantly and clearly the various arguments from our different points of view. Also outside of this House many of us owe a great deal to his encouragement and sympathy in trying to study the question of the Army. As one of those who owe a
      1946
      great deal to Mr. Wyndham in the matter, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman one thing that struck me in all his consideration of Army questions was the single-mindedness with which he was always concerned with the question of really securing military efficiency, and the entire absence of a mere desire to embarrass or annoy the present occupants of the War Office. 1f I might add one word it is this, that those of us who are interested in Army affairs must remember that his death is not the only loss we have suffered in the course of this Administration. I would like to remind the House of that other great loss, sustained in the death of Mr. Arnold-Forster—another man who gave such single-minded work to the cause of the Army, and who literally wore out his life in working for that cause.
      I desire to refer again to one or two points, as to which I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the position of the officers and members of the Aviation Corps, which figures on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that last year and again in the Debates in March, I asked him to consider very carefully whether the position of those officers and men in the framework of the Army should not be one of direct subordination to the General Staff. I urged on those occasions, and I need not repeat the details, that the main work of the Aviation Corps will be to collect intelligence, and that that work is most particularly associated with the functions of the General Staff. Further, I urged that this new discovery and new element introduced into war is bound to modify entirely, sooner or later, the whole system of tactics of the different arms, and such questions as the use of Cavalry, and all those questions are bound to be considered very carefully by the General Staff. During the whole of this period of transition, during which the art of aviation is developing, it is most imperative that the Flying Corps and the General Staff should be most closely associated. I hope I may have from the right hon. Gentleman a clear satisfactory assurance, because he did give me very considerable hopes when I raised the question before, that the Aviation Corps will be directly under the General Staff. Closely associated with that, I would like to urge that the provision of the necessary money for training officers and men in aviation should not be confined to the Regular Army in this country, but

      1947
      should be extended to the Regular Army in South Africa and other parts of the Empire. I urge this, not only because very valuable experience may be gained in aviation in other climes and under other conditions, but also because it is going to be an essential feature of modern military training that troops should be trained in the presence of and in combination with aeroplanes, and should understand what it is to be flown over and to work in co-operation with them. Therefore I would urge that as soon as possible the necessary provision should be placed on the Estimates for training in aviation officers and men in South Africa, in India, and wherever there are troops. The same applies with regard to the Territorial Force here. In the general Debate in Committee, hon. Friends of mine repeatedly urged from the general point of view of effectiveness of defence, the futility of having a Territorial Force without equipping it with the necessary complement of aeroplanes. I would urge on this occasion the necessity of making that provision in order to make the training of the Territorial Force a reality.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Territorial Force comes on Vote 4, and the materiel for aviation which the Territorial Force might use would fall on Vote 9. Therefore neither of those aspects of the question can be raised on this Vote.
      Mr. AMERY: I thought I was keeping myself within the provision of money for the pay of officers and men of the Aviation Corps. I will not pursue the point further. The point raised in a previous Debate by the hon. Member for Sunderland as to the necessity in making provision for this corps that the War Office should be generous, is well worth urging again. I regret that in his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland the Under Secretary for War was distinctly unsympathetic. His whole view was that you should not add too much to the non effective Votes. We are not discussing non-effective Votes to-day. But on the question whether or not those who serve their country should be treated generously, it is necessary to remind the House that not only are there the non-effective Votes, strictly so called, but that a very large non-effective Vote is included in the Vote now under discussion. I mean that unless you treat your officers and men, particularly your men, gener-
      1948
      ously, you do not get the material that you require, and therefore a large part of the money spent on pay to-day is devoted to the pay of men who are not effective. A very large number of the men on this Vote are non-effective. The moment mobilisation comes, you have, owing to the extreme youth at which you enlist your troops and to the difficulty of maintaining a sufficient physical standard, to reject and leave behind an immensely high proportion of the men whom you are paying under this Vote. Therefore, for all purposes of efficiency and economy, a large part of this Vote is non-effective. It is most essential that something should be done to induce to enlist men of a better class physically and at a somewhat riper age, so that when you mobilise you might achieve the end urged just now by my hon. Friend, namely, that a really substantial proportion of your serving troops should be able to take the field, and that you should not have to make up the units with a very large proportion of Reserves. We have not only to consider the present extent of the Vote; there is also the question of the future. If we are to deal adequately with the Army from the point of view of the future, we shall be confronted with a very different state of things with regard to this Vote for the pay of officers and men of the Regular Forces.
      This is not a Debate in which we can discuss the question of the Territorial Force, but I may say that when that question comes to be dealt with, whatever solution is found for providing an adequate force for the defence of this country, that solution will react upon the Vote we, are now discussing, and will affect the amount of money we shall have to vote for the Regular Army. Admitting, as I think everyone does, that the present and prospective condition of the Territorial Force is hopeless, admitting that you have to find a solution, you must consider what effect that would have upon the Regular Army and upon the amount of money provided therefor. To my mind, any solution which aims at providing a Home Defence Army on the pay basis—and I do not think that that is an impossible basis—as distinguished from national service, will mean, in view of the class of men you will have to attract, an entirely different rate of pay from that now offered to the Army. The number of men that you can attract at 1s. or 1s. 6d. is strictly limited, and you are not getting them to-day. The moment you

      1949
      try to remedy the condition of the Territorial Force by offering really adequate compensation for the time given to training you will be confronted with the rivalry which you yourselves create with the Regular Army, and you will be compelled to raise substantially the pay of the Regular Forces. After having gone into calculations very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that if you dealt with the problem of Home Defence on the voluntary pay basis it would involve increased Estimates, not only for the voluntary Territorial Force, but more particularly for the Regular Army and Special Reserve, and to same extent for the Navy, of anything from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year. On the other hand, I believe that if you introduced a system of national service for the Home Defence Force, under which you would bring in contact with the art of war large sections of people who are not brought in contact with it to-day, you would get a much greater stimulus to recruiting. You would probably get a much larger percentage of men with some element of training and of a better physique joining the Regular Army, and the present Vote for the pay and establishment of the Regular troops would to a much larger extent than to-day be an effective Vote, and to a much smaller extent a Vote for the pay of boys while they are growing up into men adequate and fit to serve the country in war.
      With regard to the pay of officers, we all welcome the promises—I wish they were to be fulfilled at once—made by the Secretary of State. At the same time I confess it does not seem to me that what he has offered is by any means adequate to the needs of the Army. After all, we have always got to consider, in dealing with the question of officers, that the Regular Army does not exhaust the number of troops we should have to put in the field in any great war. We cannot have more than a comparatively small Regular Army. As South Africa taught us, and as the Elgin Commission reported after that war, one of the essential features of our whole system has always been the possibility of a large expansion in the time of a great war. Within certain limits the men can be improvised. You cannot improvise officers, still less a General Staff. Therefore it seems to me to be essential that we should hold out special inducements, not merely to get just a bare sufficiency of officers for the Regular Army and a bare sufficiency for the staff for the Divisions, as they are distributed in the United Kingdom to-day;
      1950
      we must have a real surplus of officers, and above all, a surplus of men who have taken pains to study and qualify themselves for staff work. Therefore, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider in the near future whether the additions he has proposed to the pay of the officers should not be still further increased and made still more substantial; and more particularly, that there should be a real substantial reward given to those officers who qualify themselves for staff work. It is quite true that those officers who get staff appointments do get better pay to-day; but what is required is that those officers who qualify and do not get staff appointments, but go back to ordinary regimental work and pay, and have no return at all at present except a vague prospect of future appointment for the pains they have taken, should get an immediate and adequate return for their work.
      Apart from these points that I wish to raise, there always remains behind the general question as to what extent the whole Vote at present is not largely ineffective because our Army policy has never been adequately thought out. Again and again in these Debates we on this side of the House have asked the Secretary for War what really the Army is for; by what standard of military necessity in war the strength of its various parts are determined? Why do we provide for an Expeditionary Force of six Divisions? We have never been told. Are six Divisions adequate? If not, we are not spending enough. They may be much more than adequate; in that case the £10,000,000 spent under this Vote may be wholly excessive. It seems essential to economy in this matter, as in every other business, that we should really know what we are driving at; for what purpose the Army is required. This was the question that Mr. Wyndham so often urged in these Debates. We have not yet had a clear answer, either from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor or from the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do submit that we should have an answer to that question.
      Mr. J. WARD: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into abstract questions on the policy, which are entirely out of my comprehension; but I do want briefly to support the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened to-day's discussion; the suggestion being that if we are bound up with the voluntary system that we support, and which Labour men

      1951
      all over the country insist upon supporting—if it is to be made a success, unquestionably economy in the pay of the men is a thing almost impossible. It is quite clear, if we are going to maintain our voluntary system against the attacks of those who wish to have a system of conscription or compulsion, that we can only do that if we pay the Army well. We have either to have compulsion or to pay. That is exactly the situation. One has to consider the reports one gets, and letters such as I have sent to the War Office claiming pensions for men who have served twelve or thirteen years with the Colours—may be several of those years abroad—with health impaired and some of the best years of their life given to the Service, with absolutely no prospect of saving anything—indeed, it is a moral certainty that both the ordinary private or the noncommissioned officer can just live—these men, I say, having not gone the full time for a pension, find themselves unable to return to civil life as ordinary workers. It is a very great hardship that the Regulations are so framed as to preclude consideration of cases like these. It is a condition of affairs that voluntaryists are bound to take into consideration. No matter what the expenditure may be, they are bound to face it. It is useless to imagine that we can go on as at present, especially as our countrymen become more intelligent and more educated. The men from whom we draw recruits are a different class even to twenty years ago. They have been taught in the schools. A boy now at sixteen or seventeen, even amongst the poorest of the poor, wants to see his way to a career. The pay of the private soldier should be shaped so that the youth sees his way to earning a living as he would ordinarily. It is evident there is no way between paying the soldier a decent wage or compelling men to serve. There is no alternative. The economists of the Army, and at headquarters, and those even who preached economy from these benches in the actual pay of the soldier, are the real conscriptionists. You cannot maintain the voluntary system in a great industrial community like ours—I dare say you might do it in an agrarian population—but you cannot in a community like ours expect to get hundreds of thousands of capable men transferring their services to the Army unless they are paid a decent wage while they are serving, with a fair prospect after leaving of at least securing a
      1952
      minimum of comfort. The Army Council would be well advised to take this subject into consideration.
      I do not take any notice of the criticisms as to they youth of the Army. I myself was serving at the front at nineteen. There are plenty of good, capable men at that age—apart from physically deficient youths that it would take the Army some considerable time to make efficient soldiers of—but mere youth is not a sufficient criterion to decide as to efficiency. Some young men at eighteen or twenty are as good soldiers as ever they will be at any time. As a matter of fact, as long as a man is physically fit and has the right training it is a moral certainty that anything above seventeen years of age is a good age for the soldier.
      With reference to one point, whether the amounts paid to the soldier for removal from one place to another is sufficient or not, I should like to mention this: I was travelling in a train some time ago with a gang of soldiers. They were non-coms., being transferred from one place to another. They had no idea of who I was, and they talked quite freely of the number of time they were shifted and the miserable sums they were paid. I never entered into any conversation with them, but I only wish the Secretary of State for War had been there to hear that discussion. The sums paid them for shifting their wives and families from place to place were too absurd for words. They could not move for it with a donkey or by any other means, and it is little grievances such as this that are really important in matters of this kind. I have always taken an interest in these affairs. I suppose the influence of the Army and Navy is like hydrophobia, once you have any connection with it you never lose your interest in it; it fastens itself upon you and you are forced to take an interest in it afterwards. These men were asking one another what they received, and I heard sums, which I will not mention, which they were allowed for the removing of their wives and families from one place to another. I am not sure they amounted to the railway fares. It is things like that that really requires investigation. When it comes to fighting, if the non-coms are deficient or discontented, the whole thing is up. It is a disgrace that a great wealthy country like ours should employ men and put aside some hundreds of thousands of men for our defences and for the defence of our territories and the maintenance of law and order within the

      1953
      Empire so that our commerce, trade, and interests might be protected and go on without interruption, and that we should haggle about paying them a miserable 1d. or 2d. a week extra. It is a disgrace that matters of this kind should be allowed to continue. Whatever may be said about equipment, one thing is certain, there is no middle course between paying the men of the Army better and compulsory service, and undoubtedly better pay is the way out of the difficulty. We cannot go on with the voluntary system when wages rise, and when we are improving the status of our working classes, from whom the soldiers come, and succeed in getting soldiers for the same rates of pay as those of twenty years ago. It is absurd to imagine it can be done, and the sooner the situation is changed the better for every-body concerned.
      1.0 P.M.
      Sir CHARLES HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when he introduced the Army Estimates, made the announcement that he proposed to grant special extra pay to some of the lower ranks and the non-commissioned officers. I think that statement was received not only with satisfaction throughout the Army, but also by nearly every Member who sits in this House. Although I do not agree with a good deal of the administration of the Secretary of State for War, I congratulate him most heartily upon having made this announcement, and having done something which had not been done by any Secretary of State for War for the last 108 years, because the present pay of the Army officer of the junior ranks is no longer a living wage, and bears no comparison not only with the increased cost of living but to the pay given in nearly every other profession. In fact, the subaltern officer at the present moment is not receiving as good pay as the driver of a London County Council tram. Let us see what this grant of extra pay is really to amount to. I do not say am quite correct, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong as to what he means to do with regard to the pay of the officers. It is a most curious thing that one of the most important things the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his statement has hardly been touched upon at all in the course of the Debate except by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham (Mr. Amery). I think I may divide what the right hon.
      1954
      Gentleman said into two categories: First, increase of pay in the junior commissioned ranks, also senior majors and colonels, and special grants to those non-commissioned officers promoted from the ranks. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes doing as regards the subaltern is that he should receive after two years' service an increase in pay of 2s. 6d. per diem; the rank of second lieutenant is to be abolished altogether; captains, after three years' service, are to receive 3s. per diem; majors, after twenty-four years' service, an increase of 2s.; lieutenant-colonels commanding, an increase of from 3s. to 5s. This total increase was to amount to between £100,000 and £150,000 a year. I do not quite understand why the increase is not more accurately estimated. It is surely well known how many officers there are in each one of those ranks, and it seems rather a large margin. I thought the Secretary of State said it would cost £136,000. I have very little to say to the right hon. Gentleman about the increase in the pay of the officers, except to congratulate him on having proposed it.
      The other statement on which I shall have something to say is as to the extra, amount granted to the non-commissioned officers promoted to the commissioned ranks. In this case it is proposed to grant £150 on promotion instead of £100, and also to make what the right hon. Gentleman calls "Secretary of State scholarships," which are to be given to these men for the first three years of service, amounting to £50 each. I do not think that £150 grant for a man joining the commissioned ranks is sufficient, because the noncommissioned officer has to find the whole of his uniform and barrack furniture and a thousand and one other things. I should prefer to see this sum very considerably increased, particularly if the non-commissioned officer has to go to India, where the conditions are totally different. I think, considering the higher scale of pay which the officer gets in India, these officers would be glad to go out there.
      If the officers are allowed to count their service in the ranks as service afterwards, I should like to know if they are allowed to count their service in the ranks for pensions. That would place them on an unfair status as regards the other commissioned officers. Although I am in favour of noncommissioned officers being promoted to commissioned ranks, I foresee a very considerable danger in making this promotion too easy, because you will find a great

      1955
      many men, owing to the enormous expense of training their sons for the Army, will take the opportunity of sending them into the Army through the ranks. I do not say that the officer who has been trained in the ranks is not a good soldier, but. I do not think he is equal to the officer who has had two years' training at Sandhurst, and it is important that we should not interfere with the status of those officers. We have lately spent very large sums indeed in practically rebuilding the whole military college at Sandhurst. I believe it now contains 750 semi-officers who will train there for two years, and there is no doubt that the officer who has gone through two years at Sandhurst, and has obtained a knowledge of fortifications, tactics, and other branches of military science, is an infinitely better officer than the man who comes from the ranks. I foresee a very considerable danger if entry into the Army is made too easy from the ranks.
      As regards the scholarship branch of £50 a year, I think it would be better if those grants were open to all the subalterns of the Army. By all means give special grants of £50 a year to any officer who is thoroughly qualified in any branch of the scientific sections, or in the French or German language. It is the men with great ability who will probably gain those scholarships, but it should not be confined to them, and they ought to be open to all the other branches of the Service. I wish to say a word or two about the staff. I put forward a very strong plea that there should be an extra grant made to these officers who have passed and qualified themselves as staff officers. I know that this is not so popular in the Army as increasing the pay of the officers all through the branches of the Service, but at the same time we have to realise that the staff college officer is an absolute necessity in time of war. He has to go through a very special training, and their numbers are very limited, and although you may make an officer of a man of ordinary ability, you cannot make a staff college officer of him. Very often when you have got your man trained he has not the aptitude for staff work. During active service most of the responsibility generally falls on the staff trained officers, and if we could only know what actually happened in the recent war in Turkey, I think you would find that the success of the
      1956
      Bulgarians was entirely owing to the fact that their staff officers were able to mobilise and mass their troops in large numbers where they were required.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The subject which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing with would more appropriately come on the Military Education Vote.
      Colonel BURN: I find that I am able to travel a certain distance with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) in regard to what he has said. At the same time, however, I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, who, whenever a demand is made for some reform in the Army that costs money, will probably meet with a blank refusal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the difficulty as to the future of the soldier may be got over, not by increasing his pay, but possibly by offering him some inducement in the future. I firmly believe, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point, he will be able to induce the best class of recruit to offer himself for enlistment in the Army. The position of the soldier on discharge is one that we very often deplore. When a man enlists, I do not for one moment believe that he considers deferred pay or gratuities that will be given to him on the completion of his term of service. I do not think he enters into that, but if some opportunity were given to the soldiers in their spare time during certain periods of the year of learning a trade in order to fit them for obtaining a livelihood at the completion of their service, I think it would have a very valuable effect in the direction of inducing the right class of recruit to offer himself for Army service. If, in addition to that, certain positions in Government offices like the Post Office and the police were to be offered as an inducement to those who enlist, then I think the difficulty in that way will be very greatly minimised.
      With regard to the men who enlist for twelve years' service, at the end of that time only 10 per cent. of the twelve years men are allowed to continue on and complete their twenty-one years' service. I understand that the reason for this is that the Secretary for War desires that the Reserve should accumulate, but at the same time those twelve years men are the soldiers whom the officers desire to remain in the regiment, because they are a very valuable addition to the British Army. If a man serves his country faithfully and well and conducts himself properly during

      1957
      his service, then I do think that he has a great claim on the State, and, though I am grateful for what has been done already for those men, I still think that something more might be done in the future, and, if it is sympathetically done, I feel that the difficulty in that respect will be considerably diminished.
      I wish to say a few words on the question of the Mounted Infantry School. The Mounted Infantry has been a very valuable force under certain conditions and on certain occasions. It has been an excellent force when fighting uncivilised troops, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any experienced Army officer would tell us that the Mounted Infantry can be used against modern Continental troops. The opportunities on which it could be used would be comparatively few. We know that in South Africa it did valuable service, but the Boers were masters of the art of using Mounted Infantry. Their ponies were beautifully trained and would stand fire and everything. The Boer Army was composed principally of Mounted Infantry. We keep up this Mounted Infantry School and send officers and men there for instruction. We take away our best and smartest officers and men in order that they may be instructed in Mounted Infantry. Every commanding officer of an Infantry regiment would tell you that his regiment is decidedly weakened by these men being taken away, and I very much doubt if the result justifies the expense. The Mounted Infantry officer or soldier is supposed to be able to perform all the duties of a Cavalry soldier. If you can train a man in that short time as a Cavalry soldier, what is the good of keeping up the Cavalry at all? I think myself that if the money voted for the Mounted Infantry Instruction School were devoted to the extension of the Cavalry School, either the Central Cavalry School or the other Cavalry Schools, one of which might very well be in Ireland and the others in suitable places where the ground is fitted for Cavalry manœuvres, it would certainly be a great assistance generally to the instruction of Cavalry officers. We have a small number of Cavalry soldiers, and we want the best and most efficient, and at these schools they certainly can be taught and receive all the valuable information for the higher training of a Cavalry officer. I am sure that anything we could do to increase the efficiency of our Cavalry officers and men would be very valuable to the British Army as a whole.
      1958
      If we can save money on any of these heads, I am sure anyone who is really interested in the Army would be very glad to see some steps taken to call for a mobilisation. We want to know exactly on what we can count. Many of us would like to see how we stand, so that we could know what force, in the event of war being declared, we should be able to command. I think that it would be very much more satisfactory from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Members of the House to know what our position would really be. I see that in the Vote we are discussing to-day there is a decrease of £3,000 for field training. I hope that there is some good reason for this decrease, because we do not get too much of these minor operations or manœuvres in this country, and in my opinion it is cheeseparing economy to lessen the amount of this training. I am very glad to see that the Army Reserve is to be increased by 6,000 men, because these Reserves, in case of an Expeditionary Force being called abroad, would be a very valuable addition to the Army. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of this House can look on the National Reserve as a real reserve in the sense that the men will be fitted to join the ranks in the event of our Expeditionary Force being ordered abroad. Many of them have never been in the Army at all, and they get, no training year after year. How can men without uniform, without officers, and without training be fit to take their place in the Army to face a Continental foe? I can quite see that you might in times of invasion make considerable use of them as orderlies.
      Colonel SEELY: On a point of Order. There does not appear to be anything in this Vote relating to the National Reserve. If that is so, my hon. Friend, when he comes to sneak, would not be able to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point, and it would seem rather discourteous.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is so.
      Colonel BURN: I will not pursue that any further. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield (Sir T. Courtenay Warner) spoke of highly-paid appointments which he thought might be done away with. I am sure that the right, hon. Gentleman, or indeed any Member on that bench, knows that there are not many of these appointments available at the present time, and I do not know of a single

      1959
      appointment where the officer does not thoroughly earn the pay that he gets. I think perhaps the hon. Member did not realise that the Army is not a profession in which you expect to make very much money, and, if an officer who has served well gets a good position in his more mature years, I feel certain that he thoroughly deserves it, and moreover, that the work that he does justifies the appointment. There is one appointment about which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and that is the Inspector-General of Oversea Forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the appointment is justified by the work that is done by the Inspector-General. In the British Army we have a regular system which is carried out, whether in Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar, or India, and I do not think that any general officer commanding in any district would start a new system of drills or of anything to do with the Army; therefore I do not see what this Inspector-General can do. I feel that economies might be effected in connection with the appointment and that the money now expended on it might be devoted to something which would be of more service to the Army and to the country generally. I mention these points hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to them. In anything that I say about the Army I speak entirely from a non-party point of view. I consider that the Army, as well as the Navy, ought never to be in the political arena to be shuttlecocked about, and I shall always be glad to co-operate in any way I possibly can in promoting the efficiency of the Army generally.
      Captain JESSEL: We on this side of the House listened with very great attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). I have always been under the impression that the hon. Member was a great upholder of the voluntary system, and, in common with many of his friends who sit upon those benches, deadly opposed to any form of conscription. If he is such a stalwart supporter of the voluntary system I think he has given very poor service to that cause by telling such a dark and dismal tale of the fate of any private soldier who enters the Army. I would like to remind the hon. Member and those who agree with him that it is not so many years ago the pay of the private soldier was raised by about 50 per cent. It is true that the
      1960
      actual pay is the same as it was, but great facilities have been given in other directions, and I believe I am not far wrong in my statement that, in recent years, the pay of the private soldier has been raised to the extent I stated. In addition to that there are the much greater opportunities which are now afforded to the private soldier of getting on when he leaves the Army. Owing to the Regulations laid down by the War Office considerable time and trouble are now expended in the training of men and in teaching them trades when they are not occupied on their military duties. I admit that more might be done, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great deal has been accomplished, and I know there are a great many men from all branches of the Service who are now filling very good positions in private life, driving motors and mechanical vehicles of that description.
      There was, however, one point on which I had considerable sympathy with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke, and that was when he talked of the insufficiency of the travelling allowances and the amount for luggage allowed, not only to non-commissioned officers but to the men of the Army, when they change their quarters from place to place. That not only affects the men, but it also affects the officers. These are little points, but, in the aggregate, they represent a considerable amount of saving to the War Office, and they cause a great deal of discontent in the Army. As the hon. Member for Stoke has pointed out, when such matters are discussed in public places people are rather inclined to think that the Army is not all that it is painted, and that there are many causes of complaint. I think in that respect, as well as in regard to questions of pay and pension, where men not very well educated make claims and are disqualified on some technical ground of a minor character, the War Office would be well advised not to take too harsh or strict a view of the position. It is these small points which cause so much grumbling among all ranks in the Army. I cannot agree with the hon. Member in his contention that the position of the private soldier or of the non-commissioned officer, who now, owing to the concession granted by the Secretary for War, may aspire to be an officer, compares at all unfavourably with that of men in civil life. The hon. and gallant Member who last spoke said that if the Secretary of State for War put forward propositions

      1961
      they were always refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that that has not been the case in regard to the present Secretary for War. He has succeeded in getting from the Treasury a considerable increase of pay for the officers of the Army, and on that I think he is to be greatly congratulated, because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bath, he is the first Secretary for War who has done anything of the kind for over a hundred years, and I may tell him that the officers in the Army will always appreciate the fact that he has been the first to recognise their position in this matter.
      I am glad to see the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner), who takes such a great interest in Army matters, is in his place. He talked about the number of high officers in the Army who had nothing to do. With the exception, perhaps, of the Inspector-General for the Mediterranean, a post on which we think the money is not particularly well spent, I cannot understand to what class of officers the hon. Baronet refers. The late Secretary for War took considerable pride in the fact, in his speeches on the Army Estimates, that he had greatly improved the prospects of officers in the Army by providing so many more posts, and it was for that reason that he resisted the efforts that were being made on this side of the House to get more pay for the officers. But he provided more posts for the Army because there has been a great deal more to do in recent years, and the appointment of more officers of higher rank has been necessitated by the reorganisation of the Volunteer Force and the creation of the Territorial Force. We have a splendid staff in that Territorial Force—general officers, divisional officers, brigadiers and brigade-majors—but they constitute a necessary staff for the Territorial Army, and this, of course, has given more opportunities for officers in the Army to obtain promotion. I think they were necessitated by the admirable reorganisation effected by the late Secretary for War when the Volunteer Force was converted into the Territorial Force. In these circumstances the hon. Baronet is not quite justified in saying that there are a good many officers of high rank appointed who have nothing to do. I think he will find they are fully employed. As to the question of the higher appointments in the staff, I am glad for the sake of the officers in the
      1962
      Army that there are these appointments, because it is a greater inducement to a man to take up the profession of officer in the Army if he knows these higher appointments are to be obtained. I cannot agree with the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) or the hon. Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne) that a certain number of the appointments which are going to be given to officers of the Army should be ear-marked for those who have passed through the Staff College. I have the greatest respect for education and for officers who are sufficiently able to pass the difficult examinations of the Staff College, but having arrived at the Staff College, the chances of a man who gets the magic letters indicating that he has passed Staff College after his name are far greater than those of any other officers in the Army. All the great plums and billets in the Army are available to him, and the unfortunate regimental officer, who may be an equally good soldier but has not sufficient educational accomplishments, is told, "No, you cannot have this or that, because you have not passed Staff College." I think these officers have sufficient advantages given to them after passing Staff College, and they should not have, ipso facto, extra pay for the reason that they have passed Staff College. The hon. Member for Bath admitted that if a man had passed through Staff College and taken up a post, it was his own fault if he did not get on; therefore I cannot see on what ground he makes out his claim for officers who fail when they have been appointed to particular posts, or that there should of necessity be higher pay for those who have passed Staff College.
      The other point to which I wish to direct attention is one often raised in this House, that is the question of the pay of the Inspector-General of the Mediterranean Command, who, I believe, is called Inspector-General of the Oversea Forces. I have never been able to understand what is now the policy of the War Office as regards that officer. What are his precise functions now? I believe I am correct in stating that they are not the same now as when he was originally appointed. When originally appointed I believe it was only for the Mediterranean, and to look after and inspect Gibraltar and Malta, and also to go to Egypt. I understand that he now goes to any part of the world, and that recently he has been to Japan and

      1963
      China. Whatever he may do, he seems to be a very expensive officer. He gets £5,000 a year, which is more than the Inspector-General at Home receives, who only gets £4,000. He gets more pay than the generals commanding either at Alder-shot or in Ireland, and in addition to that—I do not say there is a very expensive staff, but a staff in proportion to his very high rank as a general officer.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is raising a matter of larger policy which does not arise on Vote 1.
      Captain JESSEL: I submit to your ruling, Sir. I was only anxious to elicit why this officer receives the highest pay of all general officers in the Army. I know his pay includes allowances, but I should like to know the reasons why he is paid such a high sum. I will, however, pass from that and conclude by asking the Secretary of State a question. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) raised the question of the National Reserve. The Secretary of State very courteously said that the question did not arise on Vote 1, which is the pay for the Army. In the Memorandum the Secretary of State issued this year with the Army Estimates, he quoted certain figures as to the pay of the National Reserve, but I cannot find in the Index or anywhere in the. Army Estimates themselves any place where the actual pay of the National Reserve is included. Perhaps later on, when the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary replies, we may be told where the figures are, so that if we wish to raise a discussion on the question we may know the proper place to raise it.
      Sir JOHN JARDINE: I have only one or two questions to put upon this Vote, and they arise in regard to page 40 in regard to Appropriations-in-Aid. I notice that the Estimate for the present year for payments by the Indian Government in respect of deferred pay have gone down. I should like to know whether that reduction from £65,000 to £54,500 is one that is likely to be continuous in the future. As regards the lump sum payment by the Indian Government, £861,500, that is followed by
      "less contributions made by the Imperial Government towards the cost of garrison of Aden, £100,000."
      I should be glad to know what proportion that bears to the actual cost of the garrison at Aden. The next item is a
      1964
      deduction from the lump sum of £130,000 towards the cost of transport of troops to and from India. Is there any chance of that, or any of the other chief items that make up that lump sum, being reduced in any way in the future?
      Sir J. D. REES: The Secretary for War in paying a touching tribute to the memory of Mr. George Wyndham was driven, as many of us would be, to quote the language of poets rather than to use his own, and he made a very apt quotation from the poem of a Republican poet about a Royalist King. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has read that poem to the end and whether he remembers the last two lines which are:—
      "The same arts that did gain
      Power must it maintain."
      I would commend those words to him and beg him, in the exercise of his high office, not to be continually suggesting that a trained man is as good as an untrained man and the less you have of both the better; which, I take it, very accurately, if perhaps rather briefly, summarises his creed. While he was referring to the late Mr. Wyndham, it occurred to me also that there are two lines which I might be permitted to quote which are particularly applicable to that right hon. Gentleman whose handsome face and eloquent voice it is hard to believe we shall never see and hear in this House again. They were the lines applied to a famous French General:
      "His mourners, two great hosts, his friends and foes.
      Prayed for his gallant spirit's bright repose."
      Mr. Wyndham had no foes except those who were political, and the quotation can only have a political application. It occurs to me that upon this Vote regarding the pay for the officers and men of the Army I should have imagined, and I still hope, it is possible to make a few remarks regarding the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in the character, which I think he so completely fulfils, of the Mark Tapley of military affairs. Other hon. and gallant Gentlemen who, of course, speak upon all these matters of detail with an authority that does not attach to a civilian, have referred to some of these matters, and I trust I shall not be out of order in begging the right hon. Gentleman to take into account not only the views of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have addressed him from this side of the House, but of Noble Lords, for instance, on his own side in politics, like Lord Joicey, a great employer of labour.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's enterprise misleads him. This is not the occasion for a general debate. We are limited solely to the question of the pay of the officers and men of the Army.
      Sir J. D. REES: I regret it. I rather feared I should fail. I took great pains to endeavour to keep within the rules of order. Shall I be in order, as one who has lately come from France and seen upon every wall an appeal to the people of that country saying the numbers of men—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The number of men was decided some few months ago. The hon. Gentleman is too late.
      Sir J. D. REES: It is not my fault that two months ago I sat the whole Debate out and could get no opportunity to speak. I am aware that India is out of order. Is the exclusion of India out of order upon this Vote? Is it, since this is a Vote for the pay of His Majesty's Army, irrelevant to this Vote that the Indian revenues pay Capitation Grants which provide a portion of this £8,623,000? I should have imagined that it would be in order.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Resolution that has been read to the House has in it the words "exclusive of India."
      Sir J. D. REES: My intention was to ask whether the contribution on account of Capitation Grant was not in order, and whether the amount of it could not be discussed, but I leave it at once. Equally it would be out of order, I presume, to endeavour to obtain any information as to the intention of the Government as regards the numbers of men. I quite anticipated the great difficulty of discussing the matter. Here is a matter which possibly may be in order, and I want information upon it. Officers serving in the British Army were formerly transferred to the Army in India, and while they served in the British Army they qualified in the language test, and were then transferred to the Army in India, a course which has now ceased to be adopted, to the great hardship of the officers concerned. I am afraid that is on the borderline also, and I leave that.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a very long way over the border line. This is the fourth time, and if the hon. Member is unable to find something relevant to the Vote, he ought not to occupy the time of the House.
      Sir J. D. REES: The pay of aviation officers at any rate is upon the Vote, and, I presume, the terms upon which they are appointed to the Royal Aviation Corps. In that case I should like to know why it is that no permanent appointment can be made to the Aviation Corps. It seems to me to be an unsatisfactory system. We have seen in the occurrence of the day before yesterday how necessary it is that there should be—
      Colonel SEELY: That had nothing to do with the Army.
      Sir J. D. REES: At any rate it is necessary that we should have in this country some great improvement in aptitude for aviation, and I think the circumstances under which no permanent appointment can be made and also the circumstances that officers from the Indian Army who are at Home on leave are not able to find opportunities of being appointed to the Aviation Corps—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems wholly unable to appreciate the fact that the time for the discussion of general policy has long gone by. We are now dealing merely with the pay of the men.
      Sir J. D. REES: The only other remark I have to make is to associate myself most heartily with the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) in his desire that the pay in the Army should be increased. I think it does him great honour. I hope and believe it will be increased. The British officer is a man who always grumbles and never strikes—always complains and always does his duty. Some increase of pay for him is long overdue, and I am not sorry that amongst all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have addressed the House someone who is not a soldier but has lived amongst soldiers should have an opportunity of stating how absolutely necessary some increase is and how long it is overdue, both in regard to officers and men. I am very sorry that the matters which I wish to raise are out of order, but it was worth my while to make an effort because it is exceedingly difficult to raise these points. They are out of order now, and there will be no opportunity on the one day in the year on which any matters connected with India, come forward. Therefore, I have no occasion to make such an abject apology as I otherwise should for the effort to introduce into the discussion

      1967
      subjects which are of great importance, thinking it unfortunate that neither on this nor on any other occasion can it be brought forward.
      2.0 P.M.
      Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not want to say anything which would lead the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that any Member of this House, or anybody in the country interested in the Army, does not appreciate his efforts to improve the position of the British officer. At the same time, I should like to call attention to the great difficulty which he and his predecessors have experienced in getting suitable officers for the Cavalry, and to point out how that matter is really affected by the scale of pay which is enjoyed not merely by the junior ranks, but by an officer throughout all stages of his career. If a man goes into an ordinary civil profession, he has the legitimate expectation that when he reaches certain ages, and after completing certain periods of service in that profession, he will get an increase in the scale of his remuneration. If you take an ordinary business, I think that undoubtedly does obtain. In an ordinary great business you will find that in the various grades men of the same age are undoubtedly receiving approximately the same scale of remuneration. Unfortunately this does not happen to the same extent in His Majesty's Service, because the rate of pay is governed by promotion, and however able a man may be in the discharge of his duties, he does not get that increase in the rate of pay to which his ability and his age entitle him until, owing to the extraneous circumstances which obtain in regard to his patricular regiment, he obtains promotion from one rank to another. Therefore, we have this curious anomaly in the British Army, and especially in the Cavalry at the present moment, that we have officers drawing the rate of pay of majors after twelve years' service, while we have officers equally able, after twenty years' service, only drawing the rate of pay of captain. It has been suggested at different times in the history of this particular question that there should be an allowance made in respect of a certain number of years' service—a system which at one time obtained in the old Indian Staff. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt what is now regarded as a somewhat old-fashioned expedient which did not work very satisfactorily in India, but, at the same time, I
      1968
      do suggest that he should endeavour to meet this question of inequality of pay by trying to deal with some of the inequalities of promotion on which that inequality of pay depends. I think anybody who knows the recent history of the British Cavalry will agree with me in saying that in recent years, so far from any attempt having been made to reduce this inequaltiy of pay by mitigating the inequalities of promotion, the administration of the right hon. Gentleman has tended to aggravate the difficulty rather than to mitigate it. I will only state as an illustration what has recently occurred in one particular Cavalry regiment. There we had a case in which a junior officer was promoted to the command of the regiment over three senior officers. Three majors were passed over, and a junior major in that regiment was promoted to its command. I have nothing whatever to say with regard to the ability or the qualifications of the major who was appointed. I feel that any discussion on that point would undoubtedly be out of order on the present occasion, but I do suggest that here was an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to have done something in the direction I have indicated by bringing into the command of that regiment one of the very numerous squadron leaders in the Cavalry, some of whom have served twenty years—men who have taken the Staff College certificate, and who are in every way qualified to command a Cavalry regiment, but who, owing to the vagaries of regimental promotion, have not been able to obtain promotion to that rank, and who stand very little likelihood of ever getting command of a regiment. They are, therefore, still condemned under our present system to draw the pay of a major when, under more fortunate circumstances, in any other regiment, they would be drawing what men of similar years' service—very often a less number of years' service—are drawing, namely, the pay of a colonel. I suggest that by this particular promotion in the 4th Hussars the right hon. Gentleman has inflicted a great injustice, not only in the matter of promotion, but also in the matter of pay.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of pay and organisation does not arise here.
      Lord A. THYNNE: I was endeavouring to show that the question of pay in a matter of this sort was affected by the matter of inter-regimental promotion. I

      1969
      should like to call the right hon's Gentleman's attention to the great opportunity he had in the case of the 4th Hussars of doing something in the direction of promoting, and enabling officers by promotion, to enjoy a higher rate of pay. Efficient officers in other regiments, in present circumstances, can hope to obtain the higher rank in which they would draw the higher rate of pay.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): A number of interesting points have been raised, many of them within the limits of the Vote we are discussing, and I will endeavour to reply to them. Several hon. Members drew attention to the condition of this year's recruiting, and I am bound to admit that it is not altogether satisfactory, but at the same time, if you take the figures for 1912–13 and of the two previous years, you will find that, although in the last year there was a slight fall as compared with the year before, they are, still for the present year above the former number. When considering the question of recruiting it is wise and well to remember that there must be ups and downs. I believe that if you took a large number of years you could show that the figures went up and down with a certain regularity, and that when the bottom point is reached the balance is redressed, and in the course of time we reach a higher point. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery) suggested that one of the main causes was emigration. The hon. Member for Stamford (Major Willoughby) said that we were really at the point at which we must rely on compulsion by hunger to get men for the Regular Army. I do not think that that is true. I know that it is often said that our power to raise recruits for the Regular Army depends directly on the starvation limit. Surely what is really meant is that a man will compare the advantages that he is likely to get by offering his labour in the ordinary civil labour market with the attractions of the Army. It is perfectly true that those attractions will vary from time to time as compared with the advantages which he is able to secure in civil life. When there is really good trade, it is easier for him to get employment, and good employment. When trade is bad, the relative advantages of the Army and the attractiveness of the soldier's life will predominate, and it is simply this, and not any imaginary compulsory hunger which enables us to fill our ranks with voluntarily enlisted men.
      1970
      The hon. Member for Stamford said that we might retain a larger number of men with the Colours for a longer time. I think that he must have suggested that so that a larger number might thereby be enabled to qualify for pensions. It is perfectly true that after a certain period a man is fairly entitled to a pension, but we must preserve some sort of proportion in these matters. I have not the exact figure at this moment, but I do assure hon. Members that the percentage of pensions to the total cost of the Army is rising, and is really reaching almost a dangerous point. More important than that, because that is a difficulty that could be overcome by expenditure, if expenditure were justified, if you retain these men with the Colours for a longer period you are striking at the very basis on which our Army is founded; I mean the fact that it is a short service Army. If you do not take these men away from the Colours fairly early you diminish the total number of trained military forces which you have at call when required. The hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) looked rather at the other end of the story, and raised a question as to what happens to an ex-soldier when he returns to civil life. He did, I think, frankly admit that we have made great improvement in that respect in recent years. I do not think, perhaps, that he realised the amount of trouble which is now taken to train men in trades while in the Army, and the proportion of ex-soldiers in Government offices is now very considerable. I assure him that it is a matter that is always engaging attention. We are always seeking for ways in which we can provide more employment and give a better training so as to fit soldiers when they come back again to civil life. The hon. Member for Birmingham repeated his demand that the Flying Corps should be placed directly under the General Staff and not left in loose association with it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is able to concede that demand, and I do not think that it is in any way desirable. Certainly at this moment the association of the Flying Corps with the General Staff is as complete as could be desired for all practical purposes, and there is no need to make it any closer.
      Two or three other Members drew attention to the question of pay given to those who serve in the Flying Corps. Of course, if you take a small figure, a certain number of shillings a day, it is quite easy to make it appear inadequate for the

      1971
      duties which the Flying Corps perform, but I believe I am right, in saying that on a comparison with foreign countries, France and Germany, our scale of pay is not less generous, and I am not sure that it is not rather more generous. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir Courtenay Warner) drew attention to what we all recognise, the terrible risk to life of everyone who serves in that corps for some years, and, apart from that, the daily anxiety of anyone who holds a responsible position at Salisbury Plain or elsewhere, and those are things which we may like to diminish as much as we possibly can, but I doubt very much whether there is any rise of pay which can to any extent compensate for this, nor do I feel that any man in charge would feel any less anxious for the welfare and safety of those below him if he had a larger daily pay. On the other hand, the men who do undergo these risks and suffer these anxieties are glad to do it. At the same time, while I put forward that argument, I can assure those who raised the question and hon. Members who are interested in it that the Secretary of State is considering this matter, and certainly, a very generous view will always be taken of such claims. The question of Mounted Infantry, I think, was raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn). I may point to something which goes in the direction which the hon. Member desires, that the School for Mounted Infantry has been reduced because two Cavalry regiments have come back from South Africa and also because we have now trained almost as many men for Mounted Infantry duties as we want at present. There is, of course, a corresponding reduction in the Estimates.
      An attack, I may call it, was made upon the Inspector-General of the Overseas Forces. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) and others criticised his position. Those who are at the War Office know very well the extremely valuable work done, the admirable reports constantly furnished and the information which he is sending back at intervals to us on the disposition and nature of our Overseas Garrisons, and I think it is not justifiable to say that he is filling a post which need not exist or, indeed, is overpaid for the extraordinarily valuable work which he does perform. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) raised the, question of travelling allowances of wives and
      1972
      families of non-commissioned officers, and the appeal made was backed from other quarters of the House. I may assure the hon. Member that that appeal has not fallen upon deaf ears at all, and that we intend, with as little delay as possible, to make inquiries into that point. Another hon. Member inquired how it was that the Field Training Vote showed a reduction of some £3,000. That is due to a fact which is continually making its mark on our history. Next year we shall have far more mechanical transport then we have had before, and consequently we shall be able to save a great deal on the hire of vehicles. Several hon. Members called attention to the question of pay, and I think they recognise the great advance which my right hon. Friend has made in this respect. It is a fact that there has been no general increase in officers' pay for more than 100 years. There have been isolated cases where a special increase has been given to one rank, but there has been no all-round increase for more than 100 years. The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly refrain from complaining that this present increase is not sufficient. Of course, in framing a scheme of the kind which was outlined by my right hon. Friend last month, it is extremely difficult to make sure that you are not going to do an injury to somebody, or to foresee the exact effect, of the changes on all parts of the existing Service. The whole question is now being carefully considered by a strong Committee, and I can assure the House that, as a result of the proceedings of that Committee, certainly no one will be worse off, and a great many will be much better off. I should like to take this opportunity to correct an inadvertent misprint or mistake—
      Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make sure that he is able to raise the money.
      Mr. BAKER: I do not quite see the exact force of the hon. Baronet's interruption.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to raise the pay of officers. No doubt that is a very good thing, provided he can get the money to increase the pay; but, in these days of great expenditure, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it is possible to raise the money before promising to increase the pay.
      Mr. BAKER: The hon. Baronet need have no apprehension on that point. Of course, no announcement of so large and costly a change of policy would be made without full assurance that the money would be forthcoming. I was about to point out, when I was interrupted by the hon. Baronet, that in the OFFICIAL REPORT a speech is reported which was made by my right hon. Friend in March last. In a passage referring to the lieutenants' pay, the words are used, "additional rate" of pay. The word "additional" ought not to be there. My right hon. Friend is very much obliged for having had his attention called to the matter, and I only refer to it in order to avoid the possibility of mistake on the point. I was asked two or three other questions, one in regard to India and the falling off in the payment to India on account of deferred pay. That is due solely to the fact that fewer men were transferred to the Army Reserve in. 1913–14 than in 1912–13. It is due to nothing else. I was asked, in regard to the garrison at Aden, as to the contribution of £100,000. That was a sum fixed by the Royal Commission, which reported in 1895, on Indian expenditure as the amount which we ought to allow. That represents our interest in Aden because of the position of that Station on the trade route which leads to the East. I cannot tell without further inquiry how far the £100,000 goes to paying the whole cost of the garrison. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House by dealing with the more general and abstract questions which some hon. Members tried, not altogether successfully, to raise. I have confined myself strictly to the Vote, and I hope I have succeeded in answering most of the questions that have been put to me.
      Colonel YATE: I should like, speaking on behalf of the officers of the Service generally, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for his tribute to our late colleague, whose remains are being laid to rest to-day. I thank him as a Member of the Service, and I am sure that all officers will read what he said with grateful pleasure. In rising to take part in this Debate, I desire to join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in what he said with regard to the career of men in the Army. I wish, however, to put one or two questions, first of all, to the Secretary of State. Under this Vote can he tell me what is being done with regard to the garrison at Malta, which has been largely reduced and is not
      1974
      adequate to the duties imposed on it at the present time? I submit that something ought to be done to strengthen that garrison.
      Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I should not be allowed to reply upon that point by the Deputy-Speaker.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Vote has nothing to do with the size of the Army, and it deals solely with the pay.
      Colonel YATE: Am I permitted to move a Resolution to the effect that the pay provided for the garrison is not sufficient?
      Sir F. BANBURY: You can move to reduce a Vote if necessary.
      Colonel YATE: I am afraid I cannot pursue the subject, but on another occasion I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance on the point. The right hon. Gentleman told us of a new travelling kitchen for the Army.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Debate is not a continuation of the Debate which took place some time ago on Vote A. The discussion must be confined to the Vote now under consideration.
      Colonel YATE: I wish to ask why it is that brigade commanders are not graded and paid as brigadier-generals. In all the brigades now training throughout the country the men have great difficulty in distinguishing between the lieutenant-colonel commanding the regiment and the colonel commanding the brigade. Then, again, take the pay. You give the colonel £80 a year. He is entitled to £420 and you give him £500 to retain him as a colonel commander. That seems to be giving neither a proper position nor proper pay. The pay is hardly fair to those officers who have to turn out as brigadier generals, and you give them for doing the work of a brigadier general a miserable £80 a year, and you do not even give them the rank. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that. In regard to the career of men in the Army, I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in what he said about "blind-alley" employment of soldiers, and doing nothing for them in after-life. We have heard a great deal about blind-alley employment for boys, but the position of the soldier is worse than that of a boy of from fourteen to eighteen years of age, who

      1975
      has some possibility of finding a career for himself. But for the soldier to give seven years of his life, from eighteen to twenty-five years of age, and then to be turned out into the world without any means of regular employment, is a thing that any Government ought to be ashamed of. There has been a petition from the Royal Engineers on this subject, and the men employed by the Post Office are discussing it. They ask why should not their time in the telegraph service count in respect of future employment. Those telegraph men go back to the Post Office, and the seven years is thrown away as far as pensions are concerned. I would ask if some arrangement could not be made by which at least some portion of the seven years might be taken into account in granting pensions to soldiers who subsequently enter State employment.
      Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY [3rd April]—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
    Resolution reported,
    "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."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500.
    I do this partly because I want to obtain a little information from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), who is in charge of the Vote. I had a conversation with him yesterday afternoon on this subject, and I told him that I should probably move a reduction. The reason I do so is the unsatisfactory state of the ventilation in the House. I spoke on this subject when the Vote was before Committee, and pointed out that the ventilation of the House was not as good as it might be. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would do his best to improve the ventilation. He told me afterwards that he had made some arrangement by which the cold air which came in, and
    1976
    which made it very difficult to sit here for any length of time with any degree of comfort, should be obviated. I understand that the obviation, if it has been better, which I do not altogether admit, of the discomfort in my case renders the discomfort greater on hon. Members who sit behind me. At first, with the natural selfishness of human nature, I was inclined to think as long as I was comfortable it did not matter much what happened to hon. Members behind me, but on further reflection I came to see that that was a selfish view, and that what really ought to be done was some alteration in the system of ventilation. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has met me on this point. I admit there has been some slight improvement, but it must be remembered that in the warmer weather it is very much easier to ventilate the House in the way it is done than in the cold weather, and therefore the improvement that has been made has been due to the change of season.
    Very large sums of money have been spent on this method of ventilation, and we do not deny that the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have done their best to bring about the most scientific way of ventilation, but still the fact remains that those scientific ways are by no means comfortable to those who have to endure them. The old-fashioned ways of open windows and open fireplaces or heating by hot air are far more comfortable than sitting on the top of a sort of trellis work and having the air pumped up all around. I do not know whether it is quite possible to alter the whole system, but I think it is possible that something of this sort might be done, that the air, instead of coming up through a grille, should come in through ventilating shafts rather higher in the Chamber, so that you would get the cool air about your heads, which is the place you want it, and the warmer air about the feet, which is also the place where you want it, whereas the reverse takes place at the present moment. I really do think this is a serious question, because some of us, and I myself, spend a great portion of time in the Chamber itself, and, therefore, I naturally take an interest in having the place rendered as comfortable as possible. Those of us who endeavour to take a share in the Debates of the House are, I submit, entitled to some little consideration. I trust the hon. Gentleman will do his best to listen to my

    1977
    suggestion and devise some method by which this may be altered.
    Sir J. D. REES: I had intended also to move the Amendment of which I had given notice. I wish to say how pleased I am at the action of the hon. Gentleman in having the new staircase made to the Terrace, for which I think he is to be immensely congratulated. Now that it is completed it makes one wonder that nobody did it before. There is an item for a passenger lift in which I happen to be much interested and in which I am sure others are also interested. There is provision for £2,000 for a lift to be spent in the current year. Is that a lift from the Members' Cloak Room to the level of the Chamber, because that, I submit, is what is wanted? Frequent walking or standing about these corridors and lobbies is very apt to impair the efficacy of the strongest Member's legs, and those who least expect to require a lift may find after a time that they want that which they scorn so very highly at present. With reference to the item for the alterations in connection with the Private Bill Office, I do not know what they are. Is the lift affected in any way which goes from the level on which we now stand to the Committee Room? Could that lift be kept going somewhat later, because it is a very long and troublesome flight of stairs? Coming to Item B (Maintenance and Repairs), there is the provision of £105 for winding and regulating the great clock. It is very important that that clock should keep very good time, but the sum of £105 seems to me to be very large for winding a clock. Surely it must refer to something else besides winding and regulating. As to the total of £10,800 for internal and external repairs, I understand that that refers to the whole Palace of Westminster. If so, it is a very moderate provision, especially when compared with the £27,000 which is provided for two or three of the Royal palaces. Under heading (D), what is the extension of the electric light for which £200 is provided? It is a very small amount, but I wish that no more money should be spent on electric light extension. If it is to provide for any new lights, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the propriety of extending the use of the excellent shaded globes of the electric lights in the Member's Lobby? There is about the electric light a peculiarly aggressive and odious quality which, when the naked wire catches the eye, sends a thrill through the head and out at the other side, which
    1978
    is very bad for legislators and everybody else. Will the hon. Gentleman provide shade covers for the bulb holding the wire, which is the part really requiring them?
    Under the heading of furniture, there is a sum for mats. Does that include the mats for this Chamber? 1f so, are those mats frequently changed? For some preposterous reason we are doomed in this Chamber to have the air filtered through the floor instead of coming in from Heaven as it ought to do. Are the mats upon which Members walk, and upon which dust and dirt must collect, frequently changed, so that they may not impair the efficiency of the whole system of ventilation? On the question of ventilation in general, I have several times addressed the hon. Gentleman, and he has always dealt courteously with my representations. A request has been made that a Committee should be appointed to consider this question. The present would be a very convenient opportunity for the hon. Member to inform the House whether that Committee has been or will be appointed, and, how the matter stands. If anybody—even those who do not, as the hon. Baronet and I do, object to the whole system of ventilation, thinking that we ought to get fresh air from above, and not foul air from below—really wants to test the present system, let him sit, as I have often had to do, upon the mat in the gangway, and he will find a stream of air coming through which is very unpleasant. I think that that is a fair test, because, if we are not sitting in the gangway, we are not far off. I can claim some right to speak on this question, because, like the hon. Baronet, I spend a great deal of time in the precincts of the House. It is no use going to France or anywhere else for a holiday; the moment you come back you have a headache caused by the system of ventilation and the unshaded and unmitigated cruelty of the electric lights.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The lift for which provision is made in the Estimates is to be constructed in the Library Corridor, and will rise from the Terrace level to the level of the Committee Rooms Corridor, and possibly to the level of the floor higher. We have gone into the question very carefully, and this is the only place in the whole building where we can get a lift connecting all the floors. It is very desirable to have a ready means of access to the Committee Rooms Corridor from the Terrace, particularly for ladies who desire to go from the Dining

    1979
    Room to the Ladies' Gallery. This is quite a separate question from the provision of a lift from the Members' Cloakroom. That question has been considered, but for the time being, no decision to construct it has been come to. I do not deny that it would be very desirable to have a lift from the Members' Cloakroom to the level of this Lobby, but we thought on the whole it was better to construct the other lift first.
    Sir J. D. REES: Could not the hon. Gentleman make it a case of concurrent endowment, and give us both?
    Mr. BENN: It is too late to ask Parliament to give us any more money for this purpose. We are making considerable expenditure this year on these buildings. As regards the stairs, I am grateful for what has been said. I hope hon. Members will exercise a little patience for a few days until we can throw the stairs open. The workmen are at work on them all day, and we are anxious to keep them closed until they are finished, so as to get the job done. If we opened them now it would mean more delay later in the year. As regards the clock, the expenditure of £105 is under a contract which, I believe, covers renewals as well as the winding. When he remembers how big the clock is, and the amount of regular attendance required, I think the hon. Member will agree that 100 guineas is not an excessive charge.
    Colonel YATE: Does that cover all the clocks in the building?
    Mr. BENN: No. Simply the clock in the Tower. The money for extending the electric light is not for any specific extension, but for the general extension throughout the building. There are a large number of workshops and all sorts of departments throughout this vast building, and from year to year we extend the electric light and do away with gas. As regards shading the electric light, we have put some shaded globes on the chandeliers in the Members' Lobby, and I am glad that hon. Members appreciate the change. If the hon. Gentleman opposite will tell us where else he thinks the same thing might be done, we shall be very glad to replace the existing globes by shaded globes of the kind desired. The provision for replacing carpets applies, not only to this Chamber, but to carpets and mats generally throughout the building. I do not know whether the carpet in this Chamber has been replaced recently, but the carpets
    1980
    and mats are regularly cleaned by means of vacuum cleaners, and every care is taken to see that they are kept clean.
    Sir J. D. REES: How often is there a new one?
    Mr. BENN: How often? I suppose a new one is purchased when the old one is worn out. I do not think that the House of Commons would wish the Office of Works to go to unnecessary expense and to buy a new carpet when it was not clear that the old one was useless. As regards the ventilation, which is, of course, an old topic, I am glad the hon. Baronet thinks he notices some improvement, at any rate in the particular part of the House from which he addresses his questions. What we have done is to put underneath the seats—that is some of the seats—a sort of wire gauze with the object of preventing a great rush of air upwards. It is true that inasmuch as the same quantity of air is passed through the floor, a greater quantity will come through under other places in consequence of the lesser quantity coming through under the seat where the hon. Baronet sits. I have not had any complaints from anyone else, so I propose to go on and give the hon. Baronet the shelter that he evidently so much appreciates. It is intended to appoint the Committee to which reference has been made, and the only reason for delay is that hon. Members have been very occupied with other business. The Committee, when it is set up, will afford an opportunity of dealing with the various questions raised, such as whether the ventilation should be from below or above. I would repeat here what I said before, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham is greatly mistaken if he supposes that, a purer air would be got by having a shaft bringing the air down than is secured at present by taking the air from the terrace. I have mentioned this in previous Debates. We have had tests made. The quality of the air at the top of the Victoria Tower is much inferior to the quality of the air which we draw in from the terrace through the special screen apparatus which I have described. Anyway, all these matters can be properly laid before the Committee when it is set up, and I have no doubt will be satisfactorly disposed of.
    Question put, "That £31,700 stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes 229; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 1113.]

    AYES.

    [2.47 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Alden, Percy

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Arnold, Sydney

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

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hogg, David C.

    O'Shee, James John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Boland, John Plus

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pointer, Joseph

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brady, P. J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jone, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, M.

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Clough, William

    King, J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Leach, Charles

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Cullinan, J.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leichester)

    Sheehy, David

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Shortt, Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Doris, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C. Radcliffe)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Tennant, Harold John

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Falconer, J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Waring, Walter

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Field, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molloy, M.

    Webb, H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gill, A. H.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morrell, Phillip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goldstone Frank

    Morison, Hector

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Neilson, Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Hackett, J.

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Anson, Bt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Byton, James

    Cassel, Felix

    Baird, J. L.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cator, John

    1982

    1983

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

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, G.(Salisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Nield, Herbert

    Wintertion, Earl

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Peel, Lieut-Colonel R.F.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Rees, Sir J.D.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rolleston, Sir John

    F. Banbury and Lord A. Thynne.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

  ROYAL PALACES.
  Resolution reported,
  "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."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Upon this Vote I desire to call attention to an unfortunate incident which occurred in the last few days and in regard to which there have been certain questions and answers in this House. I do not intend to go over all the circumstances of this incident. In brief, it amounted to this: Some extremely distinguished visitors were unable to obtain admission to Holyrood Palace, although sent there by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. Owing to some formality which required to be gone through on occasions of that kind not having been complied with, these distinguished visitors were unable to see the interior of the Palace. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote that occasions must arise on which it is impossible for any local authority to give the amount of notice which apparently the First Commissioner of Works required or demands, and I want to put it to the hon. Gentleman whether in circumstances of that kind the imprimatur of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should not be sufficient to secure admission for visitors to Holyrood Palace. I need not remind the House of the value of Holyrood Palace to Edinburgh, and that in the summer months visitors come from long distances to see the Palace. As a matter of fact, at this
  1984
  moment the regulations which exist of necessity in connection with the suffrage movement means for a large section of the community of Edinburgh distinct loss. The most effective drive in the vicinity is that known as the King's Drive, and the cabmen in Edinburgh regard that as one of their chief sources of income during the summer months. If you cut Holyrood out of that drive, as you are bound to do, if you impose restrictions upon it, they must suffer very severely. That was the incident I wanted to call attention to, but I would also like to point out that there ought to be some laxity in the regulations by which in circumstances such as I have described it ought to be possible for the Lord Provost to vouch for the visitors he sends to Holyrood Palace.
  Mr. BENN: In reply to the hon. Member I think it would be well to lay down three propositions with which I am sure he himself will cordially agree. The first is that it is the duty of the First Commissioner to take every care that no harm or damage is done to Holyrood Palace. The second is that any distinguished visitors who go there should have ready access to the Palace, and the third is that if the Lord Provost of Edinburgh wishes visitors to see Holyrood Palace, his word should be sufficient to secure their instant admission. Passing from these I do not think we could plead guilty to any fault in this matter. What happened was this. These distinguished visitors came to Edinburgh to see the Palace, and having secured the services of an official of the Lord Provost, they went down to Holyrood Palace. The Lord Provost had failed to notify the office, which could have been done by a visit or by telephone, that the visitors intended going to the Palace. The consequence was that when they arrived at the Palace with an official of the Lord Provost it is true, but without the matter being referred

  1985
  to the gentleman in charge of the Office of Works in Edinburgh, the official at the Palace had no authority whatever to admit them. He did his duty. He said I am told to do certain things, and I cannot act without instructions.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Had he not got a telephone?
  Mr. BENN: Yes, and I am rather surprised that the Lord Provost's messenger did not himself telephone or suggest that the official should telephone. We regret very much these visitors were not admitted, and we want to show every consideration to the Lord Provost and to those he may wish to send to the Palace.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  OSBORNE.
  Resolution reported,
  "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."
  Resolution agreed to.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.
  Resolution reported,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £70,900, 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 the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish again to raise a point which I indicated on the Committee stage of this Resolution, and in regard to which I think the hon. Gentleman representing the Government showed considerable sympathy, although I do not think then he was quite fully informed of the facts. It is a matter affecting the labourers and the gardeners in Regent's Park. The course now adopted is a serious grievance to them. Formerly the system with regard to Regent's Park was that there should be two night watchmen regularly employed for the night-work. Under the new system men regularly employed in day-work as gardeners and labourers have to take turn and turn about
  1986
  at night-work. At the time they were originally engaged there was no question of their taking up that class of work, and they now say it is a great hardship that they should be asked to do this work. On the last occasion the hon. Gentleman thought they were in favour of it, because it gave them an opportunity of earning larger wages. Since then I have received signed statements by the overwhelming majority of the men protesting against the new system adopted. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. Gentleman, with these new facts before him, will see his way to reconsider his decision, and if he cannot reintroduce the old system he might at least ask the men to volunteer for these duties.
  Sir J. D. REES: I see in the items for Hyde Park amounts of £2,600 and £1,200 for the erection of stables, stores, and offices. I hope that does not imply any new erections or any encroachment upon the green space of the Park.
  Mr. BENN: In reply to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) I may say that those labourers earn 4s. 6d. per day, and after five years' service 4s. 8d. per day. It is the practice in Regent's Park for the men to work seven days instead of six, and they earn 4s. 8d. per day, or about 32s. per week, instead of 28s. That change was made with the consent, if not at the wish, of the men themselves. I am quite willing to accept the hon. Member's statement that some of these men are not satisfied.
  Mr. CASSEL: I can supply the hon. Member with their written statement.
  Mr. BENN: I do not doubt the hon. Member's statement, and I will arrange that some inquiry shall be made by the proper officers, and if it appears that there is any hardship steps will be taken to readjust matters. The matter shall be inquired into. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) asked me a question about the erection of stables and stores in Hyde Park. By erecting these buildings the Army and Navy save the expense of a wharf on the riverside; therefore we are making an economy by erecting these new buildings, which I can assure the hon. Gentleman will not encroach upon any part of the Park used by the public.
  Sir J. D. REES: But these buildings will be built on space which is now grass.
  Mr. BENN: No, Sir. These are new buildings being erected in the place of some old buildings, and I am informed that they will take even less space than the old buildings.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to ask if the hon. Member has received any representations with regard to the rate of pay and the hours worked by the gardeners and others employed in Kew Gardens? I have myself received some representations upon the subject, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman could say when the scale of pay was last revised, and exactly what the hours of labour are. I remember a year or two ago this question was brought up in the House, and, as well as I can remember; a promise was given that it would receive careful consideration. I have not acquainted myself with the details, but I have received some representations which cause uneasiness from the fact that they appear to disclose that the hours of labour and the scale of pay are such as ought not to prevail in a public institution of this kind. There is hardly any place which excites so much interest to the general public as Kew Gardens. They are quite unique and give the greatest possible pleasure to the general public. I think it would be an unfortunate thing and quite a pity if the great pleasure the public derive from Kew Gardens was interfered with by a sort of lingering indefinite idea that those employed were not satisfied with the conditions of their labour and pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise under this Vote. There is nothing in the Vote before the House for Kew Gardens.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: I thought perhaps the hon. Member in charge of the Vote would like to deal with this question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This question comes under the Vote of the Board of Agriculture.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote can make any authoritative statement as to the actual damage which was done during the recent unfortunate occurrences at Kew. I am not referring so much to the burning of the structure. The Vote I refer to deals with the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. It is an item of £10,000 for maintenance and repair. I am not referring to the damage done to the structure, but to the damage done to a very valuable collection of orchids.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that question comes under the Board of Agriculture Vote.
  Lord A. THYNNE: With regard to Regent's Park and Hyde Park in particular, I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was very sympathetic during the Committee stage with regard to giving further facilities for children playing in Regent's Park and Hyde Park. I hope the hon. Gentleman will now be able to announce to the House that since the Committee stage he has seen his way to grant still further facilities for children, playing in those parks. I raise this question, not from any want of appreciation of the facilities which have already been granted, or of the generous way in which the Office of Works have in the past, and especially recently, tried to meet the needs of the children of London in this matter. I also hope that the hon. Member will be able to assure the House that he has given attention to a matter which was raised last year relating to the appointment of an expert forester to look after the trees in public parks of London. In a Debate on this Vote last year the hon. Member was unable to accept the view put forward by some hon. Members of this House who have given a special study to this subject of arboriculture. Those who have devoted a considerable amount of attention to this question feel that a very great deal might still be done in regard to this question, especially in Hyde Park and in Regent's Park, to bring matters a little more up to date in the matter of forestry. Whenever this question is mentioned by people who take an interest in it in terms of praise, they always quote Kensington Gardens. Everybody on both sides of the House will admit that Kensington Gardens stand by themselves. They are infinitely the best portion of the Royal Parks, and the population of London take the most pleasure in them; but there is no reason why Hyde Park and Regent's Park should not be brought up to the standard of Kensington Gardens, and also of Battersea Park. It only requires a little more attention from the Office of Works. I feel sure that if we had a little more expert attention these matters we should be able not only to improve the number and quality of the trees in the park, but also that things might be done in other directions.
  Hon. Members are no doubt acquainted with the lake in St. James's Park, and they must have been struck with the very naked character of the borders of that lake.

  1989
  I venture to say that if the lake were in the hands of private ownership, a man who really cared about such things, bulrushes, iris, and plants of a similar nature would be grown on its borders. It is no answer to say that the lake has got a cement bottom. It would be quite possible to arrange for an adequate margin between the edge of the cement with which the lake is lined and the actual bank to allow for the growing of bulrushes, iris, and plants of a similar nature. There is one other point on which I hope the lion. Member will be able to make some statement, and that is with regard to the statue by Mons. Rodin for which alternative sites are being considered. I understand that sites have been proposed not only in the precincts of Government offices and the Palace of Westminster but also in the Royal Parks, and I hope that the hon. Member will be able to make some definite statement as to which site is most likely to be accepted. Personally, I can imagine that instead of placing the statue within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster it might be found more suitable to place it in one of the Royal Parks. In any case, I would urge upon the hon. Member to give an assurance to the House that whatever site is chosen, whether it is in Regent's Park, Hyde Park, or in St. James's Park, it will only be chosen with the full concurrence of the artist who is responsible for the statue. I feel that whatever expert opinion there may be in the Office of Works as to the choice of a site for a particular Statute there is no opinion that ought to carry greater weight than the artist responsible for its creation. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will be able to assure us that M. Rodin has been consulted and that he has given his full approval of the site chosen.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I wish to refer to a point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) about Kew. On page 10 of the Estimate there is an item, £10,123 for maintenance and repairs, and I presume that includes wages.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the buildings at Kew are under the charge of the Office of Works, but that the general work which is carried on there, the salaries which are paid to the labourers, and the care of the plants, orchids, and so on, are under the Board of. Agriculture.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: There is on page 10 a small £350 for salaries, and I
  1990
  thought that on that item the question could be raised.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is evidently not the salaries of the gardeners. It would not go round. It must be the salary of the superintendent of the buildings.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Might I ask the hon. Member representing the Board of Works whether eventually there will be sufficient money to spare in the Department for the increased lighting of the public parks in the evening? He is well aware that since the centre walk in Hyde Park was illuminated it has been possible for respectable people to walk down there at night, and it is quite evident that any increased lighting of the parks must mean an increased enjoyment to respectable people of the parks in the evening. I know it is an expensive matter, but I am quite certain that it would add to the enjoyment of people, because in a hot summer like that of two years ago a public park such as Hyde Park is a very enjoyable place of recreation in the evening. It is absolutely impossible for respectable people to enjoy a walk in the park where there is no light because of the presence of persons of a shady character, who, I would remind the hon. Member, cause the authorities a great amount of extra work. There is another thing I would venture suggest. At present there are no means of shelter anywhere in Hyde Park in case of sudden rain. Abroad you always find a shelter into which people can get to escape from sudden rain. It is perfectly easy, by leaving the front or the side open, to prevent the use of the shelter for any purpose except that for which it is intended.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I altogether agree with my Noble Friend about St. James's Park. I do not pretend to have that artistic knowledge which my Noble Friend and my right hon. Friend have, but I must say that anything prettier to my mind than the lake in St. James's Park it is difficult to conceive. I think that it is excellent in every kind of way, and I take the opportunity whenever I have a few moments free from attending to my duties in this House to go and walk round that bit of lake, because I think it is extremely nice. I am sorry that on these occasions I do not quite see eye-to-eye with my Noble Friend. He spoke about some statue which he thought ought to be put up in some park. My own idea is that it is a great mistake to fill the parks

  1991
  with statues. I am a great lover of the country and of green trees and grass, and I do not want to see statues in the parks.
  Mr. BENN: I was asked a question about the damage at Kew. I am sorry that I cannot give the exact figure, but it is in the neighbourhood of £1,000. The wages to which the hon. Member for Clare referred are those of foremen and workmen employed in the upkeep of the buildings and not of the park-keepers. The question of the park-keepers, as Mr. Speaker has said, does not arise on this Vote. The Noble Lord asked a question about the extension of facilities for organised games for children in the parks. During the course of this year, probably since the Committee stage, extended facilities have been given in Kensington Gardens, and, should he desire it, I shall be very glad to give him in answer to a question a full statement as to what facilities are given and how far they have been extended. He is quite right in saying that the First Commissioner is very sympathetic and anxious, so far as it can be done consistently with the comfort and convenience of the public using the parks, to extend the facilities for these organised games. The Noble Lord had some criticism to make of the attention paid to afforestry in the Royal Parks and also as to the amenities in St. James's Park. With regard to St. James's Park, I think I may leave the answer of the hon. Baronet, being unable to add anything to it; but, with regard to the question of afforestry,
  I may say that we have the very best experts to advise us, and, if Kensington Gardens are better than the other parks, it is because, being a forest, they started better many years ago. It is only natural to suppose that advantage will be continuous. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division made suggestions with regard to the lighting of and the provision of shelters in the parks, and these I am sure will be taken into consideration in the preparation of next year's Estimates. With regard to the statue to the Burghers of Calais, I may inform the Noble Lord that M. Rodin recently visited this country and was asked as to the best position for the statue. But a definite decision has not yet been arrived at.
  Lord A. THYNNE: What site did he suggest?
  Mr. BENN: He was shown several sites, but I think the Noble Lord had better wait till a decision is come to, and if he disagrees he can say so.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to raise a question as to the Regent's Park leases.
  Mr. BENN: They are in the Department for the Crown Lands.
  Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES.

  [3.27 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Falconer, J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clough, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Field, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Arnold, Sydney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gill, A. H.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Crumley, Patrick

  Glanville, H. J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cullinan, John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Delany, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Boland, John Pius

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Devlin, Jeseph

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Boyle, Daniel (Maya, North)

  Dillon, John

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Brady, P. J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Doris, William

  Hackett, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hazleton, Richard

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Hogg, David C.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Molloy, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rowlands, James

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Morgan, George Hay

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Morrell, Philip

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Morison, Hector

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Mortan, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Muldoon, John

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shortt, Edward

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Joyce, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Keating, Matthew

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sutton, John E.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Malley, William

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wardle, George J.

  Leach, Charles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Webb, H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Phillips, John (Longtord, S.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Maclean, Donald

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Williamson, Sir A.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Radford, G. H.

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

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Reddy, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Manfield, Harry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  NOES

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Willlam

  Cator, John

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Forster, Henry Willlam

  Baird, J. L.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Glazebrook, Captaln Philip K.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Goldman, C. S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Grant, J. A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Greene, W. R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Croft, H. P.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bird, Alfred

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Blair, Reginald

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Boyton, James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

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

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Hills, John Waller

  Butcher, John George

  Fell, Arthur

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  1994

  1995

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanler, Beville

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Newman, John R. P.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Paget, Americ Hugh

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Jackson, Sir John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Keswick, Henry

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Walker, William Hall

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Pollock, Ernest George

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Royds, Edmund

  Winterton, Earl

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Younger, Sir George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  F. Banbury and Lord A. Thynne.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS.
  Resolution reported,
  "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 day of Match, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir J. D. REES: I see that a sum was voted for Nottingham County Court last year. There is nothing in the present, year and there is no entry of the total Estimate. Does that mean that the buildings have been completed?

  ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Resolution reported,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £65,630, 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 Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.
  Resolution reported,
  "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."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir J. D. REES: I desire to ask what is the Vote for the building of a new Consular Office at Boma. I understand that Boma is used in Africa as a generic term for Government stations.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Vote for Boma; that is last year's Vote.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether it has been completed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; the hon. Member can ask a question with regard to what is in this year's Votes, but not last year's.
  Sir J. D. REES: Am I not entitled to ask what has been expended—what the cost has been?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee.
  Sir J. D. REES: I see there is an item in the Estimates for the current year of £3,700 for the purpose and adaptation of a legation House at Cettinje. I should like to ask why so large a sum is required for a diplomatic building in what is notoriously the smallest capital in Europe. It seems an extraordinarily large sum for so extremely small a capital, which, in fact, is no more than a village. I imagine it to be quite relevant to this Vote, and to be also of public importance to get some statement why so large a sum is required. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentlemen kindly proceed to business; it is impossible to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Sir J. D. REES: I come next to the erection of a new Legation House at Sofia. There is an estimate for £22,250 for which a Vote is required for 1913–14 of £7,000. That also appears to be a very large item. I do not wish to suggest that our representative at Sofia should not be well housed, or that in view of the recent events in the Balkans it is not desirable that he should be better housed than formerly, but £22,000 seems to be a large sum for this purpose, seeing that Sofia, whatever the future area, of the capital may be, is not a very great city. It is a city of such a character that £22,000 would build the greatest palace ever seen or heard of in that place. I only wish for an explanation. I see that £300 is required this year for the erection of a new Consulate at Changsha. I should suggest that £5,000 is a large amount for a mere consulate in what is not an extremely large and important place. There is another item to which I would refer, because upon a former occasion when I raised it no explanation was given. There is provision here of £5,500 for Pekin, out of a total estimate of £13,800. I should imagine from the fact that it is specially mentioned that the ice-making plant, which otherwise is a trifling matter, must really be a rather large provision here. It is a singular thing why it should be wanted—ice is always available at Pekin, and more than anybody wants is stored there in the winter. It is extraordinary that among diplomatic residences ours at Pekin, of all others, has to be specially provided with ice-making plant. These items struck me as requiring attention. There are no doubt others which, if time permitted, I should like to dwell upon, but the House
  1998
  appears to be impatient, so I will simply move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. W. BENN: I have already referred to the improvements at Pekin, and I do not know that any further explanation is required upon that head. As regards Sofia, of course operations there have been rather delayed owing to events in the Balkans, but we are pushing on with this establishment. It seems desirable, especially in view of what is happening, that the British representative there should be suitably housed.

  POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  Resolution reported,
  "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."

  INSURANCE AND LABOUR EXCHANGE BUILDINGS.
  Resolution reported,
  "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 year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, in respect of Insurance and Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a Vote amounting in all to £233,000, but the total amount expended is not shown. There is a note on page 43 at the bottom which says that additions to accommodation for insurance and Labour Exchange buildings will be found in "various public buildings." I have not been able to find what that amounts to. At any rate, it is certainly a larger sum than appears on the face of it. I want to draw attention to what took place when the Labour Ex-

  1999
  changes Act was passed, because I conceive that this Vote is a direct infringement of the understanding which was given to the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time the Act became law under which the Vote is authorised. On 2nd July, 1909, my hon. and learned Friend said that in his opinion it would not be advisable to spend large sums of money on purchasing and erecting buildings for Labour Exchanges, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) then President of the Board of Trade, said:—
  "I think we have got to work gradually in the matter of permanent buildings. The proposals which I have submitted do not provide for building permanent premises for even the first Labour Exchanges. Until ten years have passed the new buildings will not be completed, and meantime the Exchanges will be housed in hired buildings."
  He concluded his speech in these words:—
  "I have tried to give the fullest information to the House to-day, and in addition to that we are not launching out in any ambitions scheme of bricks and mortar, but we have tried to develop a plan which in a humble and modest way will enable us to put our project into operation, and not commit the country to any undue expenditure until it has been proved by the working to be a necessary part of our social arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1909, col. 749, Vol. VII.]
  I moved a Resolution later limiting the amount to be spent in any one year to £200,000. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he was not going in any one year to spend more than £210,000, and that it would gradually diminish down to £180,000. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be so desirous of being economical and feeling his way gradually in the expenditure on these Labour Exchanges that I did not press my Amendment to a Division. Now, when we come to look at the Vote, we find that all the promises of the right hon. Gentleman have been broken, because, instead of proceeding economically and only spending small sums of money, he has been spending money right and left. This year the expenditure is £223,000, to which we have to add expenditure which is included in other Votes which I have not been able to find, and the expenditure last year was no less than £350,000. So that in two years, instead of having expended what he said we should, something like £210,000, we have actually spent, without including the sums which have to be added, very nearly £600,000. It is a very serious matter, because it shows that you really cannot place any reliance upon the statement of Ministers that they will administer their different Departments in an economical spirit.
  2000
  I am perfectly well aware that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) is no longer responsible for this Vote, but whoever has succeeded him should bear in mind the statements which were made by the Minister on the faith of which he was granted the Act of Parliament. I certainly should have divided in favour of my Amendment in 1909 unless I had really believed that the Act would be administered in an economical manner and that we should not commit ourselves to large payments for the purchase of freehold property and for the erection of buildings until we had really satisfied ourselves that the policy of the Labour Exchanges was one which was good for the country and which it was necessary to maintain. The righthon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is supposed to be the watch-dog of finance, and to see that no unnecessary money is spent. I hope he will endeavour to see that, at any rate, in future we shall endeavour to be a little more chary in our expenditure on permanent buildings for this particular Vote. It is evident that if the Labour Exchanges were to be unsuccessful a great deal of this money would be wasted. Buildings would have to be readapted to another purpose, which would cost a considerable amount of money, and it would have been far cheaper to rent the building—you can rent buildings cheaper than you can buy the site and put them up—until you had found whether or not it was going to be a successful policy. I feel very deeply upon this matter because we shall never be able to run this country economically unless Ministers endeavour to spend money in a proper and careful manner.
  Mr. BENN: Of course the hon. Baronet will not expect me to enter into the wide question of policy involved in the registration of unemployment or Labour Exchanges. What the Office of Works has to do is to build as economically as possible for the other Departments. I may set his mind at rest with regard to the note about "accommodation elsewhere in various public buildings." It is nothing considerable. It is the accommodation of perhaps half-a-dozen post offices, so it does not make any addition worth speaking of to the amount of the Vote. The reason that the amount exceeds the figure named by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1909 is of course obvious, because since 1909 unemployment insurance has come into force and a great deal of work has to be done in these buildings which was never

  2001
  contemplated by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he named that figure. Two and a half million persons are insured against unemployment and all the necessary office work in connection with that insurance is done in these buildings, and it would not be reasonable to suppose that the same building which would do for one scheme would do without any addition for a scheme involving such an enormous amount of additional labour. There is, however, as the hon. Baronet observed, a reduction in this year's Estimates. The greatest possible care is taken not to commit ourselves more than necessary in buying or erecting buildings. The figures which appear in the Estimates show that we are following the policy of not committing ourselves in the way of providing buildings which the movements of the working population might make unnecessary.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I think the most careful course to follow in this matter would be not to provide buildings which may not be required. It is perfectly obvious that these Exchanges are still on their trial, and no one can say how they will succeed. It is not desirable at present to expend money on the purchase of permanent buildings for Exchanges. In many cases the Exchanges have failed, and it would be a very stupid thing to provide buildings which may not be required. One cannot go into the policy of the Labour Exchanges on the present Vote, but on the question of fact it may be stated that the Labour Exchanges are not serving the purpose they were intended to serve. They are boycotted by employers who want good and high-class labour. Therefore, the providing of permanent buildings to carry out the scheme might not be worth the money expended. That would be bad policy. I hope the Office of Works will not spend any more money in that way. I think the House should narrowly look at any proposals of that kind.

  SUNDRY PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  Resolution reported,
  "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."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for an explanation of the entry of £1,000, which is part of a provisional. Estimate of £20,000 for works in connection with the School of Oriental Languages? I had hoped for something better than this after the long time the matter has been under consideration. A Committee considered the subject, and it took a long time after it reported to decide in favour of acquiring the buildings of the London Institution. These buildings were acquired, and they have to be extended and adapted for the purposes or the school. I think my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) will agree with me when I say that it is most disappointing that only £1,000 is asked. The late Prime Minister was waited upon by a deputation, of which I was a member, and he certainly gave them to understand that he considered this was a matter of Imperial importance. I rather think it is. He said it was a matter which should be pushed on as quickly as possible. Now that the matter has reached the stage of getting a sum on the Works Vote, it is disappointing that only £1,000 should be asked. If the work is to be carried out at the same rate as that amount will provide for, it will take nineteen years to get, the school ready I have no reason to suppose that the matter will be as bad as that. Having acquired the buildings of the London Institution, the Office of Works do not require anything like that time or the tentative treatment which it is proposed to give to this matter at the beginning. The amount asked for now will be spent in merely storing materials This, may seem a small matter, but in the minds of those who are interested in the Indian Empire, and in affairs of the East generally, the teaching of Oriental languages is a matter of the very first importance. I need not dwell upon the difference between our action and the extreme leisure with which the Government is proceeding in the matter, and the action taken in other capitals where admirable buildings and proper staffs have been provided, although in these places they are far less interested in the teaching of Oriental languages than we are. I should like more than a perfunctory explanation of the statement that this is only a beginning. There was a Bill passed some time ago dealing with some difference between

  2003
  one set and another set of proprietors in connection with the buildings now undergoing alteration. I know, from having visited the buildings and being familiar with their architecture, that there is no very great work of adaptation required. I very much doubt whether £20,000 is required. If it is a smaller affair than appears from the provisional Estimate, as I think it is, there is all the more reason why the comparatively small sum needel should be provided and spent as early as possible. I urge that this miserable provision will be extremely disappointing to all those in the East who carry on trade with this country.
  Mr. HOGGE: I would like to ask the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East if, in connection with the competition in regard to the new Government buildings in Edinburgh, he will refrain from publishing the conditions while the House is not sitting. If he will agree to do so, it will enable those interested in this matter to have the conditions discussed in public. They would be prevented from doing so if the plans were published while the House was not sitting.
  Colonel YATE: As to the School of Oriental Languages, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot provide a larger sum this year. The school has been delayed, and it will be most grateful to all people interested in Oriental education if he could give a little more money now or give an assurance that it will be provided.
  Mr. BENN: As regards the question raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I think he may take it that the conditions as to the buildings will not be issued while the House is in recess. In answer to the hon. Member opposite (Sir J. D. Rees), I have to say that this money in the Estimate is taken from now to 31st March next. I think £1,000 is as much as the Office of Works can spend in that time. The work is being delayed, not because there is not money to start with, but because the constitution of the governing body has not yet been finally decided. Until that body has been set up and has stated what the requirements are, we cannot do the work.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A very large sum of money appears in the Estimates for the maintenance of public buildings in Great Britain, exclusive of Royal palaces and palaces and
  2004
  parks. It would be very much better that the total sum in any particular Vote should be put in that Vote, and that hon. Members should not be obliged to look up other Votes to find out in what way additional sums are included in the Vote, which purports to cover a certain amount of money required for certain purposes. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Estimates Committee raised the question as to whether or not it would not be possible in the case of new works and repairs to obtain an estimate of what the actual cost of the work is going to be, and that that estimate should be put on the Vote. In the course of the discussion in Committee upon this Building Vote it appeared that the custom of the office was to ask for a certain sum. Take the item "Original total estimate, £4,100." The ordinary Member of Parliament, including myself, until I became Chairman of the Estimates Committee, was under the impression that that sum was the original total estimate, but it is nothing of the sort. It is merely the guess of some clerk in the office that somewhere about that sum of money will be required. So much a guess is it that in many cases specifications are not even got out, but a rough and ready shot is taken at what the amount will be, and then that amount is put on the Vote.
  The Estimates Committee recommend, at any rate as an experiment, that the Office of Works should, in cases such as I have mentioned, go to a contractor and obtain specifications, and ask that contractor to put in a tender for those works. It was stated that it might be difficult to obtain persons who would be willing to enter into a contract under those conditions. The Estimates Committee think that there is nothing whatever in that argument. There is any number of contractors who would be only too glad to enter into a contract with the Government if they understood that that contract would be carried out provided that the assent of Parliament was first obtained. Of course, there is the risk that the assent of Parliament would not be given, but that contingency, I think, is extremely remote, and it is very unlikely that Parliament would refuse to give its consent to works which have been declared to be necessary. I have not looked up the precedents, but I do not believe there have been any cases where works of this sort have been brought forward by the Office of Works, and declared to be necessary, in which the sanction of Parliament has been refused.

  2005
  I think that really disposes of the argument which was brought before us in the Estimates Committee, and it was the only argument brought before us against the proposal which we recommended.
  If hon. Members look through the various items in this Vote, and certainly the various items in the Office of Works Vote where new work is provided for, they will see that in most cases the original total estimate varies very much from the actual amount spent. There is nearly always a revised estimate that in almost every case exceeds the original total estimate. I think, in justice to Parliament itself, that the figures put before the House of Commons should be reliable figures upon which the House can express an opinion, and not merely the guess of any official, however capable he is of guessing, who may be in the office of the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd to suppose that this House can exercise any control over the expenditure of the Office of Works if matters are conducted in this way. It is evident, if you take the item which I have mentioned, the original total estimate for the adaptation of works at the Admiralty of £4,100, that in all probability that item will be exceeded, and it would be very difficult for us when the excess comes to be brought before the House, to say that it shall not be voted. Of course the hon. Gentleman would say that we have already to-day confirmed the Resolution arrived at in Committee, that £4,100 should be spent upon this purpose, and if we refuse to grant a larger sum, then also it is perfectly evident that the object for which that sum has been voted will be to a considerable degree destroyed. Therefore, we have no alternative but to accept the increased amount and vote the money demanded. The hon. Gentleman would be, I am sure, anxious to give me some information upon this point, but I am afraid under the Rules of the House he cannot reply. But may I have the attention for one moment of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I believe the Treasury are considering this matter, but I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will consider whether or not something cannot be done to carry out the recommendation of the Estimates Committee. The Estimates Committee, after all, were appointed to do something, and their recommendation should carry weight with hon. Members opposite.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: There are one or two items of expenditure on which
  2006
  I wish to ask one or two questions. I see there is a sum of £1,900 for the Scottish Art Gallery, on which I may highly congratulate the Office of Works, for it is altogether an admirable work. Will that finish the cost of the institution or will it require a further Estimate? There is also, I observe, a sum of £1,000 for structural alterations for rendering the Sasines Office fireproof. That building is very important indeed, as it contains the whole of the public and private deeds of Scotland, and if the work is not completed, then the sooner it is the better.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I hope I may be allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has given any further consideration to the suggestion which I ventured to make on the Committee stage with regard to the amalgamation of public offices in the provinces into one building? I ventured then to call attention to the unnecessary expenditure which was involved and the great inconvenience resulting in the fact that Government Departments represented in provincial towns were scattered all over the town. I suggested that great economy could be effected and great convenience to the public achieved if all the buildings under the charge of the Office of Works and other buildings—such as Probate, Insurance, Labour Exchanges,County Courts, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and the Valuation Department were all gathered together into one big building, which might be made a great architectural feature in the town, and that it would be a great convenience to the public to know, when they had any business to do with the local representatives of a Government Department, where the representatives could be found. No municipality in any town has found it convenient to scatter their offices throughout the length and breadth of the towns in question. Surely the Government ought not to be above learning in a matter of this sort from the municipality. If a municipality finds that it makes for administrative convenience and for economy to gather all their offices under one roof, surely a similar consideration ought to obtain in the case of Government Departments! There is another point on which I hope the hon. Member will be able to give some information. I notice there are some sums down for extensions of Hertford House and the National Gallery. There are a great many Members on both sides who

  2007
  feel that the necessity for extending those buildings would not arise if the hon. Member would take steps to issue on loan some of the works and objects of art for which there is not at present room in those two buildings. I hope that the hon. Member will take this into consideration, and that when the question again comes within the cognisance of the House that he will be able to give us an assurance that steps will be taken to lend some of those works, because, after all, we are spending now on the galleries of London a very large sum of money from which comparatively few people derive any advantage. When one considers the very small proportion of the population of this country who really enjoy access to these great national collections, I think that it needs hardly any argument at all to show what a great advantage it would be, both from an educational and every other point of view, if the hon. Member could elaborate some system of lending the works for which there is no room in the present buildings out on loan to some of the great provincial cities. The only other point upon which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give some information is as to whether it is proposed by the Office of Works to expend any further sums upon the Royal Courts of Justice, or whether the Government do not propose at present to find any additional accommodation for the new judges who seem likely shortly to be appointed.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I trust that when the hon. Gentleman replies, he will be able to refer to a question of great importance which formed the subject of a brief discussion in the Committee stage of the Vote, when however there was not sufficient time adequately to discuss the matter. I refer to the method by which most of the public buildings are designed by the permanent staff. I suggested that it would be a wise policy to leave to open competition the decision of the designs. I appeal for this to be done because I desire to see an end put to the system by which the nation is presented with such buildings as those in Whitehall, which I think are a degradation to the country. The influence of the official type of ugly and unsuitable buildings, is shown at our own door in the most monstrous of modern buildings. The new Wesleyan Hall is one of the ugliest and one of the least suitable buildings that could possibly be erected. It is very satisfactory to know that a much
  2008
  more modest and more beautiful building is now being erected close to it—the Middlesex Guildhall—which in some degree at least will atone for the horrors, of the architecture of the adjacent building. I am not asking for any new system to be adopted. In the last century, I think in the fifties, the designs for the India Office were the subject of open competition, and the designs sent in were exhibited in Westminster Hall. The competition aroused considerable public interest, and did much good in directing public attention to this important matter. I can only express my great regret that the competition was not allowed properly to operate in that case, and that the gothic design originally chosen by the Prime Minister of the day was rejected by his successor before the building could be erected. I think I should carry the House with me on general grounds in saying that the wider the field of competition, the more ideas were brought to bear upon our public buildings, the greater would be the national gain, and the greater the gain for the cause of art. Therefore I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary always to keep to this rigid type of architecture which we know as the Whitehall type. I trust he will consider the advisability of entirely getting rid of this convention that you must have the official design whenever a new building is erected, and that, instead the practice should be adopted, that has been followed in the past in the erection of the Houses of Parliament—which was followed a year or two ago with very great advantage in connection with the designs for the new London County Council hall—that he will throw open to the whole body of architects the right to compete, and to submit designs for the erection of buildings. I trust my hon. Friend will believe me when I say, in bringing this suggestion forward, that I am actuated entirely by a desire to see more progress made in the sphere of architecture.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Without undue expenditure?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Without undue expenditure. I am glad the hon. Baronet makes that remark, because it enables me to say that we spend much more money in making buildings ugly than we need to, spend to make them beautiful. We lose sight entirely of the idea that the most beautiful things are the simplest things.

  2009
  In this connection I desire to refer to the subject of the Admiralty Arch. I have already referred to it, and it was a matter of very great regret to me that on the last occasion when this matter was under discussion that there was only time for a word or two to be said, and no time in which to reply to the statement made by my hon. Friend that a Committee was to be appointed to inquire into the whole question of the Admiralty Arch. I only desire to say this: When one is in Trafalgar Square, as I was to-day, one is conscious that the most beautiful feature in that square is the view that we get of the grass, trees, and flowers in St. James's Park. Therefore I trust we have heard the last of what, to my mind, was a monstrous proposal that we should have a second arch leading into Trafalgar Square, in which that view would be entirely obliterated, and we should be conscious only of the existence of a tunnel leading from the park to the square.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his desire for greater competition in respect to public buildings. I am afraid, however, that to some extent I am an agnostic in these matters. I cannot help feeling the conviction that anything which was built ten or twenty years ago is always ugly; anything that was built fifty or sixty years ago is moderately beautiful; and that when you get further back than that the thing is always extremely desirable and beautiful. The modern building which has just been put up has a certain prestige, because the architect is still alive, and his friends do their best to praise it. As soon as the architect is dead, and his friends have disappeared, the thing is always ugly. I think that rule applies whether it is official architecture or any other. The hon. Gentleman said with great truth that some of the Government buildings are ugly. That is quite true. He compared favourably the buildings of the Palace of Westminster and said they were more beautiful. I do not pretend to be a judge of architecture, but I must say that anything more inconvenient than the style of architecture employed in the building of the Palace of Westminster it is very difficult to conceive. It may be beautiful, but it is singularly out of place for practical purposes. None of the windows let in sufficient light, and they either let in too much air or no air at all.
  2010
  The only other example of Gothic architecture in public buildings that I can recall at the present moment is the Royal Courts of Justice. That is even worse for practical purposes than the Palace of Westminster. I prefer the more official style of architecture, however ugly, if it is practical for the purposes for which it is built, rather than the most beautiful style if it is not practical and effective for the purpose for which it is designed; but I do not pretend to be able to discuss architecture with the hon. Member, or anybody else. I quite recognise we ought to give the freest possible competition, and I believe if there is an architectural genius about he will force himself to the front and will have an influence upon public building. As to the value of the work in the country, if buildings now are ugly it is because there is no architect at the moment capable of erecting beautiful public buildings.
  But I rose more for the purpose of making a few observations with reference to my Noble Friend's speech in regard to the picture galleries. There are two considerable sums with regard to the Wallace collection and the National Gallery, but they are not for the purpose of increasing those galleries, but for the purpose of making them more safe against fire. I am sure my Noble Friend will realise that that is most important, and that this is by no means an unsuitable time to increase the safety of our public buildings against fire. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote when he comes to speak, can assure us that the work is being pushed on for that purpose. I confess I felt rather uneasy, seeing a Vote of £50,000 to make the National Gallery secure from fire. It seems to me, judging by the sum, as if a great deal is to be done, and I should like to know what the situation is. £15,000 for the Wallace collection is also a considerable sum. My Noble Friend will realise that if anything were to happen in the way of fire in these galleries, an injury would be done, not only to this country, but to the whole cultured life in this country, which would be absolutely irreparable. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is not too niggardly in the sums he asks for, and that he is going to do his utmost to press forward the work without the least possible delay.
  There is one other matter. As I understand the Estimates, I do not see that any money is taken for the new Courts of Justice adjoining the old Courts. I do not

  2011
  know if I am right in that, but if I am, I hope it does not mean that there is going to be any delay in completing these Courts. It is really a scandal that in this country we should have a state of things where if all the judges happen to be in London together, there is not sufficient accommodation for them to sit and discharge the most elementary duties. I cannot help feeling that it would be a most disastrous thing if any delay was to take place in completing these Courts, and I hope the failure to take any money for that purpose now does not mean any unnecessary delay in their completion. I should like to hear very much from the hon. Member some assurance with regard to the prevention of fire in the National Galleries, and what is the real state of things there, so that the House can judge whether proper precautions are taken and also what has been done in regard to the Royal Courts of Justice.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite certain all quarters of the House will sympathise with the desire expressed by my Noble Friend, that precautions against fire in the National Gallery and other galleries should be pressed forward as far as possible. Everyone who has paid a visit to the National Gallery, and to that part of the Gallery already treated, must see that not only is the risk of fire very largely reduced, but that the Gallery is very much improved for the purpose of exhibiting the works of art there. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the benches opposite raised a subject we have all been rather cautious about following. I am not sure the House of Commons is ever at its best when dealing with art in the form of architecture or anything else, though I remember that in the letters of Queen Victoria, one of the most entertaining was that addressed by Lord Palmerston describing a debate on the India Office, and his success in persuading the House of Commons that the Government architect chosen to execute that building should provide the Government with what he termed a Palladian design. It could hardly be expected that when one Government had accepted Gothic architecture and when its successor, before the building was completed, insisted upon adopting another style wholly alien to that, the building would be wholly successful. I think too little attention was paid by my hon. Friend as to the use to which these buildings have to be put,
  2012
  and that, after all, is a very important consideration. I hope it may be found possible to combine art and convenience so as to secure a satisfactory result in any new buildings that may be required. I am not competent to pose as an art critic, but I have my own opinions, as we are all allowed to have, and, although I think some at least of the new buildings are very bad, I should not be prepared to, join in the wholesale condemnation which the hon. Member passed upon some, indeed all, the recent buildings in Whitehall. I would venture to say that if he pursues his inquiries into the matter he will come to, the conclusion that unrestricted competition is by no means a sure guarantee that you will arrive at the best result and that it may sometimes lead to the provision of a building which is unsuitable for the particular purpose for which that building required. I would be inclined to say that the more restricted form of selection which, was employed in regard to certain offices, as the result of previous experience, although it may not in every case produce so very beautiful a building as we like to see, is on the whole, nevertheless, the plan best calculated to secure that result should not have presumed to address any observations to the Committee at all on this subject were it not that I wanted to refer to what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. He is, I see, not a very ardent supporter of the appointment of the Estimates Committee. I gathered that his point was that steps should be taken when estimates of new works were brought before the House to give more accurate estimates. He complained that these estimates were not quite as accurate as a simple-minded Member would suppose. He suggested, I understand, that there should be accurate specifications and tenders so as to show the exact amount required. He said it was to large extent guesswork. But I would suggest that it is not bad guesswork under the circumstances in which it is made, and that it is as accurate as it could be under the circumstances.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not complaining of guesswork or that the guesswork was bad. The guesswork was very good. What I said was that we should have accurate figures upon some reasonable basis before we were asked to spend money. That is what the Office of Works was intended for.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Let me say that, in my opinion, the difficulties of the situation arise, first of all, from the requirements of this House. I may give one illustration, which I think is a striking one. I think in about the second Session in which I had the honour of being a Member of the House a proposal was brought forward for the erection of the naval harbour at Dover, which we now see when we cross the Channel from that port. The Government of the day, which was a Liberal Government, at that moment proposed to provide for that and other large naval works by means of a loan. Their proposal was embodied in a Bill to which a schedule of the works was attached, and a few thousand pounds was taken for the purposes of making a survey with a view to obtaining an estimate of the cost. The House insisted upon having the total estimate before they would vote any money for the survey. It was in vain shat the Minister said that until they had the survey no reasonable man would risk his reputation by giving a figure for the total cost. They had got to find out about the bottom of the sea, to make all kinds of calculations as to the material required, and to settle the form the works were to take and until all that had been done the estimate could not be made. He could not satisfy the House they insisted that they would be parting with their proper control over finance, and they refused to vote the money for the survey until they knew the total cost. I knew the engineer who was then advising the Government, and subsequently I had official communications with him, a very able man who has now retired from the public service. The Government were so harried and worried by the pressure brought to bear upon them in the House, and were so driven to it by the length of time taken up on the matter, that they at last sent for him, and said that there and then he must produce an estimate before any survey was made. He protested and said that it could not be done, but the Minister said that he must have a figure to satisfy the House, and finally the engineer said that one figure was as good as another. There happened to be a figure in existence, because as long ago as 1840 the matter was considered, and an estimate of £2,000,000 was made, and, accordingly, to satisfy the House, £2,000,000 was put in as the total original estimate. When a year or two later I was responsible as Civil Lord of the Admiralty for the passage of the then
  2014
  Naval Works Bill, I had the task of explaining that the original total estimate was a figure put in to please the House avowedly with no proper information.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that what was before the Estimates Committee was not the making of a harbour, but the building of a house, and the exceptional circumstances which may make it impossible to obtain an estimate for the building of a harbour do not apply in this particular case?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the exceptions are much more numerous than my hon. Friend supposes. Take, for instance, one of the items already spoken of—the National Gallery. It is stated on the face of the Estimate what the work will amount to. In connection with drainage works it is not possible to tell what they will cost until you have opened up the ground. Anybody who has had the experience of having his own house drained is aware of the fact that until the ground is opened up the limits of the cost cannot be estimated. My hon. Friend proposes that before these works are brought before Parliament tenders should already have been issued in competition to a series of builders and that one tender should have been provisionally accepted, and the builder bound over. But very often the work is only intended to be begun at the end of the year; the Estimates are prepared some months before the beginning of the year, and in such a case the builder would be asked to tender for work a year before it could be begun. His tender must be affected by the prices of materials, and how is he to know what they will be? I really think that when this matter comes to be examined into, although it may be possible in some cases to have a procedure ensuring greater accuracy, there is no such room for improvement as my hon. Friends seems to think.
  Mr. BENN: The hon. Baronet began by drawing attention to the form in which the Estimates are drawn, and complained that all the charges for public buildings are not included under Vote 10. But if he will look at the list of those not included he will find them in the nine Votes already disposed of. Vote 10 is for sundry public buildings which could not be conveniently included in the other Votes. One of my hon. Friends has had something to say about open competition for public buildings. He spoke with scorn of the design of the new

  2015
  Wesleyan building at Westminster. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not concerned to defend that design, as the building was not put up with public money. My hon. Friend spoke contemptuously of every building in Whitehall. But every modern building there was constructed, either by open or by limited competition, so that citing these cases does not help his argument. The new Board of Trade building is to be erected by public competition, and it is the intention of the First Commissioner to exhibit the designs not only in this House, but also in the South Kensington Museum, so that Members of the public may have an opportunity of seeing them. The Scottish Office is also intended to be put up to open competition.
  As regards the fire—proofing of the National Gallery it is quite impossible to say what the work is going to cost. The total is £25,000. Eight thousand pounds was spent last year, £10,000 is to be spent this year, and that leaves £7,000 to complete the whole work. The figures will enable the House to come to the conclusion that, all necessary speed is being used in fire proofing the National Gallery. We have to consider the convenience of the public, and I presume no one desires that the Gallery should be entirely closed for this work. As to the Scottish National Gallery, it is completed, and also the fireproofing of the Sassines Office. The Noble Lord made a suggestion that pictures might be sent out on loan both from the National Gallery and from the Wallace collection. I will bring the recommendation to the notice of the First Commissioner, but I fear he has no power to do that, his function is to carry out the instructions of the trustees. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin asked if any further sums were to be taken this year for the Royal Courts of Justice. He seems to be under the impression—an erroneous one—that there is something still to be paid for the additional wing which has been constructed. But that has been finished and paid for.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Have any steps been taken to improve the acoustic properties of the Courts? I know that suggestions have been made that something should be done in that way.
  Mr. BENN: I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give me time to answer that question. I could not answer as to the acoustic properties
  2016
  of the new Courts without making special inquiry. The only remaining point was that raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), which was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The hon. Baronet's Committee suggested that, instead of following the present course, the Office of Works, and, I suppose, other offices—
  Sir F. BANBURY: It was limited to the Office of Works.
  Mr. BENN: The suggestion was that we should secure tenders—at firm prices, I suppose—for the works before they were included in the Estimates presented to Parliament. If it is not presumption to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, I think he has disposed of that suggestion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no!
  Mr. BENN: I would ask the hon. Baronet what it is that he is aiming at by this suggestion. Is it economy, or efficiency, or Parliamentary control?
  Sir F. BANBURY: All three.
  Mr. BENNI think his suggestion undermines all three. First of all, as to economy. If you ask persons to prepare bills of quantities and get out specifications, they must be put before the Office of Works and examined and approved in the autumn. Then there is delay while the estimates are being considered by the Treasury. There is further delay through the estimates having to be laid before Parliament before they are taken in Committee, and then there is a further delay before building actually commences. If a contractor is giving prices for a building he will not be asked to begin for a whole year, he will obviously quote the highest prices to which the materials may rise in the course of the year, and base his estimate on those prices in order to guard himself against any possible rise. I do not think it is fair to assume that, if you ask a man to give a price in June, 1912, for a building he would not be asked to commence until June, 1913, you will get better price than if you ask him to give a price in the spring of the ensuing year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: One of the reasons which induced the Estimates Committee to make this proposal was to prevent the habit which has prevailed of the Office of

  2017
  Works, or the Post Office, who, I think, were the greatest offenders, saying they required a building to be erected, then going to the Office of Works and nothing being done for fifteen months. We wanted to stop that, and to make sure, whenever it was determined to have a building erected, that the people who wanted it should make up their minds early, and that the matter should be proceeded with without unnecessary delay.
  Mr. BENN: One of the effects of the hon. Baronet's report was that a circular was issued by the Office of Works to the different Departments, asking them to make their estimates earlier and in as definite a form as can be done. I hope I have shown the hon. Baronet that we should not get additional economy by insisting upon getting the prices a year beforehand. The delay I have referred to already. It is frequently necessary to purchase a site before you can even know what sort of building you are going to put up on it. If you put the site on one year's Votes and then wait for tenders to be accepted, you have to wait another year until they can be put in the Estimates, and you have a very considerable diminution in the efficiency of this office. As regards Parliamentary control, it seems to me that perhaps is the most fatal objection to the hon. Baronet's suggestion. If the Office of Works were to accept a tender, and to put builders and others to trouble and expence in preparing these prices, what are we to say if, when the Treasury examines the estimates, they decide to strike out this or that building, or if, which is more important., when the Committee of the House examine the estimates they decide that they cannot allow this or that building? For these reasons it will be seen that, except in the small works where the work can be quickly executed, the suggestions of the hon. Baronet are not practicable.
  As regards the Admiralty Arch, I do not think that my hon. Friend need be afraid that the second arch will be constructed. It is not a matter entirely in the control of the Office of Works. If time permitted I should refer to other recommendations of the hon. Baronet's Committee, but it is not necessary to do so except to say that several of them have been adopted with great advantage to the Department.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th June]
Resolution reported,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1914, the sum of £24,243,050 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Masterman.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th June]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL,
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

MARCONI COMMITTEE (REPORT).
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the Home Secretary aware that the hon. Gentleman, who is a Member of the Marconi Committee, and who told us that the evidence would be available to-day, is mistaken, and that it will not be available until to-morrow? Under these circumstances, the Prime Minister, in his remarks to me yesterday, indicated that he thought it would be quite suitable to take it on Wednesday, provided the evidence was available to-day. Does he not think that it is rather too soon to take it, as the evidence cannot be published before to-morrow?
The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The facts are quite as the right hon. Gentleman has stated them. The Prime Minister thinks, however, that the delay between to-night and to-morrow is so slight that it would not prejudice anybody who wished to take part in the Debate. The opportunity that any hon. Member would have of studying the evidence is only limited by the hours of this evening, and in these circumstances, although the facts are strictly as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister does not think it would be desirable to postpone the Debate, having regard to the desire expressed in all quarters of the House that the Debate should be taken at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I think, in saying it makes no difference—except a few hours. As I understand it, the evidence will not be circulated to-morrow. It will only be available to hon. Members who come down specially to get it. I would remind him also of the exact words used by the Prime Minister. He said this:—
"If my hon. Friend (Mr. Falconer) is right in saying that the evidence be available to-morrow, I should have thought that Wednesday should do for the commencement of the discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1913, col. 1808.]
It will be seen that the last words of the Prime Minister were conditional. He was not very sure at the time if we could get it to-day. I must say I think there is a great difference, considering the arrangements Members make for the week-end, in getting it to-day and getting it by special means to-morrow, which means that it will not be available for most Members until Monday. I think there is a great difference, and I am sure the Prime Minister would desire that the discussion should take place in a proper way and with proper means of considering the subject. It is for him to decide. I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to postpone the discussion.
Mr. McKENNA: I understand that 700 copies will be available for circulation to Members to-morrow morning.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will they be circulated with the Votes?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it is our intention that they should be circulated with the Votes. I cannot give a pledge on that point because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it depends upon others as well as the Government, but we are informed that those comes will be circulated with the ordinary Papers to-morrow morning, and I think under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will see that the delay is so slight that it is not worth considering.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the view of the Prime Minister on the matter? I do not think I should press my point if the Prime Minister is determined to take the course which he suggested yesterday, but what I wish to point out is that if the hon. Member (Mr. Falconer) who is a member of the Committee was right in stating that the evidence would be available to-day, then in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion it would be reasonable to begin the discussion on Wednesday. We now know
2020
that it will not be available to-day, and as I understand the difference will mean that the evidence will only be available for Members who come specially to the House to get it. In that case the great bulk of the Members will not get it till Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that a large number of copies will be circulated with the Votes in the morning. If that is so, I shall not press the point further. But if it is found that they are not circulated with the Votes, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will delay the commencement of the discussion?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am told that there is every probability that they will be circulated to-morrow morning. A great deal of the evidence has been circulated, and it is only a very small part of it which has not been printed and circulated. Of the portion of the evidence which has not been officially published, hon. Members will have seen reports in the newspapers. The exiguous portion will be circulated to-morrow morning with the Votes.
Mr. BONAR LAW: But if it is not?
The PRIME MINISTER: Well, the right hon. Gentleman in that case will renew the question on Monday. I am of opinion that it is generally desirable in the interest of all parties that we should have this Debate as soon as we possibly can. In view of all the circumstances, unless there is a really serious discrepancy in what happens as compared with our expectations, I should certainly press that we should adhere to the proposal I made yesterday, and take the discussion on Wednesday and Thursday.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I entirely agree that the sooner this matter is disposed of the better, from every point of view. But surely the right hon. Gentleman will also agree with me that it is a very important matter that every Member of the House should be in a position to form an impartial judgment on all the facts of the case. It is not only a question of those who desire to speak, but it is also one on which every Member of the House ought to be in a position to form an opinion. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been slightly misinformed as to the amount of evidence which has yet to be circulated. There are about 10,000 questions which have not been circulated. The Report which we have in our hands

2021
does not make any reference to the particular question on which the conclusions of that Report are based, and owing to an oversight, for which I am in part responsible myself, so that I make no complaint of it, even the other draft Reports are printed without the references which they originally contained. That is an unfortunate thing. The hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), the hon. Chairman (Sir A. Spicer), and myself, I am afraid must bear the blame of that unfortunate oversight, but as it is the result will be that if anyone wishes to satisfy himself as to the truth or falsehood of any allegations made in the draft Reports or the Report of the Committee as a whole, he will have to read the whole of the evidence. I merely put this fact before the Prime Minister for him to bear it in mind in arriving at a decision on the question.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am most anxious that the House should not come to any decision on this matter without being fully informed of the facts of the case, but I do think, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that an early decision is of much importance.
It being Five of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
ADJOURNMENT:—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[The Prime Minister.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Five o'clock, until Monday next, 16th June.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were Presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  MONDAY.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petition from Leicester, in favour.

  TUESDAY.
  Extension of Polling Hours Bill—Petitions from Kensington, for alteration.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions, in favour, from Bromsgrove, Embsay, Ferryhill, Handsworth, Hinckley, Ilkley, and Reading.
  Employment of Children Bill—Petition from Hamilton, for alteration.

  WEDNESDAY.
  Employment of Children Bill—Petition from Kirkintillock, for alteration.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Greenwich, Heaton, Lutterworth, Newcastle-on-Tyne (three), Rotherhithe, Shipley, Stratford-on-Avon, Stockport, and Widdrington.

  THURSDAY.
  Post Office (London) Railway Bill—Petitions against (praying to be heard by Counsel), from Gas Light and Coke Company, John Harcourt Chichester, Lord Howard de Walden, Rose Amy Love Chillingworth, and Sir Joseph H. B. Doughty Tichborne; to be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Broomhill, Brownhills, Great Harwood, Macclesfield, and Sheffield (two).

  FRIDAY.
  Land Values (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Govan (Glasgow), in favour.
  Post Office (London) Railway Bill—Petition from the East London Railway Joint Committee, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petition in favour, from Bentley, Blandford, Brixton, Brixton Hill, Cleckheaton, Doncaster (two), Harthill, Heckmondwike, Horden, Newcastle-on-Tyne (two), Sheffield (two), South Hetton (two), and Wallsend.
  Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)—Petition from Grenock, for legislation.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Torpedo Factory, Fort Matilda, Greenock, (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Torpedo Factory, Fort Matilda, Greenock, (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Army Meat Supply.
  Army Meat Supply.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  House of Commons (Charges for Dinner).
  House of Commons (Charges for Dinner).

EARL OF BELMORE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Armar Lowry-Corry, Earl of Belmore, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.